ArticleFrontiers in psychology2026
Exploring university physical education teachers' artificial intelligence use intention profiles: a Q-methodology study.
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Artificial intelligence is increasingly entering university teaching, research, and administrative work. This study used Q methodology to examine university physical education teachers' AI use intention profiles and to clarify how they position AI within teaching, research, and professional practice. Methods: A 42-statement Q-set was developed from theoretical models, empirical literature, policy texts, and expert interviews. Forty-five Chinese university physical education teachers completed an online Q-sorting task through Q-sortware, ranking the statements from -5 to +5 and providing explanations for their extreme choices. The Q-sorts were analyzed using Ken-Q Analysis with centroid factor extraction and varimax rotation. Results: The analysis revealed four distinct profiles with different understandings of AI use in physical education: (F1) AI as a practical assistant-improving teaching efficiency, (F2) AI within embodied boundaries-preserving professional judgment, (F3) AI for research support-enhancing academic productivity, and (F4) AI brings more risks than relief-resisting added burdens. These profiles indicate that teachers did not simply accept or reject AI, but located its value and risks differently across routine teaching support, embodied classroom judgment, academic production, and added technological burden. Discussion: These findings show that university physical education teachers' AI use intention is shaped by different professional orientations toward teaching efficiency, embodied judgment, research support, and perceived risk. Consequently, AI training and institutional support should be differentiated according to teachers' work contexts, with greater attention to the embodied, safety-sensitive, and professionally accountable nature of physical education teaching.
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.