ArticleFrontiers in psychology2026
Development and validation of the cognitive flexibility scale for AI-supported English language learning (CFS-AISEL).
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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The widespread use of AI technology in English language learning and instruction presents numerous challenges for EFL learners, which require higher levels of cognitive flexibility to address. However, existing cognitive flexibility questionnaires are insufficient to comprehensively reflect changes in cognitive flexibility within AI-supported learning environments. Therefore, this study developed the Cognitive Flexibility Scale for AI-Supported English Language Learning (CFS-AISEL) based on a systematic literature review and rigorous questionnaire development methodology. A random sampling method was employed to collect 1,093 responses for exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Of these, 479 were used for EFA and 614 for CFA. A Delphi study was applied for scale content validation. After confirming reliability and validity, the final scale comprised 26 items across five dimensions (cognitive flexibility, tolerance for ambiguity, self-efficacy in AI interactions, emotional flexibility, and ethical flexibility). This study provides practical implications for educators to identify how EFL learners balance the use of AI tools and independent thinking, promoting the deep integration of educational assessment and AI technology.
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.