Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40672852›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2025

Learning agility, self-efficacy, and resilience as pathways to mental health in higher education: insights from a mixed-methods study.

He Huang, Heung Kou

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

He HuangDepartment of Education, Graduate School, Sehan University, Yeongam-gun, Republic of Korea.
Heung KouDepartment of Education, Graduate School, Sehan University, Yeongam-gun, Republic of Korea.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: This study examines how learning agility, academic self-efficacy, academic buoyancy, and psychological well-being interrelate to influence mental health and factors theoretically linked to academic success in undergraduate students. Methods: Using an explanatory sequential mixed-methods design, quantitative data were gathered from 804 undergraduates using validated scales for each construct. Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) tested hypothesized relationships, and multi-group analysis explored gender differences in the model. In a qualitative phase, semi-structured interviews with 30 participants provided deeper insights into the quantitative findings, with thematic analysis of adaptive learning, resilience, and well-being. Results: SEM findings showed that learning agility and academic self-efficacy positively predicted academic buoyancy and psychological well-being, with academic buoyancy partially mediating these relationships. Gender differences were non-significant, supporting model generalizability across genders. Qualitative analysis emphasized adaptive learning strategies, resilience in overcoming academic stressors, and psychological well-being as a process, with social support identified as essential in fostering resilience. Discussion: The findings underscore the importance of learning agility, self-efficacy, and academic buoyancy in supporting students' academic resilience and mental health. By enhancing these factors within academic settings, institutions can promote student well-being and engagement, reinforcing the link between psychological well-being and academic achievement.

Indexed as

academic buoyancyacademic self-efficacyhigher educationlearning agilitymixed-methods studypsychological well-beingresiliencestructural equation modeling

Identifiers

PMID40672852
PMCPMC12263944

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.