Validity and Reliability of the Chinese Version of Human-robot Interaction Self-efficacy Scale in Chinese Adults

Overview

Journal Psicol Reflex Crit

Specialty Psychology

Date 2024 Sep 26

PMID 39325246

Authors

Huixin Gao

Wei Wang

Chengli Huang

Xinru Xie

Duming Wang

Wei Gao

Jie Cai

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: With the fast-paced advancements of robot technology, human-robot interaction (HRI) has become increasingly popular and complex, and self-efficacy in HRI has received extensive attention. Despite its popularity, this topic remains understudied in China.

Objective: In order to provide a psychometrically sound instrument in China, this study aimed to translate and validate the Self-Efficacy in Human-Robot Interaction Scale (SE-HRI) in two Chinese adult samples (N1 = 300, N2 = 500).

Methods: The data was analyzed by SPSS 26.0 and Amos 24.0. Item analysis and exploratory factor analysis were conducted using Sample 1 data. Confirmatory factor analysis, criterion-related validity analysis, and reliability analysis were then performed using Sample 2 data.

Results: The results revealed that the Chinese SE-HRI scale consisted of 13 items in a two-factor model, suggesting a good model fit. Moreover, general self-efficacy and willingness to accept the use of artificial intelligence (AI) were both positively correlated with self-efficacy in HRI, while negative attitudes toward robots showed an inverse correlation, proving the Chinese SE-HRI scale exhibited excellent criterion-related validity.

Conclusion: The Chinese SE-HRI scale is a reliable assessment tool for evaluating self-efficacy in HRI in China. The study discussed implications and limitations, and suggested future directions.

References

Oksanen A, Savela N, Latikka R, Koivula A . Trust Toward Robots and Artificial Intelligence: An Experimental Approach to Human-Technology Interactions Online. Front Psychol. 2020; 11:568256. PMC: 7744307. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.568256. View

Tavakol M, Dennick R . Making sense of Cronbach's alpha. Int J Med Educ. 2016; 2:53-55. PMC: 4205511. DOI: 10.5116/ijme.4dfb.8dfd. View

Savela N, Latikka R, Oksa R, Kortelainen S, Oksanen A . Affective Attitudes Toward Robots at Work: A Population-Wide Four-Wave Survey Study. Int J Soc Robot. 2022; 14(6):1379-1395. PMC: 9012866. DOI: 10.1007/s12369-022-00877-y. View

Guo X, Liu H, Shih Y, Wang C, Gao C, He Z . The Chinese Version of Rochester Participatory Decision-Making Scale (RPAD): Reliability and Validity. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2020; 2020:4343815. PMC: 7749781. DOI: 10.1155/2020/4343815. View

Nygaard E, Hussain A, Siqveland J, Heir T . General self-efficacy and posttraumatic stress after a natural disaster: a longitudinal study. BMC Psychol. 2016; 4:15. PMC: 4822288. DOI: 10.1186/s40359-016-0119-2. View

Luszczynska A, Scholz U, Schwarzer R . The general self-efficacy scale: multicultural validation studies. J Psychol. 2005; 139(5):439-57. DOI: 10.3200/JRLP.139.5.439-457. View

Li N, Yang Y, Zhao X, Li Y . The relationship between achievement motivation and college students' general self-efficacy: A moderated mediation model. Front Psychol. 2023; 13:1031912. PMC: 9845271. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1031912. View

Cayir A, Ulupinar S . The relationship among educational skills, general self-efficacy perceptions and performance in nursing instructors. Nurse Educ Today. 2021; 107:105129. DOI: 10.1016/j.nedt.2021.105129. View

Fitzgerald J, Wells Y, Ellis J . Psychosocial modification of general self-efficacy in older adults: A restricted review. Australas J Ageing. 2022; 41(3):e210-e226. PMC: 9545063. DOI: 10.1111/ajag.13052. View

10.

Brunes A, Hansen M, Heir T . General self-efficacy in individuals with visual impairment compared with the general population. PLoS One. 2021; 16(7):e0254043. PMC: 8253439. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0254043. View

11.

Morales-Rodriguez F, Perez-Marmol J . The Role of Anxiety, Coping Strategies, and Emotional Intelligence on General Perceived Self-Efficacy in University Students. Front Psychol. 2019; 10:1689. PMC: 6692438. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01689. View

12.

Schonrock-Adema J, Heijne-Penninga M, Van Hell E, Cohen-Schotanus J . Necessary steps in factor analysis: enhancing validation studies of educational instruments. The PHEEM applied to clerks as an example. Med Teach. 2008; 31(6):e226-32. DOI: 10.1080/01421590802516756. View

13.

Mallik A, Liu D, Kapila V . Analyzing the outcomes of a robotics workshop on the self-efficacy, familiarity, and content knowledge of participants and examining their designs for end-of-year robotics contests. Educ Inf Technol (Dordr). 2022; 28(6):7225-7264. PMC: 9709379. DOI: 10.1007/s10639-022-11400-1. View