## 3 Distributed Cognition-Based Data Analysis and Results
### Reliability and Validity Analysis  
The results of validity and reliability analysis in Table 4 show that all latent variables exhibit good levels of reliability and validity: The internal consistency reliability (Cronbach's \(\alpha\)) ranges from 0.786 to 0.874, which conforms to the terms and conditions for checking reliability and validity proposed by [PERSON] and [PERSON] [36]. The combined reliability (CR) \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline
**Variable** & **Item** & **Mean** & **Std. Dev** & **Skewness** & **Kurtosis** \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{**Learner**} & LF1 & 3.321 & 1.06 & \(-\)0.75 & 0.153 \\  & LF2 & 3.636 & 1.333 & \(-\)0.728 & \(-\)0.531 \\  & LF3 & 3.531 & 1.096 & \(-\)0.5 & \(-\)0.316 \\  & LF4 & 3.761 & 1.254 & \(-\)0.928 & \(-\)0.124 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{**Peer Factor**} & PF1 & 3.673 & 0.972 & \(-\)0.891 & 0.303 \\  & PF2 & 3.639 & 1.161 & \(-\)1.122 & 0.406 \\  & PF3 & 3.866 & 1.182 & \(-\)0.917 & \(-\)0.082 \\  & PF4 & 3.509 & 1.205 & \(-\)0.891 & \(-\)0.072 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{**Environmental**} & EF1 & 3.668 & 1.11 & \(-\)0.98 & 0.37 \\  & EF2 & 3.616 & 1.034 & \(-\)0.574 & \(-\)0.232 \\  & EF3 & 3.381 & 1.053 & \(-\)0.306 & \(-\)0.174 \\  & EF4 & 3.509 & 1.157 & \(-\)0.708 & \(-\)0.1 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{**Perceived**} & PU1 & 3.415 & 1.159 & \(-\)0.478 & \(-\)0.296 \\  & PU2 & 3.69 & 1.212 & \(-\)0.581 & \(-\)0.544 \\  & PU3 & 3.679 & 1.227 & \(-\)0.59 & \(-\)0.56 \\  & PU4 & 3.639 & 1.2 & \(-\)0.378 & \(-\)0.862 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{**Perceived**} & PEU1 & 3.673 & 1.137 & \(-\)0.72 & \(-\)0.205 \\  & PEU2 & 3.304 & 1.155 & \(-\)0.453 & \(-\)0.267 \\  & PEU3 & 3.577 & 1.104 & \(-\)0.631 & \(-\)0.122 \\  & PEU4 & 3.75 & 1.268 & \(-\)0.739 & \(-\)0.518 \\  & PEU5 & 3.614 & 1.311 & \(-\)0.603 & \(-\)0.666 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{**Perceived**} & PE1 & 3.599 & 1.192 & \(-\)0.996 & 0.131 \\  & PE2 & 3.665 & 1.308 & \(-\)0.745 & \(-\)0.499 \\  & PE3 & 3.54 & 1.207 & \(-\)0.742 & \(-\)0.176 \\  & PE4 & 3.537 & 1.015 & \(-\)0.907 & 0.367 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{**Satisfaction**} & SA1 & 3.653 & 1.29 & \(-\)0.904 & \(-\)0.204 \\  & SA2 & 3.832 & 1.339 & \(-\)1.057 & \(-\)0.045 \\  & SA3 & 3.736 & 1.155 & \(-\)1.089 & 0.379 \\  & SA4 & 3.588 & 1.09 & \(-\)0.87 & 0.161 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{**Continued**} & WTCTU1 & 3.361 & 1.074 & \(-\)0.243 & \(-\)0.327 \\  & WTCTU2 & 3.281 & 1.176 & \(-\)0.462 & \(-\)0.339 \\ \cline{1-1}  & WTCTU3 & 3.719 & 1.226 & \(-\)0.927 & \(-\)0.069 \\ \cline{1-1}  & WTCTU4 & 3.651 & 1.222 & \(-\)0.537 & \(-\)0.588 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Normality of data distribution. ranged from 0.739 to 0.790, all exceeding the standard threshold of 0.7. The average variance extraction (AVE) met the requirements except for the perceived usefulness (PU = 0.501), which was slightly lower than 0.5, for the rest of the constructs (0.552-0.675) [37]. Factor loading analysis indicated that most indicators reached a moderate or higher association strength (0.671-0.847), among which some items of perceived entertainment (PE1 = 0.838), satisfaction (SA3 = 0.847), and willingness to continue use (WTCTU3 = 0.822) showed a strong association (>0.8). It is worth noting that the measurement models of perceived ease of Use (PEU) and satisfaction (SA) performed the best (CR > 0.76, AVE > 0.56), while the AVE value of perceived usefulness (PU) was relatively low, which might reflect that the measurement accuracy of its indicators PU4 (0.671) and PU2 (0.697) needs to be improved. Overall, the measurement model has a sufficient basis for reliability and validity. The discriminant validity test is evaluated by comparing the square root of the average variance extract (AVE) of each variable with its Pearson correlation coefficient. As shown in Table 5, the AVE square root values (0.765-0.994) of all variables were significantly