Acceptance of generative artificial intelligence among teachers: adaptation and validation of an instrument based on the TAM
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.51247/pdlc.v6i2.766Keywords:
Generative artificial intelligence, higher education, faculty, Technology Acceptance Model, instrument validation.Abstract
Generative artificial intelligence (GAI) represents a disruptive tool in higher education, with significant potential to transform teaching, research, and academic management. The objective of this study was to adapt and validate a reliable and valid instrument to assess the acceptance and use of GAI among higher education faculty, based on the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM). A quantitative, non-experimental, cross-sectional study with an instrumental approach was conducted with a sample of 100 faculty members. The instrument, called the Generative Artificial Intelligence Acceptance and Use Scale (EAU-IAG), was subjected to exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses. The EFA identified a four-factor structure consistent with the TAM, explaining 63.96% of the total variance. The CFA confirmed the factorial validity of the proposed model, showing adequate and statistically significant standardized factor loadings, as well as satisfactory global fit indices (CFI = 0.969, TLI = 0.964, RMSEA = 0.039). In addition, reliability coefficients indicated high internal consistency across dimensions. These findings support the use of the EAU-IAG as a valid and reliable instrument for diagnostic studies and future research on the adoption of GAI in higher education contexts.
Downloads
References
Alier, M., García Peñalvo, F. J., and D. Camba, J. (2024). Generative Artificial Intelligence in Education: From Deceptive to Disruptive. International Journal of Interactive Multimedia and Artificial Intelligence, 8(5), 5–14. https://doi.org/10.9781/ijimai.2024.02.011
Al-Rahmi, W. M., Yahaya, N., Aldraiweesh, A. A., Alturki, U., Alamri, M. M., Saud, M. S. B., ... & Alhamed, O. A. (2019). Big data adoption and knowledge management sharing: An empirical investigation on their adoption and sustainability as a purpose of education. IEEE Access, 7, 47245-47258. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2906668
Ato, M., López, J. J., & Benavente, A. (2013). Un sistema de clasificación de los diseños de investigación en psicología. Anales de Psicología, 29(3). https://doi.org/10.6018/analesps.29.3.178511
Brown, T. A. (2015). Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Applied Research (2nd ed.). The Guilford Press.
Cattell, R. B. (1966). The Scree Test For The Number Of Factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1(2), 245–276. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr0102_10
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008
Davis, F. D., & Granić, A. (2024). The Technology Acceptance Model: 30 Years of TAM. Springer. https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-030-45274-2
Escobar-Pérez, J., & Cuervo-Martínez, Á. (2008). Validez de contenido y juicio de expertos: Una aproximación a su utilización. Avances en Medición, 6(1), 27-36.
Evayani, E., Indriani, M., Chan, S., Syam, F. (2024). Technology Acceptance Model in the SMEs and Moving Forward: A Systematic Literature Review from 1986 to 2021. In: Alareeni, B., Hamdan, A. (Eds.), Technology and Business Model Innovation: Challenges and Opportunities. (pp. 265–273). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-55911-2_25
Gallent-Torres, C., Zapata-González, A., & Ortego-Hernando, J. L. (2023). El impacto de la inteligencia artificial generativa en educación superior: una mirada desde la ética y la integridad académica. Revista Electrónica de Investigación y Evaluación Educativa, 29(2), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.30827/relieve.v29i2.29134
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2019). Multivariate data analysis (8th ed.). Cengage Learning.
Hernández, R., Fernández, C., & Baptista, P. (2014). Metodología de la investigación (6.ª ed.). McGraw-Hill.
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
Kaiser, H. F. (1960). The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20(1), 141–151. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316446002000116
Kaiser, H. F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39(1), 31–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02291575
Kalota, F. (2024). A Primer on Generative Artificial Intelligence. Education Sciences, 14(2), 172. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14020172
King, W. R., & He, J. (2006). A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model. Information & Management, 43(6), 740–755. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2006.05.003
Kline, R. B. (2016). Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling (4th ed.). The Guilford Press.
Montero, I., & León, O. G. (2002). Clasificación y descripción de las metodologías de investigación en psicología. Revista Internacional de Psicología Clínica y de La Salud, 2(3), 503-508. https://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=33720308
Na, S., Heo, S., Han, S., Shin, Y., & Roh, Y. (2022). Acceptance Model of Artificial Intelligence (AI)-Based Technologies in Construction Firms: Applying the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) in Combination with the Technology–Organisation–Environment (TOE) Framework. Buildings, 12(2). https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12020090
Organización para la Cooperación y el Desarrollo Económico [OECD]. (2021). AI and the Future of Skills, Volume 1: Capabilities and Assessments, Educational Research and Innovation, OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/5ee71f34-en
Oviedo, H. C., & Campo-Arias, A. (2005). Aproximación al uso del coeficiente alfa de Cronbach. Revista colombiana de psiquiatría, 34(4), 572-580.
Pizarro, G. R., Rodriguez-Rivas, J. G., Dominguez, F. A. S & Rivera, S. E. (2025). Calidad de Información de Respuestas de las Herramientas de Inteligencia Artificial Generativa Tipo Texto. Estudios y Perspectivas Revista Científica y Académica, 5(3), 4226-4252.
Prasetyo, Y. T., Ong, A. K. S., Concepcion, G. K. F., Navata, F. M. B., Robles, R. A. V., Tomagos, I. J. T., Young, M. N., Diaz, J. F. T., Nadlifatin, R., & Redi, A. A. N. P. (2021). Determining factors affecting acceptance of e-learning platforms during the covid-19 pandemic: Integrating extended technology acceptance model and delone & mclean is success model. Sustainability, 13(15). https://doi.org/10.3390/su13158365
Rodríguez-Rivas, J. G., & Rodríguez, C. S. (2022). Uso de Python para el análisis de datos aplicado en la investigación. Investigación y Ciencia Aplicada a La Ingeniería, 5(34), 33-40. https://ojsincaing.com.mx/index.php/ediciones/article/view/188
Santiago-Trujillo, Y. D., & Garvich-Ormeño, R. M. (2024). Competencias Digitales e Integración de las TIC en el Proceso de Enseñanza-Aprendizaje. Revista Docentes 2.0. https://ve.scielo.org/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2665-02662024000100050
Shin, J., Park, Y., & Lee, D. (2018). Who will be smart home users? An analysis of adoption and diffusion of smart homes. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 134, 246–253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.06.029
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2019). Using multivariate statistics (7th ed.). Pearson.
Teo, T. (2011). Factors influencing teachers’ intention to use technology: Model development and test. Computers & Education, 57(4), 2432–2440. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.06.008
Timotheou, S., Miliou, O., Dimitriadis, Y. (2023). Impacts of digital technologies on education and factors influencing schools' digital capacity and transformation: A literature review. Educ Inf Technol 28, 6695–6726. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11431-8
UNESCO. (2021). Artificial Intelligence in Education: Challenges and Opportunities for Sustainable Development. UNESCO Publishing. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000366994
Venkatesh, V., & Bala, H. (2008). Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on interventions. Decision Sciences, 39(2), 273–315. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.2008.00192.x
Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186–204. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Jose Gabriel Rodríguez-Rivas, Fernando Ayala-Partida, Luis Campa-Galindo
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
