Esta página se tradujo automáticamente y no se garantiza la precisión de la traducción. por favor refiérase a versión inglesa para un texto fuente.

The Creative Team Member: A Study of the Influence of AI Integration Timing on Brainstorming and Ideation

11 de julio de 2026 actualizado por: Mohit Bhandari, McMaster University

The Effect of Artificial Intelligence Integration Timing on Group Brainstorming and Ideation in Undergraduate Students: A Randomized Controlled Trial

This study aims to examine how the timing of artificial intelligence (AI) integration during group brainstorming activities affects the creativity and ideation of participants. Undergraduate student participants will be randomly allocated into teams of four to complete a structured 12-minute brainstorming task. The study utilizes a three-group experimental design to compare three conditions: no AI access, AI access from the outset of the session, and AI access introduced halfway through the session. The standardized generative AI tool used is ChatGPT Pro. The creative output produced by each group will be evaluated by a panel of independent expert judges using the Consensual Assessment Technique (CAT).

Descripción general del estudio

Descripción detallada

Artificial intelligence (AI) tools are increasingly used in academic and professional environments, yet little is known about how the timing of AI's introduction during a collaborative brainstorming process shapes the creativity of the ideas produced. While recent literature suggests that human-AI collaboration can increase the likelihood of successful idea generation when AI is present throughout an entire session, the specific effect of integration timing remains a gap in the literature. This study aims to provide early data on whether AI functions more effectively as an early collaborator, a later resource, or whether its absence supports more creative thinking.

The study recruits undergraduate students enrolled in a summer research program, who are then randomly assigned to teams of four using a digital randomizer. Over the course of nine sessions, these teams participate in structured, 12-minute collaborative brainstorming tasks focused on designing strategies to address common university student challenges. To mitigate the influence of individual baseline characteristics on the group output, participants are re-randomized into new teams for each separate session.

To standardize the technological intervention and eliminate technical confounders, the study utilizes ChatGPT Pro (GPT-4o architecture) on pre-set devices. At the conclusion of the timed task, a designated team scribe submits the group's collaboratively generated idea list and their selected best idea via a secure, digital case report form.

Following data collection, all session outputs are immediately de-identified and assigned neutral identifiers. A panel of independent expert judges, blinded to the condition assignments, evaluate the output of each group.

Tipo de estudio

Intervencionista

Inscripción (Estimado)

16

Fase

  • No aplica

Contactos y Ubicaciones

Esta sección proporciona los datos de contacto de quienes realizan el estudio e información sobre dónde se lleva a cabo este estudio.

Estudio Contacto

  • Nombre: Alexandra Leone, BSc
  • Número de teléfono: 44490 905-527-4322
  • Correo electrónico: leonea5@mcmaster.ca

Copia de seguridad de contactos de estudio

Ubicaciones de estudio

    • Ontario
      • Hamilton, Ontario, Canadá, L8S 4L8
        • McMaster University
        • Contacto:
        • Contacto:
          • Alexandra Leone, BSc.
          • Número de teléfono: 44490 905-527-4322
          • Correo electrónico: leonea5@mcmaster.ca
        • Sub-Investigador:
          • Kaya Bhandari
        • Sub-Investigador:
          • Alexandra Leone, BSc
        • Investigador principal:
          • Mohit Bhandari, MD, PhD, FRCSC

Criterios de participación

Los investigadores buscan personas que se ajusten a una determinada descripción, denominada criterio de elegibilidad. Algunos ejemplos de estos criterios son el estado de salud general de una persona o tratamientos previos.

Criterio de elegibilidad

Edades elegibles para estudiar

  • Niño
  • Adulto
  • Adulto Mayor

Acepta Voluntarios Saludables

Sí

Descripción

Inclusion Criteria:

  • Enrolled as a student in the designated summer research program
  • Able to provide voluntary informed consent
  • Proficient in reading and communicating in English (required to engage with the scenarios and the artificial intelligence tool)

Exclusion Criteria:

-Not enrolled as an undergraduate student

Plan de estudios

Esta sección proporciona detalles del plan de estudio, incluido cómo está diseñado el estudio y qué mide el estudio.

¿Cómo está diseñado el estudio?

Detalles de diseño

  • Propósito principal: Otro
  • Asignación: Aleatorizado
  • Modelo Intervencionista: Asignación paralela
  • Enmascaramiento: Único

Armas e Intervenciones

Grupo de participantes/brazo
Intervención / Tratamiento
Sin intervención: No Artificial Intelligence Tools (Control)
Across nine separate sessions, teams of four participants will complete all nine distinct student-struggle scenarios (one scenario per 12-minute session). In each session, participants engage in a structured collaborative brainstorming task entirely without access to artificial intelligence tools for the full 12 minutes. At the conclusion of each session, the team must evaluate their generated list and select their single best idea to solve that specific scenario.
Experimental: Artificial Intelligence First (Early Integration)
Across nine separate sessions, teams of four participants will complete all nine distinct student-struggle scenarios (one scenario per 12-minute session). In each session, at minute 0, participants input the scenario prompt into ChatGPT Pro (GPT-4o architecture). The team receives a single initial output of ideas and does not engage in further back-and-forth dialogue with the tool. Participants use this initial artificial intelligence response as a baseline to continue human brainstorming and ideation for the remainder of the 12 minutes, ultimately selecting and submitting their single best idea for that specific scenario.
The introduction of ChatGPT Pro (GPT-4o architecture) at the beginning (minute 0) of a 12-minute group brainstorming session. A single prompt containing the scenario is submitted to generate an initial set of ideas, with no further back-and-forth dialogue permitted. This single artificial intelligence output serves as the baseline for the team's subsequent human ideation.
Experimental: Artificial Intelligence Last (Late Integration)
Across nine separate sessions, teams of four participants will complete all nine distinct student-struggle scenarios (one scenario per 12-minute session). In each session, participants brainstorm independently without technology for the first 6 minutes. At minute 6, the team inputs the scenario prompt along with their already-generated human ideas into ChatGPT Pro (GPT-4o architecture). Receiving a single output with no further back-and-forth dialogue, the team uses the artificial intelligence response to continue ideating for the final 6 minutes, ultimately selecting and submitting their single best idea for that specific scenario.
The introduction of ChatGPT Pro (GPT-4o architecture) at the midpoint (minute 6) of a 12-minute group brainstorming session. A single prompt containing both the scenario and the team's already-generated human ideas is submitted, with no further back-and-forth dialogue permitted. This single artificial intelligence output is used to guide the team's human ideation for the remaining 6 minutes.

¿Qué mide el estudio?

Medidas de resultado primarias

Medida de resultado
Medida Descripción
Periodo de tiempo
Creativity Score of the Selected Best Idea
Periodo de tiempo: Evaluated cross-sectionally upon the conclusion of each 12-minute session, across the 9 study sessions.
The primary outcome is the mean expert creativity rating assigned to each team's top idea, across each of the 9 sessions, as assessed by independent judges using the Consensual Assessment Technique (CAT). Higher average scores denote a more creative output, while lower scores denote a less creative output.
Evaluated cross-sectionally upon the conclusion of each 12-minute session, across the 9 study sessions.

Medidas de resultado secundarias

Medida de resultado
Medida Descripción
Periodo de tiempo
Overall Creativity Score of Full Idea List
Periodo de tiempo: Evaluated cross-sectionally upon the conclusion of each 12-minute session, across the 9 study sessions.
The collective creative quality of the entire list of ideas generated by the team during the session, evaluated by independent expert judges using the Consensual Assessment Technique (CAT).
Evaluated cross-sectionally upon the conclusion of each 12-minute session, across the 9 study sessions.
Number of Ideas Generated During the 12-Minute Session
Periodo de tiempo: Evaluated cross-sectionally upon the conclusion of each 12-minute session, across the 9 study sessions.
The total number of ideas generated (fluency) will be reported with the explicit methodological limitation that AI generation speed inherently outpaces human typing speed. Fluency will be analysed purely observationally, as the 12-minute constraint does not control for the mechanical advantage of the AI tool.
Evaluated cross-sectionally upon the conclusion of each 12-minute session, across the 9 study sessions.
Qualitative Resemblance of the Team's Output to Typical AI-Generated Responses
Periodo de tiempo: Evaluated cross-sectionally upon the conclusion of each 12-minute session, across the 9 study sessions.
This will be subjectively assessed by the expert judges on a 1-5 scale (anchored from 'strongly AI-typical' to 'strongly human'), independent of the CAT creativity evaluation.
Evaluated cross-sectionally upon the conclusion of each 12-minute session, across the 9 study sessions.

Colaboradores e Investigadores

Aquí es donde encontrará personas y organizaciones involucradas en este estudio.

Patrocinador

Investigadores

  • Investigador principal: Mohit Bhandari, MD, PhD, FRCSC, McMaster University

Publicaciones y enlaces útiles

La persona responsable de ingresar información sobre el estudio proporciona voluntariamente estas publicaciones. Estos pueden ser sobre cualquier cosa relacionada con el estudio.

Publicaciones Generales

Fechas de registro del estudio

Estas fechas rastrean el progreso del registro del estudio y los envíos de resultados resumidos a ClinicalTrials.gov. Los registros del estudio y los resultados informados son revisados ​​por la Biblioteca Nacional de Medicina (NLM) para asegurarse de que cumplan con los estándares de control de calidad específicos antes de publicarlos en el sitio web público.

Fechas importantes del estudio

Inicio del estudio (Estimado)

20 de julio de 2026

Finalización primaria (Estimado)

15 de agosto de 2026

Finalización del estudio (Estimado)

15 de septiembre de 2026

Fechas de registro del estudio

Enviado por primera vez

5 de julio de 2026

Primero enviado que cumplió con los criterios de control de calidad

5 de julio de 2026

Publicado por primera vez (Actual)

9 de julio de 2026

Actualizaciones de registros de estudio

Última actualización publicada (Actual)

14 de julio de 2026

Última actualización enviada que cumplió con los criterios de control de calidad

11 de julio de 2026

Última verificación

1 de julio de 2026

Más información

Términos relacionados con este estudio

Plan de datos de participantes individuales (IPD)

¿Planea compartir datos de participantes individuales (IPD)?

NO

Descripción del plan IPD

Individual participant data (IPD) will not be shared publicly due to an elevated risk of deductive re-identification. While numeric outcomes could be anonymized, the primary data consists of raw qualitative text (transcribed group brainstorming ideas and solutions) generated by a highly specific, geographically localized cohort of undergraduate students enrolled in the 2026 summer research program. Because the 2026 cohort size is small and the context is unique, sharing raw textual transcripts poses a risk of accidentally exposing the identities of the participants through specific phrasing, examples, or contextual clues, despite de-identification efforts. Therefore, to ensure participant confidentiality in accordance with institutional ethics guidelines, the raw data will remain confidential within the primary research team.

Información sobre medicamentos y dispositivos, documentos del estudio

Estudia un producto farmacéutico regulado por la FDA de EE. UU.

No

Estudia un producto de dispositivo regulado por la FDA de EE. UU.

No

Esta información se obtuvo directamente del sitio web clinicaltrials.gov sin cambios. Si tiene alguna solicitud para cambiar, eliminar o actualizar los detalles de su estudio, comuníquese con register@clinicaltrials.gov. Tan pronto como se implemente un cambio en clinicaltrials.gov, también se actualizará automáticamente en nuestro sitio web. .

Suscribir