ArticleFrontiers in psychology2026
Development and validation of a scale on the difficulties of AI technology integration in teaching for primary and secondary school teachers.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The lack of a comprehensive, theoretically grounded measurement instrument has constrained the systematic diagnosis of multidimensional barriers faced by K-12 teachers in integrating artificial intelligence (AI) into instruction. To address this gap, this study developed and validated a multidimensional scale based on the Cognitive-Emotional-Volitional-Behavioral (CEVB) heuristic framework. Through semi-structured interviews, expert consultation, and pilot testing, an initial 20-item pool was formed and administered to 546 teachers from central and western Anhui Province, China. Psychometric evaluation encompassed item analysis, exploratory factor analysis (EFA), confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), reliability testing, and validity and measurement invariance assessments. Item analysis confirmed satisfactory discrimination and differentiating power. EFA extracted a clear four-factor structure-cognitive understanding difficulties, affective attitudinal difficulties, conative motivational difficulties, and behavioral practice difficulties-accounting for 66.20% of the total variance. CFA supported both a first-order four-factor model (χ
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.