Perceived institutional support, physical activity engagement, and sociocultural adaptation among Chinese international students in Kazakhstan: a variable-and person-centered approach

Xiao Zheying, Kuanysh Zhumabekova, Rong Fan, Fan Jian, Lixue Huai, Shu Wen

Frontiers in Psychology, 2026

Full text Open access: Gold Metadata (CSL-JSON)
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1854444
Data confidence 70 medium
How this score is calculated

It is built from checkable properties of the record itself: whether the article has a DOI, how many independent sources confirmed its data, whether the required fields are filled in, and how recent the latest confirmation is. Disagreement between sources and a missing identifier lower it. A value of 80 or above means the record was published without further checking; 60 to 79 means it is published at reduced confidence, with a manual check advisable. A record verified by an editor by hand is never pushed below 90 by a recalculation. This scores our data about the article, not the article itself.

Abstract

Background Sociocultural adaptation is a resource-demanding process for international students. Drawing on Conservation of Resources theory, this study examined perceived institutional support as a contextual resource and physical activity engagement as a behavioral resource-investment pathway among Chinese international students in Kazakhstan. Methods A cross-sectional online survey was completed by 353 Chinese international students. Confirmatory factor analysis was used to examine the proposed measurement structure and construct distinction. A latent structural equation model tested the indirect association between perceived institutional support and sociocultural adaptation through physical activity engagement. Latent profile analysis identified student subgroups based on 15 perceived institutional support indicators, and the BCH procedure compared physical activity engagement and sociocultural adaptation across profiles. Results The multidimensional CFA showed good fit, χ 2 (539) = 845.496, CFI = 0.982, TLI = 0.981, RMSEA = 0.040, and SRMR = 0.028, whereas the one-factor model showed poor fit. The SEM showed generally adequate fit across most indices, χ 2 (618) = 1012.610, CFI = 0.978, TLI = 0.976, RMSEA = 0.043, and SRMR = 0.094, although the SRMR was somewhat elevated. Perceived institutional support was positively associated with physical activity engagement (β = 0.494, p < 0.001), and physical activity engagement was positively associated with sociocultural adaptation (β = 0.198, p = 0.008). The standardized indirect effect was significant (β = 0.098, 95% CI [0.026, 0.198], p = 0.023), whereas the direct path from perceived institutional support to sociocultural adaptation was not significant after physical activity engagement was included. The latent profile analysis supported a four-profile solution: low support, academic-support-dominant, attachment-dominant, and high-support profiles. BCH tests showed significant profile differences in both physical activity engagement, χ 2 (3) = 31.443, p < 0.001, and sociocultural adaptation, χ 2 (3) = 18.215, p < 0.001. Conclusion The findings are consistent with a resource-based indirect pathway linking perceived institutional support, physical activity engagement, and sociocultural adaptation. The person-centered results further show that students occupy unequal resource positions, suggesting that support services for international students should be differentiated rather than uniform.