| Literature DB >> 35873249 |
Wang Min1, Gao Jun1, Liu Feng2.
Abstract
Student performance is a critical factor in academic achievement. Other factors like the students' self-efficacy, affective commitment, and psychological wellbeing play a significant role in shaping their performance. The present study aims to understand the role of self-efficacy, affective commitment, and psychological wellbeing in the students' performance. To carry out the study, the data were collected from the 308 students currently enrolled in the public sector universities of China. Smart-PLS is used to check the validation of the proposed hypotheses. Partial least square structural equation modeling is used for hypothesis testing. Results of the study show that self-efficacy does not play a role in the student performance in public sector universities; however, the affective commitment of the students plays a significant role in their performance. The psychological wellbeing of the students has a substantial influence on their performance. Furthermore, the results have also indicated that psychological wellbeing is an important indicator of student performance. It has also been revealed that psychological wellbeing significantly mediates the relationship between self-efficacy, affective commitment, and student performance. The students who availed of the digital mental health services were found to have a low relationship between their self-efficacy and performance.Entities:
Keywords: affective commitment; digital mental health service; psychological wellbeing; self-efficacy; students' performance
Year: 2022 PMID: 35873249 PMCID: PMC9300914 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyt.2022.946793
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Psychiatry ISSN: 1664-0640 Impact factor: 5.435
Figure 1Conceptual framework.
Demographics analysis.
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|
|
| ||
| Male | 151 | 49.02% |
| Female | 157 | 50.98% |
|
| ||
| 18–23 | 165 | 53.57% |
| 24–28 | 128 | 41.55% |
| Above 28 | 15 | 4.8% |
|
| ||
| Bachelor | 175 | 56.81% |
| Master | 122 | 39.61% |
| Ph.D | 11 | 3.57% |
N = 308.
Figure 2Measurement model. AC, affective commitment; DMHS, digital mental health services; SE, self-efficacy; SP, student performance; PsWB, psychological wellbeing.
Factor loadings, Cronbach Alpha, composite reliability, and AVE.
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Affective commitment | AC1 | 0.810 | 0.865 | 0.899 | 0.598 |
| AC2 | 0.796 | ||||
| AC3 | 0.791 | ||||
| AC4 | 0.792 | ||||
| AC5 | 0.688 | ||||
| AC6 | 0.757 | ||||
| Digital mental health | DMH1 | 0.882 | 0.904 | 0.929 | 0.722 |
| DMH2 | 0.865 | ||||
| DMH3 | 0.874 | ||||
| DMH4 | 0.832 | ||||
| DMH5 | 0.793 | ||||
| Self-efficacy | SE1 | 0.895 | 0.917 | 0.927 | 0.726 |
| SE2 | 0.854 | ||||
| SE3 | 0.897 | ||||
| SE4 | 0.897 | ||||
| SE5 | 0.877 | ||||
| SE6 | 0.670 | ||||
| SE7 | 0.855 | ||||
| SE8 | 0.894 | ||||
| Psychological wellbeing | PsWB1 | 0.632 | 0.881 | 0.913 | 0.681 |
| PsWB2 | 0.874 | ||||
| PsWB3 | 0.864 | ||||
| PsWB4 | 0.845 | ||||
| PsWB5 | 0.883 | ||||
| Students' performance | sP1 | 0.848 | 0.868 | 0.910 | 0.716 |
| sP2 | 0.910 | ||||
| sP3 | 0.795 | ||||
| sP4 | 0.828 | ||||
HTMT ratio.
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AC | |||||
| DMHS | 0.597 | ||||
| SE | 0.830 | 0.474 | |||
| SP | 0.829 | 0.593 | 0.679 | ||
| PsWB | 0.659 | 0.587 | 0.611 | 0.776 |
AC, affective commitment; DMHS, digital mental health services; SE, self-efficacy; SP, student performance; PsWB, psychological wellbeing.
Fronell and Larcker criteria.
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AC | 0.773 | ||||
| DMHS | 0.529 | 0.850 | |||
| SE | 0.756 | 0.442 | 0.858 | ||
| SP | 0.730 | 0.541 | 0.626 | 0.846 | |
| PsWB | 0.591 | 0.531 | 0.570 | 0.699 | 0.825 |
AC, affective commitment; DMHS, digital mental health services; SE, self-efficacy; SP, student performance; PsWB, psychological wellbeing.
Figure 3Structural model. AC, affective commitment; DMHS, digital mental health services; SE, self efficacy; SP, student performance; PsWB, psychological wellbeing.
Direct effects.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SE → SP | H1 | −0.018 | −0.010 | 0.078 | 0.227 | 0.821 | Rejected |
| AC → SP | H2 | 0.428 | 0.430 | 0.077 | 5.559 | 0.000 | Accepted |
| PsWB → SP | H3 | 0.350 | 0.343 | 0.055 | 6.319 | 0.000 | Accepted |
AC, affective commitment; DMHS, digital mental health services; SE, self-efficacy; SP, student performance; PsWB, psychological wellbeing.
Indirect effects.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SE → PsWB → SP | H4 | 0.097 | 0.093 | 0.035 | 2.730 | 0.007 | Accepted |
| AC → PsWB → SP | H5 | 0.131 | 0.130 | 0.035 | 3.686 | 0.000 | Accepted |
AC, affective commitment; DMHS, digital mental health services; SE, self-efficacy; SP, student performance; PsWB, psychological wellbeing.
Moderating effects.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DMHS | H6 | −0.109 | −0.109 | 0.043 | 2.533 | 0.012 | Accepted |
DMHS, digital mental health services; SE, self-efficacy; SP, student performance.
Relationship between variables.