Evaluación psicométrica de los constructos predominantes en la adopción de ChatGPT en la educación superior: una muestra mexicana
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.26439/interfases2026.n023.8785Palavras-chave:
ChatGPT, TAM, VAM, UTAUT, análisis factorial confirmatorio, análisis factorial exploratorioResumo
El estudio evaluó las propiedades psicométricas de los constructos asociados a la adopción educativa de ChatGPT. El instrumento se diseñó sobre la base de Morales et al. (2025), quienes identificaron los constructos más recurrentes en la literatura, provenientes de modelos como el basado en el valor percibido (VAM), el modelo de aceptación de la tecnología (TAM) y la teoría unificada de aceptación y uso de la tecnología (UTAUT). Se seleccionaron los constructos utilidad percibida, influencia social, intención conductual y facilidad de uso, incorporando, además, el riesgo percibido por su relevancia emergente. Participaron 579 universitarios asignados aleatoriamente en dos muestras (M1 = 281 y M2 = 298). El tiempo de uso de ChatGPT reportado por los participantes muestra una distribución equilibrada entre quienes tienen menos de un año de experiencia y quienes lo han utilizado más tiempo. Respecto al nivel de competencia, predomina el dominio básico, seguido del intermedio y una minoría reporta un manejo avanzado. Aunque ChatGPT es utilizado por todos los participantes, no es la única herramienta empleada; estos complementan su uso con otras IA generativas. Los principales patrones de uso se relacionan con la síntesis de información, la explicación de conceptos complejos y la identificación de tendencias; en contraste, su uso en tareas de evaluación crítica es menor. El análisis factorial exploratorio identificó una estructura de cinco factores que explica el 59,08 % de la varianza. El análisis factorial confirmatorio mostró índices de ajuste adecuados del modelo (RMSEA = 0,047; SRMR = 0,058; CFI = 0,942; TLI = 0,934 y PClose = 0,753). Se destaca que la adopción de ChatGPT está asociada con la utilidad percibida, la facilidad de uso, el entorno social y el riesgo percibido. Por tanto, el instrumento obtenido puede considerarse válido y confiable para evaluar la adopción de ChatGPT en estudiantes universitarios mexicanos.
Downloads
Referências
Abdaljaleel, M., Barakat, M., Alsanafi, M., Salim, N. A., Abazid, H., Malaeb, D., Mohammed, A. H., Hassan, B. A., Wayyes, A. M., Farhan, S. S., El Khatib, S., Rahal, M., Sahban, A., Abdelaziz, D., Mansour, N., 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), 1983. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-52549-8
Abdalla, R. A. M. (2024). Examining awareness, social influence, and perceived enjoyment in the TAM framework as determinants of ChatGPT. Personalization as a moderator. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 10(3), 100327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joitmc.2024.100327
Abdi, A.-N. M., Omar, A. M., Ahmed, M. H., & Ahmed, A. A. (2025). The predictors of behavioral intention to use ChatGPT for academic purposes: Evidence from higher education in Somalia. Cogent Education, 12(1) 2460250. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2025.2460250
Abdullatif, A. M. (2024). Investigating influencing factors of learning satisfaction in AI ChatGPT for research: University students perspective. Heliyon, 10(11), e32220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e32220
Acosta-Enríquez, B. G., Arbulú, M. A., Huamaní, O., López, C., & Saavedra, K. (2024). Analysis of college students’ attitudes toward the use of ChatGPT in their academic activities: Effect of intent to use, verification of information and responsible use. BMC Psychology, 12, 255. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-024-01764-z
Al-Abdullatif, A. M., & Alsubaie, M. A. (2024). ChatGPT in learning: Assessing students’ use intentions through the lens of perceived value and the influence of AI literacy. Behavioral Sciences, 14(9), 845. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs14090845
Almogren, A. S., Al-Rahmi, W. M., & Dahri, N. A. (2024). Exploring factors influencing the acceptance of ChatGPT in higher education: A smart education perspective. Heliyon, 10(11), e31887. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e31887
Balaskas, S., Tsiantos, V., Chatzifotiou, S., & Rigou, M. (2025). Determinants of ChatGPT adoption intention in higher education: Expanding on TAM with the mediating roles of trust and risk. Information, 16(2), 82. https://doi.org/10.3390/info16020082
Bouteraa, M., Bin-Nashwan, A. S., Al-Daihani, M., Dirie, A. K., Benlahcene, A., Sadallah, M., Zaki, H. O., Lada, S., Ansar, R., Fook, L. M., & Chekima, B. (2024). Understanding the diffusion of AI-generative ChatGPT in higher education: Does students’ integrity matter? Computers in Human Behavior Reports, 14, 100402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbr.2024.100402
Chen, S.-Y., Kuo, H. Y., & Chang, S.-H. (2024). Perceptions of ChatGPT in healthcare: Usefulness, trust, and risk. Frontiers Public Health, 12, 1457131. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2024.1457131
Costello, A. B., & Osborne, J. W. (2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 10, 7. https://doi.org/10.7275/jyj1-4868
Cotton, D. R., Cotton, P. A., & Shipway, J. R. (2024). Chatting and cheating: Ensuring academic integrity in the era of ChatGPT. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 61(2), 228-239. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2023.2190148
Dahri, N. A., Yahaya, N., Al-Rahmi, W. M., Aldraiweesh, A., Alturki, U., Almutairy, S., Shutaleva, A., & Soomro, R. B. (2024). Extended TAM based acceptance of AI-Powered ChatGPT for supporting metacognitive self-regulated learning in education: A mixed-methods study. Heliyon, 10(8), e29317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e29317
Elshaer, I. A., Hasanein, A. M., & Sobaih, A. E. (2024). The moderating effects of gender and study discipline in the relationship between university students’ acceptance and use of ChatGPT. European Journal of Investigation in Health, Psychology and Education, 14(7), 1981-1995. https://doi.org/10.3390/ejihpe14070132
Espartinez, A. S. (2024). Exploring student and teacher perceptions of ChatGPT use in higher education: A Q-Methodology study. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 7, 100264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100264
García-Peñalvo, F. J., Llorens-Largo, F., & Vidal, J. (2024). La nueva realidad de la educación ante los avances de la inteligencia artificial generativa. Revista Iberoamericana de Educación a Distancia, 27(1), 9-39. https://doi.org/10.5944/ried.27.1.37716
Güner, H., Er, E., Akçapinar, G., & Khalil, M. (2024). From chalkboards to AI-powered learning: Students’ attitudes and perspectives on use of ChatGPT in educational settings. Educational Technology & Society, 27(2), 386-404. https://www.jstor.org/stable/48766180
Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., & Mullen, M. (2008). Structural equation modelling: Guidelines for determining model fit. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6(1), 53-60. https://doi.org/10.21427/D7CF7R
Hsu, W. L., & Silalahi, A. D. K. (2024). Exploring the paradoxical use of ChatGPT in education: Analyzing benefits, risks, and coping strategies through integrated UTAUT and PMT theories using a hybrid approach of SEM and fsQCA. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 7, 100329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100329
Jordan, F. M. (2021). Valor de corte de los índices de ajuste en el análisis factorial confirmatorio. Psocial, 7(1). https://www.redalyc.org/journal/6723/672371335005/672371335005.pdf
Kooli, C. (2023). Chatbots in education and research: A critical examination of ethical implications and solutions. Sustainability, 15(7), 5614. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15075614
Lai, C. Y., Cheung, K. Y., & Chan, C. S. (2023). Exploring the role of intrinsic motivation in ChatGPT adoption to support active learning: An extension of the technology acceptance model. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 5, 100178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2023.100178
Lai, K. (2021). Fit difference between nonnested models given categorical data: Measures and estimation. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 28(1), 99-120. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2020.1763802
Lo, C. K. (2023). What is the impact of ChatGPT on education? A rapid review of the literature. Education Sciences, 13(4), 410. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13040410
Mahmud, A., Sarower, A. H., Sohel, A., Assaduzzaman, M., & Bhuiyan, T. (2024). Adoption of ChatGPT by university students for academic purposes: Partial least square, artificial neural network, deep neural network and classification algorithms approach. Array, 21, 100339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.array.2024.100339
Morales, A., Figueroa, G., Duana, M., Hidalgo, C., & Amador, J. (2025). Acceptance and adoption of ChatGPT in higher education: a systematic review. Revista Digital de Investigación en Docencia Universitaria, 19(2), e2119. https://doi.org/10.19083/ridu.2025.2119
Nemt-allah, M., Khalifa, W., Badawy, M., Elbably, Y., & Ibrahim, A. (2024). Validating the ChatGPT usage scale: Psychometric properties and factor structures among postgraduate students. BMC Psychology, 12, 497. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-024-01983-4
Panggabean, E. M., & Silalahi, A. D. K. (2025). How do ChatGPT’s benefit-risk-coping paradoxes impact higher education in Taiwan and Indonesia? Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 8, 100412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2025.100412
Parveen, K., Phuc, T. Q. B., Alghamdi, A. A., Hajjej, F., Obidallah, W. J., Alduraywish, Y. A., & Shafiq, M. (2024). Unraveling the dynamics of ChatGPT adoption and utilization through structural equation modeling. Scientific Reports, 14, 23469. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-74406-4
Rana, M., Siddiqee, M. S., Sakib, N., & Ahamed, R. (2024). Assessing AI adoption in developing country academia: A trust and privacy-augmented UTAUT framework. Heliyon, 10(18), e37569. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e37569
Rizun, N., Bordean, O. N., Nikiforova, A., Beleiu, I. N., & Revina, A. (2026). Generative AI in higher education: Ethical and behavioral factors influencing students’ intentions to use ChatGPT. Computers and Education Open, 10, 100336. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeo.2026.100336
Romero-Rodríguez, J.-M., Ramírez-Montoya, M.-S., Buenestado-Fernández, M., & Lara-Lara, F. (2023). Use of ChatGPT at university as a tool for complex thinking: Students’ perceived usefulness. Journal of New Approaches in Educational Research, 12(2), 323-339. https://doi.org/10.7821/naer.2023.7.1458
Rudolph, J., Tan, S., & Tan, S. (2023). ChatGPT: Bullshit spewer or the end of traditional assessments in higher education? Journal of Applied Learning & Teaching, 6, 342-363. https://doi.org/10.37074/jalt.2023.6.1.9
Sallam, M., Salim, N. A., Barakat, M., Al-Mahzoum, K., Al-Tammemi, A. B., Malaeb, D., Hallit, R., & Hallit, S. (2023). Assessing health students’ attitudes and usage of ChatGPT in Jordan: Validation study. JMIR Medical Education, 9, e48254. https://doi.org/10.2196/48254
Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (2004). A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling (2.ª ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Shuhaiber, A., Kuhail, M. A., & Salman, S. (2025). ChatGPT in higher education - A student’s perspective. Computers in Human Behavior Reports, 17, 100565. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbr.2024.100565
Sobaih, A. E., Elshaer, I. A., & Hasanein, A. M. (2024). Examining students’ acceptance and use of ChatGPT in Saudi Arabian higher education. European Journal of Investigation in Health, Psychology and Education, 14(3), 709-721. https://doi.org/10.3390/ejihpe14030047
Song, C., & Song, Y. (2023). Enhancing academic writing skills and motivation: assessing the efficacy of ChatGPT in AI-assisted language learning for EFL students. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1260843. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1260843
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (2023). Guidance for generative AI in education and research. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000386693
Vaswani, A., Shazeer, N., Parmar, N., Uszkoreit, J., Jones, L., Gomez, A. N., Kaiser, Ł., & Polosukhin, I. (2017). Attention is all you need [Presentación de escrito]. 31st Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, Long Beach, California, Estados Unidos. https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper/2017/file/3f5ee243547dee91fbd053c1c4a845aa-Paper.pdf
Velicer, W. F., & Fava, J. L. (1998). Effects of variable and subject sampling on factor pattern recovery. Psychological Methods, 3(2), 231-251. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/1082-989X.3.2.231
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
Worthington, R. L., & Whittaker, T. A. (2006). Scale development research: A content analysis and recommendations for best practices. The Counseling Psychologist, 34(6), 806-838. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000006288127
Xia, Y., & Yang, Y. (2019). RMSEA, CFI, and TLI in structural equation modeling with ordered categorical data: The story they tell depends on the estimation methods. Behavior Research Method, 51, 409-428. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-018-1055-2
Xu, X., Su, Y., Zhang, Y., Wu, Y., & Xu, X. (2024). Understanding learners’ perceptions of ChatGPT: A thematic analysis of peer interviews among undergraduates and postgraduates in China. Heliyon, 10(4), e26239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e26239
Downloads
Publicado
Edição
Seção
Licença
Este trabalho está licenciado sob uma licença Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Los autores/as que publiquen en esta revista aceptan las siguientes condiciones:
Los autores/as conservan los derechos de autor y ceden a la revista el derecho de la primera publicación, con el trabajo registrado con la licencia de atribución de Creative Commons, que permite a terceros utilizar lo publicado siempre que mencionen la autoría del trabajo y a la primera publicación en esta revista.
Los autores/as pueden realizar otros acuerdos contractuales independientes y adicionales para la distribución no exclusiva de la versión del artículo publicado en esta revista (p. ej., incluirlo en un repositorio institucional o publicarlo en un libro) siempre que indiquen claramente que el trabajo se publicó por primera vez en esta revista.
Se permite y recomienda a los autores/as a publicar su trabajo en Internet (por ejemplo en páginas institucionales o personales) antes y durante el proceso de revisión y publicación, ya que puede conducir a intercambios productivos y a una mayor y más rápida difusión del trabajo publicado (vea The Effect of Open Access).
Última actualización: 03/05/21
