VALIDATION OF A MULTI-DIMENSION SCALE FOR ASSESSING GENERAL  EDUCATION TEACHERS’ INTENTION AND BEHAVIOR IN APPLYING  GENERATIVE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE  IN VIETNAM

Nguyen Ngoc Giang; Ta Thanh Trung; Nguyen Viet Duong; Dinh Thi Hai Binh

Ta Thanh Trung	kv.trungtt@hcmue.edu.vn	Ho Chi Minh City University of Education 280 An Duong Vuong, Cho Quan ward, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam; Hanoi National University of Education 136 Xuan Thuy, Cau Giay ward, Hanoi, Vietnam
Nguyen Ngoc Giang	giangnn@hub.edu.vn	Ho Chi Minh City University of Banking 36 Ton That Dam, Saigon ward, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam
Dinh Thi Hai Binh	dthbinh@sgu.edu.vn	Sai Gon University 273 An Duong Vuong, Cho Quan ward, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam
Nguyen Viet Duong*	duongnv@phd.hcmue.edu.vn	Ho Chi Minh City University of Education 280 An Duong Vuong, Cho Quan ward, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

Summary:

The growing integration of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) into education necessitates the development of a reliable instrument to assess K–12 teachers’ readiness to adopt this emerging technology. This study develops and validates a multi-dimension measurement scale grounded in the UTAUT3 framework and extended with two additional components, Design Thinking and Risk Perception, to reflect the specific characteristics of Vietnam’s general education context. The initial survey instrument comprised 42 observed items, culturally and professionally adapted and administered to 1,053 teachers nationwide. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) confirmed that the scale met the recommended thresholds for reliability and validity, including Cronbach’s alpha, Composite Reliability, AVE, and HTMT. After refinement, the final validated model consisted of 39 items with a stable measurement structure. By addressing an underexplored gap in GenAI adoption research in K–12 contexts, the study advances existing technology acceptance models through the integration of pedagogical creativity and technology-related risk awareness. Practically, the validated scale provides an evidence-based tool to inform policy formulation and the design of targeted professional development programs for teachers in the context of AI integration in education.

View file

Keywords:

Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI)

K-12 teachers

UTAUT3

scale validation.

Refers:

[1] Abdaljaleel, M., Barakat, M., Alsanafi, M., Salim, N. A., Abazid, H., Malaeb, D., Mohammed, A. H., Hassan, B. A. R., Wayyes, A. M., Farhan, S. S., Khatib, S. El, Rahal, M., Sahban, A., Abdelaziz, D. H., Mansour, N. O., AlZayer, R., Khalil, R., Fekih Romdhane, F., Hallit, R., … Sallam, M. (2024). A multinational study on the factors influencing university students’ attitudes and usage of ChatGPT. Scientific Reports, 14(1), 1–14. https://doi. org/10.1038/s41598-024-52549-8.

[2] DeVellis, R. F. & Thorpe, C. T. (2021). Scale development: Theory and applications (5th ed.). Sage Publications.

[3] Du, L. & Lv, B. (2024). Factors influencing students’ acceptance and intelligence in use generative artificial elementary education: An expansion of the UTAUT model. Education and Information Technologies, 29(18), 24715–24734. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12835-4.

[4] Du, W., Cao, Y., Tang, M., Wang, F. & Wang, G. (2025). Factors influencing AI adoption by Chinese mathematics teachers in STEM education. Scientific Reports, 15(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1038/ s41598-025-06476-x.

[5] Farooq, M. S., Salam, M., Jaafar, N., Fayolle, A., Ayupp, K., Radovic-Markovic, M. & Sajid, A. (2017). Acceptance and use of lecture capture system (LCS) in executive business studies: Extending UTAUT2. Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 14(4), 329–348. https://doi.org/10.1108/ ITSE-06-2016-0015.

[6] Fornell, C. & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https://doi. org/10.1177/002224378101800104.

[7] Giannakos, M., Azevedo, R., Brusilovsky, P., Cukurova, M., Dimitriadis, Y., Hernandez-Leo, D., Jarvela, S., Mavrikis, M. & Rienties, B. (2025). The promise and challenges of generative AI in education. Behaviour and Information Technology, 44(11), 2518–2544. https://doi.org/10.1080/014492 9X.2024.2394886.

[8] Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J. & Anderson, R. E. (2019). Multivariate data analysis (8th ed.). Cengage Learning.

[9] Hien, N. V., Duy, T. T. & Van, P. D. (2025). Bringing AI into teaching: Understanding Vietnamese teachers’ perspectives and pedagogical challenges. International Journal of Educational Methodology, 11(3), 335–347.

[10] Hu, L. & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for f it indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55. https:// doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118.

[11] Hu, L., Wang, H. & Xin, Y. (2025). Factors influencing Chinese pre-service teachers’ adoption of generative AI in teaching: An empirical study based on UTAUT2 and PLS-SEM. Education and Information Technologies, 30, 12609–12631. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s10639-025-13353-7.

[12] Hu, W. & Shao, Z. (2025). Design and evaluation of a GenAI-based personalized educational content system tailored to personality traits and emotional responses for adaptive learning. Computers in Human Behavior Reports, 28, Article 100735. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.chbr.2025.100735.

[13] Le, T. B. T. T., Ta, T. T. & Tang, M. D. (2025). ChatGPT in Vietnamese math classrooms: What are the influencing factors behind teachers’ adoption? Journal of Pedagogical Research, 9(2), 72–88. https:// doi.org/10.33902/JPR.202531924.

[14] Lu, G. & Ba, S. (2025). Exploring the impact of GAI assisted feedback on pre-service teachers’ situational engagement and performance in inquiry-based online discussion. Educational Psychology, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410 .2025.2489784.

[15] Marmoah, S., Supianto, Sukmawati, F., Poerwanti, J. I. S. & Yantoro. (2024). The elementary school teachers adoption of learning management system: A UTAUT model analysis. Ingenierie Des Systemes d’Information, 29(2), 715–722. https://doi. org/10.18280/isi.290233.

[16] Mulaudzi, L. V. & Hamilton, J. (2025). Lecturer’s perspective on the role of AI in personalized learning: Benefits, challenges, and ethical considerations in higher education. Journal of Academic Ethics, 23, 1571–1591. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-025-09615-1.

[17] Nguyen, H. N. & Ta, T. T. (2024). Developing a scale to identify factors influencing secondary school teachers’ behavior in implementing the 2018 general education program. Journal of Educational Science (HNUE), 69(2), 3–14. https://doi. org/10.18173/2354-1075.2024-0018.

[18] Rahimi, A. R. (2025). Developing and validating the scale of language teachers’ design thinking competency in artificial intelligence language teaching (LTDTAILT). Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 8, Article 100420. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.caeai.2025.100420.

[19] Razzouk, R. & Shute, V. (2012). What is design thinking and why is it important? Review of Educational Research, 82(3), 330–348. https://doi. org/10.3102/0034654312457429.

[20] Strzelecki, A., Cicha, K., Rizun, M. & Rutecka, P. (2024). Acceptance and use of ChatGPT in the academic community. Education and Information Technologies, 29, 22943–22968. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639 024-12765-1.

[21] Tzimas, D.& Demetriadis, S. (2025). K-12 teachers’ acceptance and resistance perceptions of learning analytics adoption: A mixed-methods approach. TechTrends, 69(2), 385–399. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11528-025-01045-5.

[22] Ta, T. T. & Nguyen, T. N. (2022). A comparison between CB-SEM and PLS-SEM in assessing the training effectiveness evaluation model for teachers’ online continuing professional development. Ho Chi Minh City University of Education Journal of Science, 19(2), 213–228. https://doi.org/10.54607/ hcmue.js.19.2.3306(2022).

[23] Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B. & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425 478. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540.

[24] Venkatesh, V., Thong, J. Y. L. & Xu, X. (2012). Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: Extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS Quarterly, 36(1), 157–178. https://doi.org/10.2307/41410412.

[25] Wheaton, B., Muthen, B., Alwin, D. F. & Summers, G. F. (1977). Assessing reliability and stability in panel models. Sociological Methodology, 8, 84–136. https:// doi.org/10.2307/270754.

[26] Wu, Q., Tian, J. & Liu, Z. (2025). Exploring the usage behavior of generative artificial intelligence: A case study of ChatGPT with insights into the moderating effects of habit and personal innovativeness. Current Psychology, 44(9), 8190 8203. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-024-07193-w

Journal:

No. 12, December 2025

VIETNAM JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL SCIENCES

THE VIETNAM NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF EDUCATIONAL SCIENCES

VALIDATION OF A MULTI-DIMENSION SCALE FOR ASSESSING GENERAL EDUCATION TEACHERS’ INTENTION AND BEHAVIOR IN APPLYING GENERATIVE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IN VIETNAM