VALUE INTELLIGENCE AND ETHICAL AWARENESS OF GENERATIVE AI AMONG THERAPY AND REHABILITATION STUDENTS: A CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY IN UKRAINIAN UNIVERSITIES

Introduction. The study aimed to examine value priorities, the level of Value Intelligence (VI), and ethical awareness regarding the use of generative artificial intelligence (AI) among students enrolled in Therapy and Rehabilitation programmes at Ukrainian universities. It also aimed to explore the association between VI and ethical awareness and to describe how these indicators varied across age groups. Materials and Methods. A cross-sectional survey was conducted among 326 bachelor’s and master’s students from seven Ukrainian state universities. Data were collected using an author-developed questionnaire comprising a 16-item Value Intelligence scale and an 8-item ethical awareness scale concerning the use of generative AI in educational and research activities. Descriptive statistics, distributional analyses, Pearson correlation, chi-square tests, and age-group comparisons were applied. The VI instrument was exploratory and showed limited internal consistency (α=0.564). Results. The sample comprised 142 men and 184 women; 121 participants were aged 18–21 years, 137 were aged 22–34 years, and 68 were aged 35–55 years. Respondents predominantly evaluated responsibility, tolerance, morality, career, interaction, ambition, duty, prudence, and justice as positive values, whereas injustice, vanity, egoism, egocentrism, and benefit were predominantly evaluated negatively. The median VI score was 73.5 (mode = 77; SD = 11.37), and the median ethical-awareness score was 33.0 (mode = 33; SD = 5.48). In the 18–21 and 22–34 age groups, sufficient VI was the most frequent category (43.0% and 38.0%, respectively), whereas the average level predominated among participants aged 35–55 years (58.8%). Ethical awareness was most often classified as average in all age groups: 47.1%, 47.4%, and 54.4%, respectively. Pearson correlations between VI and ethical awareness ranged from 0.47 to 0.54 across age groups and were 0.50 in the full sample. Conclusions. The results establish the levels of students’ value preferences and provide preliminary evidence of a positive descriptive relationship between value intelligence and ethical awareness regarding the use of generative artificial intelligence. However, the exploratory nature of the questionnaire and the limited internal consistency of the value intelligence scale require cautious interpretation. The results do not establish causality, predictive validity, or the influence of age on development. Further research should validate the measurement instruments, provide full statistics of the findings and effect sizes, and investigate the proposed relationship in larger, culturally diverse samples and in different educational and professional contexts.