A systematic review of AI literacy scales

With the opportunities and challenges stemming from the artificial intelligence developments and its integration into society, AI literacy becomes a key concern. Utilizing quality AI literacy instruments is crucial for understanding and promoting AI literacy development. This systematic review asses...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:NPJ science of learning 2024-08, Vol.9 (1), p.50-11, Article 50
Main Author: Lintner, Tomáš
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
706/648/160
706/689/160
Artificial intelligence
Biomedical and Life Sciences
Core competencies
Deepfake
Digital literacy
Education
Educational Technology
Higher education
Life Sciences
Mathematical Models of Cognitive Processes and Neural Networks
Neurobiology
Neuropsychology
Neurosciences
Population studies
Reviews
Secondary education
Self-efficacy
Systematic review
University students
Validity
Citations: Items that this one cites
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:With the opportunities and challenges stemming from the artificial intelligence developments and its integration into society, AI literacy becomes a key concern. Utilizing quality AI literacy instruments is crucial for understanding and promoting AI literacy development. This systematic review assessed the quality of AI literacy scales using the COSMIN tool aiming to aid researchers in choosing instruments for AI literacy assessment. This review identified 22 studies validating 16 scales targeting various populations including general population, higher education students, secondary education students, and teachers. Overall, the scales demonstrated good structural validity and internal consistency. On the other hand, only a few have been tested for content validity, reliability, construct validity, and responsiveness. None of the scales have been tested for cross-cultural validity and measurement error. Most studies did not report any interpretability indicators and almost none had raw data available. There are 3 performance-based scale available, compared to 13 self-report scales.
ISSN:2056-7936
2056-7936
DOI:10.1038/s41539-024-00264-4