ArticleFrontiers in artificial intelligence2026
Utilization of Artificial Intelligence to support administrative decision-making in special education institutions in Saudi Arabia: perceptions of principals, supervisors, and teachers.
Article in Frontiers in artificial intelligence, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Artificial Intelligence (AI) is increasingly used in educational administration to automate routine tasks, support data-informed decision-making, and improve institutional efficiency. This study examined the perceptions of principals, supervisors, and teachers regarding the utilization of AI to support administrative decision-making in special education institutions and investigated whether these perceptions differed according to professional role, years of experience, and AI-related training. The sample comprised 173 participants working in public schools providing special education services in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. A descriptive cross-sectional design was employed, and participants were recruited using non-probability convenience sampling. Data were collected using a 23-item questionnaire and analyzed using descriptive statistics and non-parametric tests. The overall questionnaire score reflected a moderate level of perceptions toward AI utilization (M = 3.22). Participants reported high agreement regarding the importance and usefulness of AI in administrative processes (M = 3.96). In contrast, the ethical considerations dimension yielded a low score (M = 2.38), indicating limited perceived ethical, legal, and professional acceptability of AI utilization and notable reservations regarding the safeguards and conditions governing its responsible use. Perceptions of AI-supported administrative decision-making were moderate (M = 3.07), suggesting that AI was viewed primarily as a supportive resource rather than as a substitute for professional judgment. No statistically significant differences were found according to professional role,
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.