Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Artificial intelligence (AI) is commonly used in university academic work, yet existing instruments mainly assess AI literacy, readiness, or levels of permitted use rather than the critical-thinking processes students activate when working with AI. This study developed the Critical Thinking with AI Scale for Students (CTAI-S) and provided initial psychometric evidence for its use. An initial 15-item questionnaire was administered to 271 university students, and one item was removed after item analysis. Parallel analysis favored one predominant factor (KMO = 0.927), and a theory-guided three-factor representation was also examined. Ordinal confirmatory factor analyses (WLSMV; n = 257) yielded scaled CFI = 0.964 and RMSEA = 0.072 for the one-factor model, and CFI = 0.977 and RMSEA = 0.059 for the equivalent correlated-three-factor and second-order models; robust indices were less favorable, and latent correlations were very high (0.85–0.88). Total-score reliability was high (ω = 0.898), whereas the third grouping showed low reliability (ω = 0.557). Mean responses were above the scale midpoint (M = 3.97), with Reflective Judgment and Self-Regulation being highest (M = 4.07). The CTAI-S is best interpreted as a global self-report measure of critical thinking in AI-mediated academic tasks; independent validation is needed before dimensional or diagnostic applications.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Nieto-Márquez et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: