Hudson Golino

Lara Russell-Lasalandra, Hudson Golino, Luis Eduardo Garrido et al.

Psychological scale development has traditionally required extensive expert involvement, iterative revision, and large-scale pilot testing before psychometric evaluation can begin. The `AIGENIE` R package implements the AI-GENIE framework (Automatic Item Generation with Network-Integrated Evaluation), which integrates large language model (LLM) text generation with network psychometric methods to automate the early stages of this process. The package generates candidate item pools using LLMs, transforms them into high-dimensional embeddings, and applies a multi-step reduction pipeline -- Exploratory Graph Analysis (EGA), Unique Variable Analysis (UVA), and bootstrap EGA -- to produce structurally validated item pools entirely *in silico*. This tutorial introduces the package across six parts: installation and setup, understanding Application Programming Interfaces (APIs), text generation, item generation, the `AIGENIE` function, and the `GENIE` function. Two running examples illustrate the package's use: the Big Five personality model (a well-established construct) and AI Anxiety (an emerging construct). The package supports multiple LLM providers (OpenAI, Anthropic, Groq, HuggingFace, and local models), offers a fully offline mode with no external API calls, and provides the `GENIE()` function for researchers who wish to apply the psychometric reduction pipeline to existing item pools regardless of their origin. The `AIGENIE` package is freely available on R-universe at https://laralee.r-universe.dev/AIGENIE.

Lara Lee Russell-Lasalandra, Hudson Golino

This Monte Carlo simulation examines how prompt engineering strategies shape the quality of large language model (LLM)--generated personality assessment items within the AI-GENIE framework for generative psychometrics. Item pools targeting the Big Five traits were generated using multiple prompting designs (zero-shot, few-shot, persona-based, and adaptive), model temperatures, and LLMs, then evaluated and reduced using network psychometric methods. Across all conditions, AI-GENIE reliably improved structural validity following reduction, with the magnitude of its incremental contribution inversely related to the quality of the incoming item pool. Prompt design exerted a substantial influence on both pre- and post-reduction item quality. Adaptive prompting consistently outperformed non-adaptive strategies by sharply reducing semantic redundancy, elevating pre-reduction structural validity, and preserving substantially larger item pool, particularly when paired with newer, higher-capacity models. These gains were robust across temperature settings for most models, indicating that adaptive prompting mitigates common trade-offs between creativity and psychometric coherence. An exception was observed for the GPT-4o model at high temperatures, suggesting model-specific sensitivity to adaptive constraints at elevated stochasticity. Overall, the findings demonstrate that adaptive prompting is the strongest approach in this context, and that its benefits scale with model capability, motivating continued investigation of model--prompt interactions in generative psychometric pipelines.

Edoardo Sebastiano De Duro, Giuseppe Alessandro Veltri, Hudson Golino et al.

Large Language Models (LLMs) can engage in human-looking conversational exchanges. Although conversations can elicit trust between users and LLMs, scarce empirical research has examined trust formation in human-LLM contexts, beyond LLMs' trustworthiness or human trust in AI in general. Here, we introduce the Trust-In-LLMs Index (TILLMI) as a new framework to measure individuals' trust in LLMs, extending McAllister's cognitive and affective trust dimensions to LLM-human interactions. We developed TILLMI as a psychometric scale, prototyped with a novel protocol we called LLM-simulated validity. The LLM-based scale was then validated in a sample of 1,000 US respondents. Exploratory Factor Analysis identified a two-factor structure. Two items were then removed due to redundancy, yielding a final 6-item scale with a 2-factor structure. Confirmatory Factor Analysis on a separate subsample showed strong model fit ($CFI = .995$, $TLI = .991$, $RMSEA = .046$, $p_{X^2} > .05$). Convergent validity analysis revealed that trust in LLMs correlated positively with openness to experience, extraversion, and cognitive flexibility, but negatively with neuroticism. Based on these findings, we interpreted TILLMI's factors as "closeness with LLMs" (affective dimension) and "reliance on LLMs" (cognitive dimension). Younger males exhibited higher closeness with- and reliance on LLMs compared to older women. Individuals with no direct experience with LLMs exhibited lower levels of trust compared to LLMs' users. These findings offer a novel empirical foundation for measuring trust in AI-driven verbal communication, informing responsible design, and fostering balanced human-AI collaboration.