Cited by 189Perfectionism, Procrastination, Anxiety StudiesImpact of Technology on AdolescentsStudent Stress and Coping

The Mediating and Buffering Effect of Academic Self-Efficacy on the Relationship between Smartphone Addiction and Academic Procrastination

Li, Ling, Gao, Haiyin, Xu, Yanhua·2020·Computers & Education

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.compedu.2020.104001

Cites

65 of 65 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 66 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Li, L., Gao, H., & Xu, Y.
Affiliations
  • Memorial University of Newfoundland (CA)
  • Fu Jen Catholic University (TW)
  • Capital Normal University (CN)
Corresponding author
  • Li, Ling
  • Xu, Yanhua
Venue
Computers & Education
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-12
Volume
159
Pages
104001
ISSN
0360-1315 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3082176005
Cited by
189
References
66
Citations by year
2026: 28 · 2025: 33 · 2024: 31 · 2023: 44 · 2022: 37 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 2
FWCI
9.71
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Computers & Education (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Perfectionism, Procrastination, Anxiety Studies
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Impact of Technology on Adolescents
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Student Stress and Coping
Keywords
smartphone addiction, academic procrastination, academic self-efficacy, mediating effect, buffering effect, university students

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review