Human and AI Trust: Trust Attitude Measurement Instrument

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2510.21535v1
• Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2025 15:01:06 GMT
• Title: Human and AI Trust: Trust Attitude Measurement Instrument
• Authors: Retno Larasati,
• Abstract summary: This paper describes the development and validation process of a trust measure instrument.<n>The instrument was built explicitly for research in human-AI interaction to measure trust attitudes towards AI systems.<n>The use-case we used to develop the scale was in the context of AI medical support systems.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: With the current progress of Artificial Intelligence (AI) technology and its increasingly broader applications, trust is seen as a required criterion for AI usage, acceptance, and deployment. A robust measurement instrument is essential to correctly evaluate trust from a human-centered perspective. This paper describes the development and validation process of a trust measure instrument, which follows psychometric principles, and consists of a 16-items trust scale. The instrument was built explicitly for research in human-AI interaction to measure trust attitudes towards AI systems from layperson (non-expert) perspective. The use-case we used to develop the scale was in the context of AI medical support systems (specifically cancer/health prediction). The scale development (Measurement Item Development) and validation (Measurement Item Evaluation) involved six research stages: item development, item evaluation, survey administration, test of dimensionality, test of reliability, and test of validity. The results of the six-stages evaluation show that the proposed trust measurement instrument is empirically reliable and valid for systematically measuring and comparing non-experts' trust in AI Medical Support Systems.

Related papers

• The Trust in AI-Generated Health Advice (TAIGHA) Scale and Short Version (TAIGHA-S): Development and Validation Study [1.0112913394578702]
  This study developed and validated the Trust in AI-Generated Health Advice (TAIGHA) scale and its four-item short form (TAIGHA-S)<n>Items were developed using a generative AI approach, followed by content validation with 10 domain experts, face validation with 30 lay participants, and psychometric validation with 385 UK participants who received AI-generated advice in a symptom-assessment scenario.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-16T10:40:07Z)
• Revisiting Trust in the Era of Generative AI: Factorial Structure and Latent Profiles [5.109743403025609]
  Trust is one of the most important factors shaping whether and how people adopt and rely on artificial intelligence (AI)<n>Most existing studies measure trust in terms of functionality, focusing on whether a system is reliable, accurate, or easy to use.<n>In this study, we introduce and validate the Human-AI Trust Scale (HAITS), a new measure designed to capture both the rational and relational aspects of trust in GenAI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-11T12:39:53Z)
• Dynamic Trust Calibration Using Contextual Bandits [1.8563342761346613]
  Excessive trust can lead users to accept AI-generated outputs without question.<n>Insufficient trust may result in disregarding valuable insights from AI systems.<n>There is currently no definitive and objective method for measuring trust calibration between humans and AI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-27T21:06:17Z)
• Is Trust Correlated With Explainability in AI? A Meta-Analysis [0.0]
  We conduct a comprehensive examination of the existing literature to explore the relationship between AI explainability and trust.<n>Our analysis, incorporating data from 90 studies, reveals a statistically significant but moderate positive correlation between the explainability of AI systems and the trust they engender.<n>This research highlights its broader socio-technical implications, particularly in promoting accountability and fostering user trust in critical domains such as healthcare and justice.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-16T23:30:55Z)
• Evaluating Generative AI Systems is a Social Science Measurement Challenge [78.35388859345056]
  We present a framework for measuring concepts related to the capabilities, impacts, opportunities, and risks of GenAI systems. The framework distinguishes between four levels: the background concept, the systematized concept, the measurement instrument(s), and the instance-level measurements themselves.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-17T02:35:30Z)
• A Diachronic Perspective on User Trust in AI under Uncertainty [52.44939679369428]
  Modern NLP systems are often uncalibrated, resulting in confidently incorrect predictions that undermine user trust. We study the evolution of user trust in response to trust-eroding events using a betting game.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-20T14:41:46Z)
• FUTURE-AI: International consensus guideline for trustworthy and deployable artificial intelligence in healthcare [73.78776682247187]
  Concerns have been raised about the technical, clinical, ethical and legal risks associated with medical AI. This work describes the FUTURE-AI guideline as the first international consensus framework for guiding the development and deployment of trustworthy AI tools in healthcare.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-11T10:49:05Z)
• Position: AI Evaluation Should Learn from How We Test Humans [65.36614996495983]
  We argue that psychometrics, a theory originating in the 20th century for human assessment, could be a powerful solution to the challenges in today's AI evaluations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-18T09:54:33Z)
• Converging Measures and an Emergent Model: A Meta-Analysis of Human-Automation Trust Questionnaires [0.6853165736531939]
  We identify the most frequently cited and best-validated human-automation and human-robot trust questionnaires. We demonstrate a convergent experimentally validated model of human-automation trust.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-24T04:42:49Z)
• Designing for Responsible Trust in AI Systems: A Communication Perspective [56.80107647520364]
  We draw from communication theories and literature on trust in technologies to develop a conceptual model called MATCH. We highlight transparency and interaction as AI systems' affordances that present a wide range of trustworthiness cues to users. We propose a checklist of requirements to help technology creators identify appropriate cues to use.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-04-29T00:14:33Z)
• Trust in AI and Its Role in the Acceptance of AI Technologies [12.175031903660972]
  This paper explains the role of trust on the intention to use AI technologies. Study 1 examined the role of trust in the use of AI voice assistants based on survey responses from college students. Study 2, using data from a representative sample of the U.S. population, different dimensions of trust were examined.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-03-23T19:18:19Z)
• Effect of Confidence and Explanation on Accuracy and Trust Calibration in AI-Assisted Decision Making [53.62514158534574]
  We study whether features that reveal case-specific model information can calibrate trust and improve the joint performance of the human and AI. We show that confidence score can help calibrate people's trust in an AI model, but trust calibration alone is not sufficient to improve AI-assisted decision making.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-01-07T15:33:48Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.