ArticlePloS one2026
Development and validation of the AI literacy, risk perception, and academic confidence questionnaire for Chinese pre-service teachers.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) is becoming increasingly relevant to teacher education, yet evidence remains limited on how pre-service teachers' AI literacy, risk perception, and academic confidence can be assessed within a coherent but multidimensional framework. This study examined the psychometric properties of the AI Literacy, Risk Perception, and Academic Confidence Questionnaire (AIRPAC-Q) among Chinese pre-service teachers. A cross-sectional survey was conducted with 528 participants recruited from teacher education programmes in China. The sample was randomly divided into an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) subsample (n = 258) and a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) subsample (n = 270). Psychometric evaluation included expert-based content validation, pilot refinement, EFA, CFA, reliability testing, convergent and discriminant validity, concurrent validity, and known-group validity analyses. The final questionnaire retained 14 items across three complementary dimensions: AI literacy, risk perception, and academic confidence. Expert ratings showed acceptable content validity (I-CVI = 0.83-1.00; S-CVI/Ave = 0.94). The hypothesized three-factor model showed an acceptable fit to the data (χ² = 146.32, df = 74, χ²/df = 1.98, CFI = 0.952, TLI = 0.941, RMSEA = 0.060, SRMR = 0.047) and outperformed two-factor and one-factor alternatives. Cronbach's α values ranged from 0.82 to 0.88, composite reliability values ranged from 0.83 to 0.89, and average variance extracted values ranged from 0.56 to 0.59. Participants with prior AI use experience scored higher on AI literacy and academic confidence but slightly lower on risk perception than those without such experience. These findings support the AIRPAC-Q as a context-specific multidimensional tool for assessing competence, caution, and confidence in AI-supported teacher education.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.