ArticleFrontiers in psychology2026
Cognitive-affective configuration of university students' continuance intention in online learning.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Most studies of continuance intention in online learning ask which psychological variables predict it. This study asks a different question: how are those variables arranged in relation to one another? Drawing on TAM, ECM, and a Control-Value-informed perspective, we treat continuance intention as a cognitive-affective configuration rather than as a belief-to-intention pathway dominated by a single variable. Methods: Survey data from 421 university students were analysed using five comparative models: BiLSTM, BiLSTM-Attention, CNN-BiLSTM, Transformer, and Random Forest. Results: The retained four-construct solution showed high internal consistency and strong convergent validity, although discriminant validity required cautious interpretation, particularly for the relationship between Affective Appraisal and Continuance Intention. Predictive performance was consistently strong across models (mean AUC = 0.936-0.954). Although the Friedman test detected overall variation in AUC, no pairwise comparison survived multiple-comparison correction. The BiLSTM-Attention model showed strong illustrative performance, but was interpreted as an exploratory computational tool rather than as evidence of temporal, recursive, or causal psychological structure. Discussion: The findings suggest that continuance intention in online learning is associated with a closely connected pattern of usefulness, trust, and affective appraisal rather than with usefulness alone. Practically, the results imply that platform design should extend beyond functional optimisation to include trust-building and support for positive evaluative experience.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.