Negative affective experience items were dropped due to floor effects and poor discrimination¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · designr2·q2
Currency · newest study 2026 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q2 i? All four items assessing negative affective experiences failed psychometric criteria: low means (M = 1.94–2.22), positive skewness (0.46–0.77), 65.0%–72.3% of participants choosing the lowest two options, corrected item-total correlations below 0.30, and EFA loadings below 0.40. → Liu Qingqi 2026
Evidence¶
Liu Qingqi 2026¶
Liu Qingqi, Miao Wenjiao, Li Jingjing, Lei Yuju. (2026). The Six-Facet Artificial Intelligence Literacy Questionnaire (SFAILQ): Assessing AI Literacy in Adolescents, Young Adults, and Midlife Adults. Behavioral Sciences, 16(7), 1110. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs16071110
q2 · i? · design · r2
Item reduction analysis in Sample 1 (N = 1217) on the four negatively keyed affective-experience items, which showed a pronounced floor effect and poor discriminative power, warranting their removal from subsequent analyses.
"the proportion of participants choosing the lowest two response options ("Strongly disagree" or "Disagree") ranged from 65.0% to 72.3%, while the highest two options ("Agree" or "Strongly agree") were selected by fewer than 15% of respondents."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- CTT item selection dropped five low-discrimination items, retaining 20 items of moderate difficulty — related
- CSEBench items show adequate psychometric quality, with satisfactory difficulty, discrimination, and reliability for both diagnostic forms — related
- Benchmark items showed high mean difficulty and low item discrimination, with many trivial items and only one broken item — related
- Survey items show good discrimination overall, but several items exhibit ceiling effects that limit measuring change over time — related
- The emote-aloud procedure is limited by non-reporting and floor effects: 2 of 7 participants did not verbalise affective states and four states were removed from analysis
- Item analysis showed high self-reported engagement and subscale differences in discriminatory power, with social engagement items weakest and cognitive engagement items strongest — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
negative-affect-items-floor-effect-removed |
title |
Negative affective experience items were dropped due to floor effects and poor discrimination |
description |
Negative affective experience items were dropped due to floor effects and poor discrimination |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2026 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-12 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — liu-qingqi-2026 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.