Previously submitted to: JMIR mHealth and uHealth (no longer under consideration since Feb 17, 2025)
Date Submitted: Feb 7, 2025
Open Peer Review Period: Feb 17, 2025 - Feb 17, 2025
(closed for review but you can still tweet)
NOTE: This is an unreviewed Preprint
Warning: This is a unreviewed preprint (What is a preprint?). Readers are warned that the document has not been peer-reviewed by expert/patient reviewers or an academic editor, may contain misleading claims, and is likely to undergo changes before final publication, if accepted, or may have been rejected/withdrawn (a note "no longer under consideration" will appear above).
Peer review me: Readers with interest and expertise are encouraged to sign up as peer-reviewer, if the paper is within an open peer-review period (in this case, a "Peer Review Me" button to sign up as reviewer is displayed above). All preprints currently open for review are listed here. Outside of the formal open peer-review period we encourage you to tweet about the preprint.
Citation: Please cite this preprint only for review purposes or for grant applications and CVs (if you are the author).
Final version: If our system detects a final peer-reviewed "version of record" (VoR) published in any journal, a link to that VoR will appear below. Readers are then encourage to cite the VoR instead of this preprint.
Settings: If you are the author, you can login and change the preprint display settings, but the preprint URL/DOI is supposed to be stable and citable, so it should not be removed once posted.
Submit: To post your own preprint, simply submit to any JMIR journal, and choose the appropriate settings to expose your submitted version as preprint.
Warning: This is an author submission that is not peer-reviewed or edited. Preprints - unless they show as "accepted" - should not be relied on to guide clinical practice or health-related behavior and should not be reported in news media as established information.
Using Exploratory Graph Analysis in validating the structure of the Technology Readiness Index2.0 in the health context
ABSTRACT
Background:
With a continual interest in technology adoption in the health context, a good understanding of psychological determinants is of great importance. Although Technology Readiness Index2.0 (TRI2.0) is currently the most comprehensive measure of technology readiness (TR), there are discrepancies between the factorial structure of the TRI2.0 found in the initial study (four factors) and other studies (two factors).
Objective:
This study aimed to translate TRI2.0, determine its construct, and validate the Chinese version of TRI2.0 in patient sample exposed to artificial intelligence technology.
Methods:
TRI2.0 was translated, back-translated, and cross-culturally adapted using the Brislin translation model to form the Chinese version. Baseline data of 326 participants (age 30.92±11, 45.1% males) in the outpatient department were analyzed. Content validity was checked by calculating the score content validity index (S-CVI). Exploratory graph analysis (EGA) was conducted to evaluate the dimensionality of the scale, and a bootstrap exploratory graph analysis approach (bootEGA) was employed to assess the dimensionality and item stability. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was computed to test the measurement models. Cronbachɑ and test-retest reliability were used to evaluate the scale's internal consistency.
Results:
The content validity of TRI2.0 is satisfactory (S-CVI= 0.9). Through EGA approach, the TRI2.0 contains four factors, which is consistent with the result of the original version. The CFA further confirmed this structure, with a CFI of 0.93, a SRMR of 0.05, a RMSEA of 0.064, TLI of 0.916 and x2/df of 2.38. Overall Cronbachɑ was 0.797. Chinese patients’ technology readiness (TRI2.0= 3.470 ± 0.488) is higher than the general public (TRI2.0= 3.02 ± 0.61).
Conclusions:
The Chinese version of the Technology Readiness Index 2.0 has good reliability and validity and can be used as an assessment tool for technology readiness in the health context. Patients have an open attitude towards new AI technology in the health context compared to attitude of the public toward new technology in 2015. Clinical Trial: Not Applicable
Citation
Request queued. Please wait while the file is being generated. It may take some time.
Copyright
© The authors. All rights reserved. This is a privileged document currently under peer-review/community review (or an accepted/rejected manuscript). Authors have provided JMIR Publications with an exclusive license to publish this preprint on it's website for review and ahead-of-print citation purposes only. While the final peer-reviewed paper may be licensed under a cc-by license on publication, at this stage authors and publisher expressively prohibit redistribution of this draft paper other than for review purposes.