Psychometric evaluation demonstrates high reliability and validity of the Generative AI Dependency Scale in university students, indicating its utility for screening excessive AI tool reliance.
OBJECTIVE: To update the Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) Dependency Scale and assess its reliability and validity among college students in China. METHODS: The Chinese version of the Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) Dependency Scale was administered to 986 university students. The Generative AI Addiction Scale and the Chinese Big Five Personality Questionnaire Short - Form were used as comparators. The sample was randomly divided into two groups: 491 participants (Sample 1) for item analysis and exploratory factor analysis, and 495 participants (Sample 2) for confirmatory factor analysis. A subsample of 324 participants from both groups underwent retesting after 4 weeks. RESULTS: /41 = 2.29, P < 0.001, RMSEA = 0.05, SRMR = 0.03, CFI = 0.97, TLI = 0.96); the total score of the Generative AI Dependency Scale showed significant positive correlations with generative AI addiction, openness, agreeableness, neuroticism, extraversion, and conscientiousness (r = 0.17-0.75, P < 0.01); the internal consistency coefficient of the scale was 0.932, with coefficients ranging from 0.804 to 0.948 for each dimension' s mean score; the test - retest reliability (ICC) for the total scale was 0.851, with ICCs for each dimension' s mean score ranging from 0.628 to 0.788 (P < 0.001); based on a three - factor model, cross - gender and cross - grade measurement invariance was assessed for form invariance, weak invariance, strong invariance, and strict invariance. ΔCFI and ΔTLI values were both <0.01, while ΔRMSEA values were all <0.015, indicating that the generative AI dependency scale possesses measurement invariance across genders and academic years. CONCLUSION: The Chinese version of the Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) Dependency Scale is a useful assessment tool for determining generative AI dependency among Chinese university students because it shows strong validity, reliability, and measurement invariance.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Deng et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: