## 3 Results
### Perceptions of Usability and User Experience Characteristics of Bing Chat  
To confirm the categorization of the assessment scales that were used in our study into the broad categories of (a) _usability_ measures and (b) _user experience_ measures, a forced factor analysis was performed with two fixed factors in a principal components analysis and varimax rotation with Kaiser normalization. The common recommendation is that the minimal number of subjects/cases (N) for factor analysis is 100, and that the ratio of the number of participants (N) to the number of variables (p) is at least 5:1 (see: [62; 63]). Since the number of subjects in our convenience sample is 126 and the total number of usability and user experience variables in our study is 12, the N:p ratio amounts to 10.5:1, which means that the minimal prerequisites for the use of factor analysis have been met. The projections of variables on the two factors (F1 and F2), according to the results of the factor analysis, are presented in Table 2 and they indicate that the broad labels of \"usability\" for components of F1 (_Perceived Usefulness_, _General Usability_, _Learnability_, _System Reliability_, _Visual Design and Navigation_, _Information Quality_, _Information Display_) and \"user experience\" for components of F2 (_Cognitive Involvement_, _Design Appeal_, _Trust_, _Personification_, _and Risk Perception_) manifest at least some correspondence with their theoretical classification. According to the data presented in Table 2, in the results of this forced factor analysis, the common criterion was met that for the loading of an item to a factor to be considered relevant it needs a primary loading on one factor with the value of at least 0.60, with no secondary loading on some other factor above 0.40. The summarized percentages of _positive responses_ \"4--I agree\" and \"5--I totally agree\" (N = 126 for all assessment scales; the percentages were rounded to the nearest whole number) for _all the items_ of usability and user experience assessment scales are provided in the Appendix A. The following data were selected to represent the percentages of positive responses that are related to the _second research question_ (RQ2), which addresses the students' perception of specific _usability_ and _user experience_ characteristics of Bing Chat. Having in mind the items of the _usability_ scales, _Perceived Usefulness_ attributes were positively evaluated in the range from 60% (\"By using Bing Chat I can do whatever I want\") to 87% (\"Bing Chat can be used for many different things\"). In the case of _General Usability_ attributes, positive evaluations ranged from 53% (\"I did not notice an inconsistency in the operation of Bing Chat\") to 88% (\"Bing Chat is not too complex for everyday use\"). Regarding the _Learnability_ attributes, positive responses ranged from 68% (\"I remember well what I learned to do with Bing Chat\") to 94% (\"One can quickly learn the basics of working \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline
**Scale Label** & **Number of Items** & **Cronbach’s Alpha** \\ \hline Perceived Usefulness & 5 & 0.77 \\ \hline General Usability & 5 & 0.76 \\ \hline Learnability & 5 & 0.67 \\ \hline System Reliability \({}^{\star}\) & 4 & 0.79 \\ \hline Visual Design and Navigation & 6 & 0.78 \\ \hline Information Quality & 6 & 0.82 \\ \hline Information Display & 7 & 0.79 \\ \hline Cognitive Involvement & 7 & 0.88 \\ \hline Design Appeal & 6 & 0.81 \\ \hline Trust & 6 & 0.82 \\ \hline Personification & 6 & 0.81 \\ \hline Risk Perception & 6 & 0.86 \\ \hline Intention to Use & 6 & 0.90 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} \({}^{\star}\)One item was excluded from the scale because of redundancy.  
\end{table} 
Table 1: Scale labels, number of items, and internal consistency of assessment scales (N = 126). with the Bing Chat tool\").