The Benefit scale's two factors (Effectiveness and Empowerment) fit satisfactorily for both groups, but their near-1.00 correlation suggests a potential unidimensional structure¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · design r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2026 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? CFA supported the two-factor benefit structure for students and faculty, though the factor correlation was estimated at or near 1.00 in both versions. → Stella Y. Kim 2026

Evidence¶

Stella Y. Kim 2026¶

Stella Y. Kim, Ji Yae Bong, Daniel Maxwell, Beth Oyarzun. (2026). Development and validation of Generative Artificial Intelligence Readiness and Perception (GenAI-RP) Scale for faculty and students in higher education. Education Tech Research Dev. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-026-10713-z

q2 · i? · design · r2

CFA of the student benefit scale (N=454) yielded an excellent fit (CFI 0.91, RMSEA 0.063); the faculty version (N=130) fit reasonably except RMSEA of 0.116, which the authors note may be inflated with small samples. The article reports the factor correlation 'was estimated at 1.00'.

"However, the correlation between two factors was estimated at 1.00 (Fig. 2), suggesting that two factors may essentially assess the same construct. Upon reviewing the items, the research team concluded that the two factors are qualitatively different, and the two-factor structure was maintained."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• The Challenge scale's three-factor structure was confirmed for students but did not reach satisfactory fit for faculty — related
• Global-fit evidence does not clearly favor unidimensional over multidimensional academic resilience measurement models, as fit-index pass rates diverge by index — related