Epistemic trust in AI-generated content did not differ significantly across the five AI platforms¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associational r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 2026 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? A one-way ANOVA found no statistically significant differences among the five AI platforms in epistemic trust, F(4, 126) = 1.65, p = .166, η² = .05; equivalence was not tested. → George Efthimiou 2026

Evidence¶

George Efthimiou 2026¶

George Efthimiou, Katerina Plakitsi. (2026). Preservice Early Childhood Educators' Engagement with Generative AI in Science Activity Design: The Case of Magnetism. https://www.mdpi.com/journal/educationsciences doi:10.35542/osf.io/m5erf_v1

q2 · i? · associational · r1

One-way ANOVA (N = 131) on epistemic trust scores across the five platforms, reported in the findings section. The authors state the result "suggest[s] that participants' pedagogical skepticism was relatively stable across the different LLM models used"; no effect size beyond η² = .05 is interpreted.

"However, the one-way ANOV A for epistemic trust found no statistically significant differences among the five AI platforms, F (4, 126) = 1.65, p = .166, 𝜂2 = .05 (Table 4)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Perceived overall utility of generative AI differs significantly across the five platforms used, favoring platforms with structured task breakdowns — related
• Preservice educators rate generative AI highest for logistical support (time saving, clarity, organizing thought) and lowest for epistemic trust, accuracy and consistency — related