ArticleFrontiers in psychology2026
Cross-economy stability of predictor rankings for adolescent school belonging and mathematics anxiety: an explainable machine-learning analysis of PISA 2022.
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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: School belonging and mathematics anxiety reflect distinct relational and motivational processes, but cross-economy comparisons can blur distinctions among psychological relationships, model-based importance, and questionnaire availability. Methods: We analyzed Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) 2022 data from 613,744 students; outcome-valid samples comprised 561,339 students in 78 economies for school belonging and 475,792 students in 76 economies for mathematics anxiety. Per-economy LightGBM models and TreeSHAP rankings estimated relative predictive salience. Secondary post-hoc analyses assessed economy-level predictor availability, excluded unadministered modules, and fitted complementary association models. Official individualism scores covered 74 economies; outcome-eligible reference sets covered 73 for belonging and 70 for anxiety. Results: Eight of 12 focal combinations retained stable relative predictive salience and formed two psychologically interpretable predictor patterns. Perceived school safety, exposure to bullying, and student-teacher relations formed a relational-institutional pattern for belonging, while mathematics self-efficacy, 21st-century-skills self-efficacy, achievement, growth mindset, and persistence formed an efficacy-achievement-engagement pattern for mathematics anxiety. In separate weighted economy fixed-effects samples of 241,786-476,803 students, safety (β = 0.323) and student-teacher relations (β = 0.282) were positively associated with belonging, exposure to bullying was negatively associated (β = 0.253), and the five focal mathematics predictors were negatively associated with anxiety (β = -0.080 to -0.340). Continuous individualism interactions were small (absolute β ≤ 0.047), inconsistent, and multilevel sensitivity models retained the direction of every main association. Four combinations involving stress resistance, assertiveness, and cooperation failed the availability criterion because these indices were much less available in low-individualism economies and unevenly distributed across IDV terciles. Discussion: The evidence therefore supported stable relative predictive salience across economies more strongly than individualism-related differentiation. Together, the predictive rankings and association models provided complementary evidence for these two patterns but did not establish psychological mechanisms, causal effects, or transferable intervention benefits.
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.