Table 1.
Summary of variables and supporting literature.
Fig 1.
Conceptual framework linking ethical principles guiding AI adoption (EPG) to compliance with AI ethical guidelines (CAEG) and perceived AI adoption outcomes in TVET (PAAT), with institutional policy support (IPS) specified as a moderating variable and CAEG specified as a mediating mechanism.
Table 2.
Reliability and convergent validity.
Table 3.
Discriminant validity – HTMT ratio.
Fig 2.
Structural model with standardized path coefficients for the relationships between ethical principles guiding AI adoption (EPG), compliance with AI ethical guidelines (CAEG), and perceived AI adoption outcomes in TVET (PAAT) based on the complete sample.
Table 4.
Summary of structural model result.
Fig 3.
Multi-group structural model results comparing path coefficients for institutions with institutional policy support (IPS_AVAL) and without institutional policy support (IPS_NOT_AVAL), highlighting similarities and differences in the EPG, CAEG, and PAAT relationships.
Table 5.
Multi-Group Analysis (MGA) results.