Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This study introduces the Generative AI Reliance Types Scale (GenAI-RTS), a 20-item instrument designed to measure four distinct types of reliance on generative AI in academic writing among undergraduates. By employing a multi-source validation approach with a diverse sample of 382 students, the research confirms a five-factor structure that includes Strategic, Instrumental, Dependent, and Dialogic reliance types, revealing that students' strategic reliance is positively correlated with their AI literacy. The findings underscore the importance of understanding how reliance on AI tools varies among students, which has implications for educational practices and academic integrity.
Students exhibit nuanced reliance on generative AI, with strategic use linked to higher AI literacy, challenging assumptions about uniform dependence on technology.
As generative AI (GenAI) becomes increasingly embedded in undergraduate academic writing, how students rely on these tools, rather than simply whether they use them, has become a central question for learning, academic integrity, and educational equity. Existing measures of reliance were developed inductively, focused on discrete problem-solving tasks, and validated mainly with homogeneous samples. This study developed and validated the GenAI Reliance Types Scale (GenAI-RTS), a 20-item instrument measuring four theoretically derived types of GenAI reliance: Strategic, Instrumental, Dependent, and Dialogic. Validation followed the multisource framework of the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing, drawing on a survey of 382 undergraduates at a U.S. Minority-Serving Institution and interviews with 14 purposively sampled students. Confirmatory factor analyses of six competing models supported a five-factor structure in which Strategic Reliance comprises two facets, Deliberate Use and Critical Evaluation, alongside Instrumental, Dependent, and Dialogic factors (CFI = .92, RMSEA = .08; DWLS CFI = .98, RMSEA = .07). Subscale reliability was acceptable to good (omega = .75-.88), and scalar measurement invariance held across gender, first-generation status, and STEM/non-STEM majors, to our knowledge the first such evidence for a GenAI reliance instrument. Rasch analysis indicated that a five-point response format would improve category functioning. Strategic reliance was positively associated with AI literacy, and the reliance types differentiated students across multiple writing process and outcome variables. The GenAI-RTS offers researchers and educators a theoretically grounded, psychometrically validated instrument for identifying undergraduate reliance profiles and supporting research, assessment, and AI literacy intervention.
