## 4 Discussion  
The _first research question_ (RQ1) of our study was related to the investigation of the _internal consistency_ of the assessment scales that were used in our study to measure selected characteristics of Bing Chat. From the results of data analyses that are presented in Table 1, it can be concluded that, for most of the assessment scales, the internal reliabilities (Cronbach's alpha coefficients) were above the 0.70 threshold criterion or, in other words, \"adequate\" and \"satisfactory\". Even though some of the assessment scales that were used in our study need further refinement, most of them can be, with some customization and improvement, used for further studies of CAI tools in educational and other settings. The collected survey data regarding the second research question (RQ2--\"How do higher education students perceive specific usability and user experience characteristics of Bing Chat?\") were analyzed with much detail in the Section 3.2 \"Perceptions of usability and user experience characteristics of Bing Chat\" (see also the percentages presented in the Appendix A). To make the presentation of these findings more concise, only the sums of positive statements (\"4--I agree\" and \"5--I totally agree\") in response to the items of assessment scales were provided. It can be concluded that most of the characteristics of Bing Chat received a positive evaluation. However, the percentages of positive responses are not sufficient to conclude that there are no potential issues pertaining to its use in teaching and learning activities in higher education. This is especially true regarding the (a) correctness of retrieved information and (b) privacy concerns. In this section, a forced factor analysis was performed (see Table 2) that indirectly justified the broad categorization of variables in our study to those related to (a) usability and (b) user experience. Due to the rather small convenience sample (N = 126) in our study, a more detailed exploratory factor analysis was not performed. The _third research question_ (RQ3) was directed toward the identification of _usability_ and _user experience_ constructs as independent variables that are best predictors of _Intention to Use_ Bing Chat (or ChatGPT/GPT-4) in the future as a dependent variable. Because of the availability of similar (and competing) CAI tools like ChatGPT/GPT-4 and Bard, the items in the assessment scale for the measurement of _Intention to Use_ addressed not only Bing Chat but also included the mention of \"GPT\", which denotes ChatGPT, GPT-3.5, GPT-4, and the like. It must be emphasized that this creates some uncertainty in the interpretation of the results of regression analyses, but not in a way that significantly questions the findings. The variable/construct labeled _Trust_ was both in _highest correlation_ (r = 0.55) with _Intention to Use_ and was also found to be its _strongest predictor_ in regression analyses. From the set of _user experience_ variables, _Trust_ together with _Design Appeal_ explained 33.5% of the variance of the dependent variable _Intention to Use_. These findings are important and relevant regarding the higher education environment and students' use of Bing Chat or other CAI tools. In several other studies, trust was found to be a critical variable for the adoption of ChatGPT by adults [58], professionals [65], and students [66]. Also, hedonic motivation, which _Design Appeal_ can be considered a component of, was in some other studies also found to affect students' intention to use ChatGPT [39; 41; 67; 68]. One study also revealed that, among technical variables, only _Perceived Usefulness_ successfully predicted ChatGPT usage [69], as was found in our regression analysis with predictor variables related to _usability_ and _Intention to Use_ Bing Chat as a dependent variable (see Table 3).