The diffusion of generative artificial intelligence (AI) has raised questions about university students’ readiness to use it. We conducted a secondary analysis of 1205 records from 1146 students across eight countries and three survey waves (2022–2024). Fifty-nine students participated in both the 2022 and 2024 waves; analyses therefore used student-clustered inference. The primary comparison involved Slovak information-technology undergraduates surveyed in 2022 (186 records, all collected before the 30 November 2022 public release of ChatGPT-5) and 2024 (180 records). The 2024 cohort reported higher behavioural intention (d = 0.31; Holm-adjusted p = 0.024) and lower self-rated AI literacy (d = −0.36; Holm-adjusted p = 0.004); anxiety was higher only in supporting multi-country and latent analyses. Equality constraints produced little additional deterioration in the invariance models, but the imperfect configural fit, including full-model CFI = 0.812 and TLI = 0.796 and weak behavioural intention fit, limits the strength of this evidence. AI literacy additionally had α = 0.69, AVE = 0.48, and only partial scalar invariance, so its cohort difference is exploratory. Discriminant validity was mixed: HTMT exceeded 0.85 for relevance–career motivation (0.872) and intrinsic motivation–satisfaction (0.856), but no pair exceeded 0.90 and prespecified collapsed-factor models fitted worse than the ten-factor model. The principal standardised multiple regression explained 65.2% of behavioural-intention variance; demographic, educational, national, and temporal adjustment (R2 = 0.681) and parsimonious nonlinear sensitivity analyses preserved the central coefficient pattern. These repeated cross-sectional results describe cohort differences and associations, not causal effects of ChatGPT or any other tool.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Abidin et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: