ArticleFrontiers in psychology2026
Beyond technology acceptance: AI-application readiness and continuance intention among Chinese university students-a measurement-aware secondary analysis.
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
Purpose: This measurement-aware secondary analysis examines whether five theoretically distinct AI-acceptance and continuance domains are empirically separable in 301 records from a public dataset described by its repository as university-student responses from mainland China. Method: The analysis used 301 records in a public workbook described by its repository as responses from university students in mainland China. Five 4-item questionnaire blocks were reconstructed from the public workbook. The measurement audit combined internal-consistency assessment, HTMT, principal-component analysis, one- versus five-factor CFA benchmarks, and a collapsed descriptive 16-item summary score. HC3-robust regressions were retained as descriptive composite benchmarks, while bootstrap and fsQCA analyses were treated as supplementary diagnostics. Perceived practical usefulness refers to respondents' perceived career, efficiency, competitiveness, and problem-solving value rather than verified learning, employment, or institutional outcomes. Results: The five domains were internally reliable but not empirically distinct. HTMT estimates ranged from 0.983 to 1.007, the first unrotated component explained 58.75% of item variance, and the five-factor CFA provided negligible improvement over the one-factor model, with latent correlations ranging from 0.980 to 0.997. A collapsed 16-item descriptive composite was strongly associated with continuance intention ( Contribution: The study provides a reproducible measurement critique of a public AI-acceptance dataset. Its central finding is inadequate discriminant separation among the five affirmative questionnaire blocks. Their shared covariance can be summarized descriptively, but the present data cannot determine whether that common dimension is substantive, method-related, or both, and it should not be treated as a newly validated AI-readiness construct.
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.