Translation and validation of the artificial intelligence anxiety scale in German
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".