AI Agent Output Review Burden and Trust Calibration Survey
Measures how much time and cognitive effort employees spend checking AI agent outputs, where trust is over- or under-calibrated, and what triggers a full manual re-check. An AI follow-up probes the last time output was wrong or nearly acted on unchecked.
Sample questions
A preview of what’s in the template. Every question is editable before you launch.
Which AI agent or tool do you use most often in your work?
- (Replace with Agent A)
- (Replace with Agent B)
- (Replace with Agent C)
- Other
In the last 30 days, how often did you use this agent's output?
- Multiple times a day
- Once a day
- A few times a week
- Once a week or less
When this agent gives you an output, how much do you currently trust it to be correct without checking?
How much of the agent's output do you actually review or verify before using it, on average?
Rate the effort each of the following review activities takes, on a typical task.
- Re-reading the output for factual accuracy
- Cross-checking against source data or documents
- Re-running or testing the output yourself
- Getting a second person to check it
How often does each of these happen with this agent's output?
- Output contains a factual error I catch before using it
- Output contains an error I only catch later or after acting on it
- Output is correct but I still double-check it out of habit
- I skip reviewing entirely because I trust it
What most often triggers you to do a full manual re-check instead of a quick glance?
- The task is high-stakes (money, legal, customer-facing)
- The output looks unusual or inconsistent with what I expected
- I've been burned by an error from this agent before
- It's a new or unfamiliar type of task
- A colleague or policy requires it
- I always do a full check regardless
Rank these factors by how much they currently increase your review burden, from most to least.
- Output is hard to verify against a clear source of truth
- Agent doesn't explain its reasoning or show its work
- Errors in the past have been high-impact when they happened
- Task volume is too high to check everything carefully
- Unclear who is accountable if the output is wrong
Overall, is the current level of review you do on this agent's output too much, too little, or about right?
Reconstruct the most recent specific instance where the respondent's trust in this agent's output was wrong in either direction: a time an error slipped through with too little review, or a time they over-reviewed something that turned out fine. Get concrete details on what the output was, what checking they did or skipped, what happened as a result, and how that changed their review habits afterward. If they say they always fully check everything, probe whether that's sustainable given their task volume and what would let them safely check less.
Last few questions are about you, totally optional.
How long have you been using AI agent tools in your work?
- Less than 3 months
- 3-12 months
- 1-2 years
- More than 2 years
- Prefer not to say
Which best describes your role?
- Individual contributor
- Team lead / manager
- Director or above
- Other
- Prefer not to say
All done — thank you! Your answers feed directly into a report on where AI agent review effort can be safely reduced and where trust needs stronger guardrails.
What’s included
AI follow-ups
Adaptive probes on open-ended answers that pull out detail a static form would miss.
Attention checks
Built-in safeguards against rushed answers and low-quality respondents.
AI-drafted copy
Wording, ordering, and branching written by the AI — tuned to your research goal.
Auto report
Themes, quotes, and a plain-English summary write themselves once responses come in.
Why this template
What this template is built to do — we found no directly comparable template from other survey tools to review.
What sets it apart
- Includes an AI follow-up interview that reconstructs the respondent's most recent specific instance of misplaced trust or a near-miss where wrong output was almost acted on unchecked, going beyond static rating scales
- Combines opinion-scale trust and verification-effort questions with a slider-matrix rating the effort of specific review activities, capturing both perception and behavior
- Uses a matrix and ranking question to surface which failure patterns and review-burden factors occur most often and matter most, not just a single satisfaction score
- Closes with an automatically generated report structure plus transparent, inspectable prompts, so methodology isn't a black box
Frequently asked questions
What questions are in the “AI Agent Output Review Burden and Trust Calibration Survey” template?
The template includes 15 ready-to-use questions, starting with: “Thanks for taking a few minutes on this! We're studying how much work it takes to review AI agent outputs before you tru…” · “Which AI agent or tool do you use most often in your work?” · “In the last 30 days, how often did you use this agent's output?”. The full set is previewed above, and every question is editable.
How long does this survey take to complete?
Respondents typically finish the 15 questions in about 8 minutes.
Can I customize this template?
Yes — every question, answer option, and the ordering is editable before you launch. You can add or remove questions, or ask the AI editor to rework the survey around your research goal.
Is this template free to use?
Yes. Open it in the editor and start customizing right away — no account required to try it, and the free plan covers launching your survey.
Ready to launch?
Open this template in the editor. Every part is yours to change before the first respondent sees it.
Related templates
More studies on similar topics.
AI Tool Adoption in Research Teams
A survey studying how research teams evaluate, adopt, and integrate AI tools for data collection, analysis, and reporting. This instrument measures current tool usage, evaluation criteria, adoption barriers, training experiences, data quality perceptions, and team collaboration patterns.
View templateEmployee Comfort Delegating Tasks to AI Agents
Measures how comfortable employees are handing off specific work to AI agents, what's currently delegated, how closely output gets checked, and what would build more trust. Built for HR and AI-adoption teams rolling out agentic tools, with an AI follow-up interview that digs into the real reasons behind hesitation or over-reliance rather than generic attitude scores.
View templateInsurance Agent Performance & Trust Evaluation
Measures how policyholders experience their insurance agent — responsiveness, product knowledge, coverage fit, and claims support — with an AI follow-up that digs into the specific moment that shaped their trust (or distrust) in the agent. Built for agencies and carriers running periodic agent scorecards.
View templateAI Agent Autonomy, Escalation & Control Preferences Survey
Measures user expectations for AI agent autonomy, preferred escalation and handoff mechanisms, permissible actions, spending thresholds, and risk concerns. Designed for UX researchers and product teams building agentic AI workflows.
View templateAI Therapist Chatbot Experience and Trust Survey
Measures how people actually use an AI therapist chatbot, how helpful and trustworthy they find it, and whether it has ever felt unsafe or judgmental — for product and clinical safety teams. The AI follow-up interview reconstructs a specific real conversation instead of relying on vague satisfaction ratings.
View templateAI Monitoring of Work Quality: Employee Attitudes Survey
Measures how employees feel about AI-based monitoring and quality-scoring tools at work — covering comfort, trust, fairness, and behavior change — with an AI follow-up that reconstructs one specific moment monitoring affected them instead of abstract opinions. Built for HR, legal, and workplace-technology teams evaluating or rolling out AI monitoring practices.
View template