This is the most up to date version of this scale.

Downloads

PAPER
Jian, J. Y., Bisantz, A. M., & Drury, C. G. (2000). Foundations for an empirically determined scale of trust in automated systems. International journal of cognitive ergonomics, 4(1), 53-71.

Construct Summary

There is no stated definition of the construct in the paper. The construct label is “trust”.

Final Scale Items (12 total):

Scale items are not publicly available at this time. We are reaching out to the authors to obtain appropriate permissions to share scale items. If you are the author of this scale and would like to provide such permission, please email us at hriscaledatabase@gmail.com

Rating = 46%

Check? Guideline Item
✖ Is the construct defined?
✖ Does the final version of the items capture the construct as it has been defined by the authors?
✓ Is the item generation process discussed (e.g., literature review, Delphi method, crowd-sourcing)?
✖ Person to items 10:1 for the initial set of items?
✓ Did they perform an EFA, PCA, Rasch, or similar test to determine the item to factor relationship?
✓ Did they describe how they determined number of factors?
✓ Did they report the full initial set of items?
✖ Did they provide loadings (EFA) or item fits (Rasch) of all items?
✓ Is there a description of the item removal process (e.g., using infit/outfit, factor loading minimum value, or cross-loading values)?
✓ Did they list the final items included in the scale?
✖ Did they include a factor structure test (e.g., second EFA, CFA, DIF, test for unidimensionality when using Rasch, or similar)?
✖ Was a measure of reliability (e.g., Cronbach’s alpha, McDonalds Omega_h or Omega_t, Tarkkonen’s Rho) reported?
✖ Was a test of validity (e.g., predictive, concurrent, convergent, discriminant) reported?

Comments Item generation process was non-standard. During scale development the tested items were words but final scale consists of statements. The process of moving from words to statements was not reported. Additionally, it is unclear whether the statements as items were ever tested. PCA was conducted but the interpretation and the analysis was non-standard. Determination of number of factors was also non-standard. Cluster analysis results are unclear as clusters reported in table 5 (which were used to determine factors) seem to match with human-human clusters.


PDF of scale and instructions for administration and scoring can be found in the original paper.

Reviewed by Experts ✓