The Software Infrastructure Attitude Scale (SIAS): A Questionnaire Instrument for Measuring Professionals' Attitudes Toward Technical and Sociotechnical Infrastructure

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2512.00855v1
• Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2025 12:03:21 GMT
• Title: The Software Infrastructure Attitude Scale (SIAS): A Questionnaire Instrument for Measuring Professionals' Attitudes Toward Technical and Sociotechnical Infrastructure
• Abstract summary: Recent software engineering (SE) research has highlighted the need for sociotechnical research, implying a demand for customized psychometric scales.<n>We define the concepts of technical and sociotechnical infrastructure in software engineering, and develop and validate a psychometric scale that measures attitudes toward them.
• Score: 10.916181267471098
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Context: Recent software engineering (SE) research has highlighted the need for sociotechnical research, implying a demand for customized psychometric scales. Objective: We define the concepts of technical and sociotechnical infrastructure in software engineering, and develop and validate a psychometric scale that measures attitudes toward them. Method: Grounded in theories of infrastructure, attitudes, and prior work on psychometric measurement, we defined the target constructs and generated scale items. The scale was administered to 225 software professionals and evaluated using a split sample. We conducted an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) on one half of the sample to uncover the underlying factor structure and performed a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) on the other half to validate the structure. Further analyses with the whole sample assessed face, criterion-related, and discriminant validity. Results: EFA supported a two-factor structure (technical and sociotechnical infrastructure), accounting for 65% of the total variance with strong loadings. CFA confirmed excellent model fit. Face and content validity were supported by the item content reflecting cognitive, affective, and behavioral components. Both subscales were correlated with job satisfaction, perceived autonomy, and feedback from the job itself, supporting convergent validity. Regression analysis supported criterion-related validity, while the Heterotrait-Monotrait ratio of correlations (HTMT), the Fornell-Larcker criterion, and model comparison all supported discriminant validity. Discussion: The resulting scale is a valid instrument for measuring attitudes toward technical and sociotechnical infrastructure in software engineering research. Our work contributes to ongoing efforts to integrate psychological measurement rigor into empirical and behavioral software engineering research.

Related papers

• AI-Automation Tooling in Computer Engineering Education: Mixed-Methods TAM/UTAUT Evidence for a General Acceptance Attitude [0.0]
  This paper reports a mixed-methods, cross-sectional study of undergraduate computer engineering students' acceptance of AI automation tooling.<n> Acceptance was favorable across all six constructs with large effect sizes.<n>Findings support the curricular adoption of AI automation tooling in undergraduate computing education.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-10T11:00:56Z)
• From Pre-trained Models to Large Language Models: A Comprehensive Survey of AI-Driven Psychological Computing [45.96605393710063]
  This survey introduces the first systematic taxonomy that organizes AI-driven psychology tasks by computational processing patterns rather than application domains.<n>We examine how computational approaches evolved from task-specific feature engineering to transfer learning and few-shot adaptation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-12T04:03:27Z)
• Towards Worst-Case Guarantees with Scale-Aware Interpretability [58.519943565092724]
  Neural networks organize information according to the hierarchical, multi-scale structure of natural data.<n>We propose a unifying research agenda -- emphscale-aware interpretability -- to develop formal machinery and interpretability tools.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-05T01:22:31Z)
• AI Assisted Economics Measurement From Survey: Evidence from Public Employee Pension Choice [2.2324302196460706]
  We develop an iterative framework for economic measurement that leverages large language models to extract measurement structure directly from survey instruments.<n>The framework is applied to a large scale public employee retirement plan survey.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-02T02:22:36Z)
• Reliable and Reproducible Demographic Inference for Fairness in Face Analysis [63.46525489354455]
  We propose a fully reproducible DAI pipeline that replaces conventional end-to-end training with a modular transfer learning approach.<n>We audit this pipeline across three dimensions: accuracy, fairness, and a newly introduced notion of robustness, defined via intra-identity consistency.<n>Our results show that the proposed method outperforms strong baselines, particularly on ethnicity, which is the more challenging attribute.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-23T12:22:02Z)
• PRISM-Physics: Causal DAG-Based Process Evaluation for Physics Reasoning [57.868248683256574]
  PRISM-Physics is a process-level evaluation framework and benchmark for complex physics reasoning problems.<n> Solutions are represented as directed acyclic graphs (DAGs) of formulas.<n>Results show that our evaluation framework is aligned with human experts' scoring.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-03T17:09:03Z)
• A Method for Quantifying Human Risk and a Blueprint for LLM Integration [0.0]
  The Cybersecurity Psychology Framework (CPF) is a novel methodology for quantifying human-centric vulnerabilities in security operations.<n>CPF provides end-to-end operationalization across the full spectrum of psychological vulnerabilities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-29T20:31:27Z)
• Beyond Benchmark: LLMs Evaluation with an Anthropomorphic and Value-oriented Roadmap [44.608160256874726]
  This survey introduces an anthropomorphic evaluation paradigm through the lens of human intelligence.<n>For practical value, we pioneer a Value-oriented Evaluation (VQ) framework assessing economic viability, social impact, ethical alignment, and environmental sustainability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-26T03:43:05Z)
• A validity-guided workflow for robust large language model research in psychology [0.0]
  Large language models (LLMs) are rapidly being integrated into psychological research as research tools, evaluation targets, human simulators, and cognitive models.<n>These "measurement phantoms"--statistical artifacts masquerading as psychological phenomena--threaten the validity of a growing body of research.<n>Guided by the dual-validity framework that integrates psychometrics with causal inference, we present a six-stage workflow that scales validity requirements to research ambition.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-06T18:06:12Z)
• "There Is No Such Thing as a Dumb Question," But There Are Good Ones [4.962252439662465]
  This study defines good questions and presents a systematic evaluation framework.<n>We propose two key evaluation dimensions: appropriateness (sociolinguistic competence in context) and effectiveness.<n>By incorporating dynamic contextual variables, our evaluation framework achieves structure and flexibility through semi-adaptive criteria.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-15T03:12:28Z)
• A Computational Method for Measuring "Open Codes" in Qualitative Analysis [44.39424825305388]
  This paper presents a theory-informed computational method for measuring inductive coding results from humans and Generative AI (GAI)<n>It measures each coder's contribution against the merged result using four novel metrics: Coverage, Overlap, Novelty, and Divergence.<n>Our work provides a reliable pathway for ensuring methodological rigor in human-AI qualitative analysis.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-19T00:44:56Z)
• A Literature Review of Literature Reviews in Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence [51.26815896167173]
  We present a comprehensive tertiary analysis of PAMI reviews along three complementary dimensions.<n>Our analyses reveal distinctive organizational patterns as well as persistent gaps in current review practices.<n>Finally, our evaluation of state-of-the-art AI-generated reviews indicates encouraging advances in coherence and organization.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-20T11:28:50Z)
• 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)
• QAFactEval: Improved QA-Based Factual Consistency Evaluation for Summarization [116.56171113972944]
  We show that carefully choosing the components of a QA-based metric is critical to performance. Our solution improves upon the best-performing entailment-based metric and achieves state-of-the-art performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-12-16T00:38:35Z)
• Machine Learning-Based Estimation and Goodness-of-Fit for Large-Scale Confirmatory Item Factor Analysis [0.0]
  We investigate novel parameter estimation and goodness-of-fit (GOF) assessment methods for large-scale item factor analysis (IFA) For parameter estimation, we extend Urban and Bauer's (2021) deep learning algorithm for exploratory IFA to the confirmatory setting. For GOF assessment, we explore new simulation-based tests and indices.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-09-20T12:53:01Z)
• Supply of engineering techniques and software design patterns in psychoanalysis and psychometrics sciences [0.0]
  The purpose of this study is to introduce software technologies and models and artificial intelligence algorithms to improve the weaknesses of CBT (Cognitive Behavior Therapy) method in psychotherapy. The presentation method for this purpose is the implementation of psychometric experiments in which the hidden human variables are inferred from the answers of tests.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-08-16T08:36:37Z)

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.