PF and AT scales carry a bidirectional interpretation problem for AI competence¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · design r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2025 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? A high score on the PF scale could reflect either an AI-competent teacher seeking growth or a teacher with low perceived competence closing gaps; similarly, a positive AT score may reflect non-critical reflection rather than high competence. → Delcker 2025

Evidence¶

Delcker 2025¶

Delcker, J., Heil, J., & Ifenthaler, D. (2025). Evidence-based development of an instrument for the assessment of teachers' self-perceptions of their artificial intelligence competence. Education Tech Research Dev. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-024-10418-1

q2 · i? · design · r2

The authors' interpretation in the discussion of their CFA results: the PF dimension's items are ambiguous because interest in professional development can stem from either high or low competence. The same assumptions hold for parts of the AT scale, which led to its removal from the final model.

"On the other hand, teachers might not be proficient in dealing with AI in the context of education. These teachers are interested in professional development to close their existing knowledge gaps. A high score on the PF scale would then reflect a teacher with a low perceived AI competence level."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Perceived AI competence is best modeled as a latent factor over four dimensions after removing PF and AT — related