MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414957362 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0333073

Translation and validation of the artificial intelligence anxiety scale in German

2025· article· en· W4414957362 on OpenAlexaff
André Hajek, Larissa Zwar, Ariana Neumann, Razak M. Gyasi, Dong Keon Yon, Supa Pengpid, Karl Peltzer, Hans‐Helmut König

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEthics and Social Impacts of AI
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGermanAnxietyScale (ratio)PsychometricsTranslation (biology)Reliability (semiconductor)Cross-cultural studies

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIM: Artificial intelligence anxiety refers to fear due to challenges caused by AI-related changes in one's own life. As the first study, our aim was to translate and validate the German version of the Artificial Intelligence Anxiety Scale (AIAS-G). Furthermore, norm values (i.e., reference scores derived from the population) were presented. METHODS: Data were used from a quota-based sample of the adult population in Germany spanning from 18 to 74 years (n = 3,270) reflecting the German population in terms of sex, age and federal state. Data were collected in January 2025. The translation process followed established guidelines. Reliability was determined (in terms of Cronbach's alpha and McDonald's omega). Confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to examine construct validity. Concurrent validity was investigated by calculating pairwise correlations of AIAS-G with depressive symptoms, anxiety symptoms, life satisfaction and ikigai (Japanese concept mainly referring to meaning/purpose in life). Moreover, norm values were offered (also for specific sociodemographic groups). The AIAS-G sum score ranges from 21 to 147, with higher values corresponding to a higher AI anxiety level. RESULTS: Cronbach's alpha was .97 for the AIAS-G (subscales from .94 to .98). The mean AI anxiety level was 69.6 (SD: 32.6), with highest mean levels among women, older adults, individuals being divorced/widowed, individuals with low education, and retired individuals. The four-factor model originally proposed was substantiated by the findings of the confirmatory factor analysis. Higher levels of AI-related anxiety were associated with more depressive symptoms (r = .32, p < .001), more anxiety symptoms (r = .34, p < .001), lower life satisfaction (r = -.16, p < .001) and lower ikigai levels (r = -.21, p < .001). CONCLUSION: The AIAS-G is a psychometrically sound instrument designed to determine AI anxiety levels among German speakers. Further translation and validation studies are necessary to enable comparisons across various countries.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.127
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.239 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicEthics and Social Impacts of AIFrench-language works237,207