The applications of artificial intelligence (AI) in nursing encompass a wide array of domains, including nursing practice, management, and education. Considering that nurses serve as the core group on the frontline of healthcare, their attitudes toward AI may be crucial for promoting the rational development of AI in the nursing field. However, there is currently no validated instrument available in China to assess nurses’ attitudes toward AI. This study aimed to translate the Artificial Intelligence Attitude Scale for Nurses (AIASN) and evaluate its psychometric properties among Chinese nurses. This methodological study enrolled a sample consisting of 1309 nurses. The Chinese translation of the AIASN was generated using a commonly used instrument validation guideline. The validity of the instrument was assessed using content validity, structural validity (including Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA), Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA), and Exploratory Structural Equation Modeling (ESEM)), convergent validity, and discriminant validity. The reliability of the instrument was assessed using internal consistency reliability and test-retest reliability. A five-factor model was obtained through EFA. This model showed satisfactory model fit in CFA and ESEM (χ 2 /df = 3.733, CFI = 0.957, TLI = 0.931, RMSEA = 0.065 (90% CI [0.060, 0.070]), SRMR = 0.023). The Cronbach’s α coefficient for the instrument was 0.912. The intraclass correlation coefficient for the instrument was 0.811 (95% CI [0.629, 0.909]). The Chinese version of the AIASN comprises five dimensions and 26 items, demonstrating acceptable psychometric properties for assessing Chinese nurses’ attitudes toward AI within the present sample. However, given the single region and convenience sampling design, broader nationwide applicability remains to be further verified. It can help nursing educators develop AI-related education and training programs and identify nurses’ learning needs. Not applicable.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lin et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: