Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42407060›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2026

Generative Artificial Intelligence Literacy Scale for Nurses: Development and Psychometric Evaluation.

Kuan-Lin Chu, Ching-Ling Wang, Che-Ming Chang, Jyh-Chong Liang, Lu-Yen Anny Chen, Chieh-Yu Liu, Cheng-Pei Lin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Kuan-Lin ChuDepartment of Nursing, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0007-9373-049X
Ching-Ling WangInstitute of Clinical Nursing, College of Nursing, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, Taipei, Taiwan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4753-8361
Che-Ming ChangDepartment of Nursing, Mackay Memorial Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0008-9724-4672
Jyh-Chong LiangProgram of Learning Sciences and Institute for Research Excellence in Learning Sciences, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2423-5950
Lu-Yen Anny ChenInstitute of Clinical Nursing, College of Nursing, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, Taipei, Taiwan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6223-3748
Chieh-Yu LiuInstitute of Community Health Care, College of Nursing, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, Taipei, Taiwan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3283-028X
Cheng-Pei LinInstitute of Community Health Care, College of Nursing, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, Taipei, Taiwan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5810-8776

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGenerative artificial intelligence (GenAI) can automate time-intensive tasks and support clinical decision-making in care settings. Nurses require appropriate competencies to ensure that integration of GenAI strengthens care quality and patient safety. However, validated literacy assessment tools remain limited. In particular, instruments tailored to nurses' role-specific GenAI competencies, including hallucination detection, risk identification, and ethical accountability, are lacking. These gaps highlight the need for a nurse-specific GenAI literacy scale.

objectiveThis study aimed to develop and psychometrically validate the Generative Artificial Intelligence Literacy Scale for Nurses (GenAILS).

methodsWe conducted a two-phase, cross-sectional online survey of registered nurses nationwide in Taiwan between June 2025 and October 2025. Phase 1 involved conceptualization and item generation based on a literature review, followed by content appraisal through expert discussion with 6 external reviewers. A 50-item pool was generated. Subsequently, 5 external reviewers evaluated content validity. Items with a content validity index of <0.78 or flagged for revision were revised or deleted. Phase 2 evaluated psychometric properties (item analysis, internal consistency, split-half reliability, and criterion-related validity) and construct validity via exploratory factor analysis (factor loading ≥0.60), followed by confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). The total sample was randomly split into 2 independent subsamples for exploratory factor analysis and CFA.

resultsIn phase 1, the initial 50 items underwent expert content validation and were revised to 46 items (scale content validity index based on the average method=0.92). In phase 2, 1313 questionnaires were collected, of which 191 invalid responses were excluded; 1122 valid responses were analyzed. Participants had a mean age of 34.66 (SD 7.8) years. Extreme-group comparison revealed statistically significant differences for each item (P<.001). The final scale comprised 24 items across six dimensions: responsible use, updated competencies, risk identification, fundamental knowledge, critical evaluation, and ethics and law. The cumulative variance explained was 53.1%. The first-order CFA demonstrated excellent model fit: root-mean-square error of approximation=0.035, standardized root-mean-square residual=0.032, comparative fit index=0.99, goodness-of-fit index=0.94, adjusted goodness-of-fit index=0.93, nonnormed fit index=0.99, and parsimony normed fit index=0.84. The second-order CFA demonstrated excellent model fit: root-mean-square error of approximation=0.039, standardized root-mean-square residual=0.040, comparative fit index=0.99, goodness-of-fit index=0.94, adjusted goodness-of-fit index=0.92, nonnormed fit index=0.99, and parsimony normed fit index=0.87. All heterotrait-monotrait ratio values were below 0.85, supporting discriminant validity. The scale was moderately correlated with the Short Form Meta-AI Literacy Scale (r=0.57; P<.001). Reliability was excellent (Cronbach α=0.92; McDonald ω=0.92; split-half reliability=0.81).

conclusionsThe GenAILS is a concise, nurse-specific self-report instrument with good psychometric properties across 6 clinically relevant domains. It supports needs assessment, targeted training, and intervention evaluation to promote the safe and ethical use of GenAI in nursing.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceNursesPsychometricsAdultCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleGenerative Artificial IntelligenceHumansMaleMiddle AgedReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and QuestionnairesTaiwanartificial intelligencegenerative artificial intelligenceliteracynursespsychometricssurveys and questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID42407060
PMCPMC13386122

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.