ArticleFrontiers in psychology2026
A study on AI-enabled course development, AI proficiency, and first-year students' academic and psychological adjustment.
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
Background: The rapid integration of digital technologies and generative artificial intelligence (AI) into higher education has reshaped first-year students' learning experiences and self-reported psychological adjustment. Using a cross-sectional self-report design, this study examined the statistical associations among AI-enabled course development, AI proficiency, academic adjustment, and a composite indicator of self-reported psychological adjustment. Methods: A cross-sectional self-report survey was conducted among 551 first-year university students from a single institution. Descriptive statistics, Pearson correlations, multiple and hierarchical regressions, Bootstrap mediation analysis (PROCESS), moderated mediation analysis, and structural equation modeling (AMOS) were employed to examine the hypothesized associations. Causal inference is not warranted given the cross-sectional and self-report nature of the data. Results: Students reported high satisfaction with AI-enabled course development and strong acceptance of AI learning tools, with over 80% recognizing AI's learning efficiency and actively using AI for study. However, self-reported indicators of psychological strain were endorsed by more than two-thirds of the sample; these items are descriptive self-report indicators and do not constitute clinical diagnoses. Regression analyses showed that course development satisfaction and AI proficiency were statistically and positively associated with emotional management, stress coping, and academic adjustment. Hierarchical regression demonstrated that these variables substantially improved model explanatory power, with the highest explained variance observed for academic adjustment ( Conclusion: In this cross-sectional sample, AI-enabled course development was statistically and positively associated with first-year students' self-reported psychological adjustment, both directly and indirectly through self-reported AI proficiency. Excessive self-reported AI-related stress attenuated these positive associations. Because the design is cross-sectional and self-report-based, these findings should be interpreted as statistical associations rather than causal effects. Universities may consider strengthening AI literacy training, optimizing course design, managing technology-related workload, and providing psychological support to maximize the potential benefits of AI-integrated education; future longitudinal and multi-institution studies are needed to test these associations more rigorously.
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.