CreativityNCT07693803
The Creative Team Member: A Study of the Influence of AI Integration Timing on Brainstorming and Ideation
A study testing Artificial Intelligence First (Early Integration) and Artificial Intelligence Last (Late Integration) in people with Creativity, run by McMaster University at 1 site in Canada.
Trial summary
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. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Any ageHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Creativity
- What is being tested?
- Artificial Intelligence First (Early Integration) and Artificial Intelligence Last (Late Integration)
- Type of treatment
- Lifestyle or therapy programme
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 16 participants
- Where
- 1 siteCanada
- Study dates
- 20 Jul 2026to 15 Sep 2026
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- Not yet: the study is under way
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages Any age
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Child, Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- 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)
Who cannot join
- -Not enrolled as an undergraduate student
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country. Contact the study team or a site near you to ask about taking part.
Kaya Bhandari contact
Canada1 site
McMaster University
Hamilton, Ontario, L8S 4L8
Alexandra Leone, BSc., 905-527-4322 ext. 44490, leonea5@mcmaster.ca
Kaya Bhandari, bhandk5@mcmaster.ca
About this study
Official title: 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).
Read the detailed description
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.
- Conditions
- Creativity
- Being tested
- Artificial Intelligence First (Early Integration), Artificial Intelligence Last (Late Integration)
- Keywords
- Artificial Intelligence, Generative AI, ChatGPT, Human-AI Collaboration, Problem Solving, Teamwork, Undergraduate Students, Ideation, Brainstorming, Creativity
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Artificial Intelligence First (Early Integration)Behavioural
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.
Artificial Intelligence Last (Late Integration)Behavioural
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.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| No Artificial Intelligence Tools (Control) | No intervention | 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. |
| Artificial Intelligence First (Early Integration) | Experimental | 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. Receives: Behavioral: Artificial Intelligence First (Early Integration) |
| Artificial Intelligence Last (Late Integration) | Experimental | 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. Receives: Behavioral: Artificial Intelligence Last (Late Integration) |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Creativity Score of the Selected Best Idea
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.
Measured: Evaluated cross-sectionally upon the conclusion of each 12-minute session, across the 9 study sessions.
Secondary outcomes (3)
Overall Creativity Score of Full Idea List
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).
Measured: 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
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.
Measured: 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
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.
Measured: Evaluated cross-sectionally upon the conclusion of each 12-minute session, across the 9 study sessions.
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted9 Jul 2026
- Study start20 Jul 2026 (estimated)
- Primary completion15 Aug 2026 (estimated)
- Study completion15 Sep 2026 (estimated)
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (6)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for CreativityStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by McMaster UniversityThe sponsor's other registered studies.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Other
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Model description
- The study uses a three-group experimental design where participants are allocated into teams of four and randomly assigned to one of three parallel experimental conditions: No AI, AI First, and AI Last. This design allows for the direct comparison of how the timing and availability of artificial intelligence access shapes creative output during a structured brainstorming task under otherwise identical conditions.
- Masking
- Single blind
- Who is masked
- Outcomes assessor
- Enrolment
- 16 participants (estimated)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- McMaster University
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Mohit Bhandari, McMaster University
- Investigators
- Mohit Bhandari, MD, PhD, FRCSC, Principal investigator, McMaster University
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07693803
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 20358
- Status last verified
- Jul 2026
- First submitted
- 5 Jul 2026
- Last updated
- 14 Jul 2026
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No: 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.
Publications
Çelik, T. İ., & Akay, C. (2025). The Impact of Brainstorming Technique on Academic Achievement and Creative Thinking: A Meta-Analysis Study. Sage Open, 15(3). 62
Muller, M., Houde, S., Gonzalez, G., Brimijoin, K., Ross, S. I., Silva Moran, D. A., & Weisz, J. D. (2024). Group brainstorming with an AI agent: Creating and selecting ideas. Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Computational Creativity (ICCC 2024). https://computationalcreativity.net/iccc24/papers/ICCC24_paper_18.pdf
Amabile, Teresa. (1982). Social psychology of creativity: A consensual assessment technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 43. 997-1013. 10.1037/0022-3514.43.5.997
Koo TK, Li MY. A Guideline of Selecting and Reporting Intraclass Correlation Coefficients for Reliability Research. J Chiropr Med. 2016 Jun;15(2):155-63. doi: 10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012. Epub 2016 Mar 31.
PubMed 27330520Zhang C, Shao Y, Yuan Y, Shen W. Artificial Intelligence Reshapes Creativity: A Multidimensional Evaluation. Psych J. 2025 Dec;14(6):831-840. doi: 10.1002/pchj.70042. Epub 2025 Aug 5.
PubMed 40764253Lee BC, Chung JJ. An empirical investigation of the impact of ChatGPT on creativity. Nat Hum Behav. 2024 Oct;8(10):1906-1914. doi: 10.1038/s41562-024-01953-1. Epub 2024 Aug 12.
PubMed 39134737
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 14 Jul 2026. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- The Effect of Artificial Intelligence Integration Timing on Group Brainstorming and Ideation in Undergraduate Students: A Randomized Controlled Trial
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07693803
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- 20358
- Conditions
- Creativity
- Keywords
- Artificial Intelligence, Generative AI, ChatGPT, Human-AI Collaboration, Problem Solving, Teamwork, Undergraduate Students, Ideation
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Not yet recruiting
- Enrolment
- 16 participants (estimated)
- Lead sponsor
- McMaster UniversityUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 20 Jul 2026 (estimated)
- Primary completion
- 15 Aug 2026 (estimated)
- Study completion
- 15 Sep 2026 (estimated)
- First posted
- 9 Jul 2026 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
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).
Detailed description
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.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Other
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind (outcomes assessor)
- Number of arms
- 3
- Model description
- The study uses a three-group experimental design where participants are allocated into teams of four and randomly assigned to one of three parallel experimental conditions: No AI, AI First, and AI Last. This design allows for the direct comparison of how the timing and availability of artificial intelligence access shapes creative output during a structured brainstorming task under otherwise identical conditions.
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| No Artificial Intelligence Tools (Control) | No intervention | –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. |
| Artificial Intelligence First (Early Integration) | Experimental | Behavioral: 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. |
| Artificial Intelligence Last (Late Integration) | Experimental | Behavioral: 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. |
Who may qualify
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Child, Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (3 listed)
- 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)
Key exclusion criteria (1 listed)
- -Not enrolled as an undergraduate student
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Artificial Intelligence First (Early Integration)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. | Behavioural | Artificial Intelligence First (Early Integration) |
| Artificial Intelligence Last (Late Integration)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. | Behavioural | Artificial Intelligence Last (Late Integration) |
Primary outcome
Creativity Score of the Selected Best Idea
Time frame: 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.
3 secondary outcomes
Overall Creativity Score of Full Idea List
Time frame: 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
Time frame: 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
Time frame: Evaluated cross-sectionally upon the conclusion of each 12-minute session, across the 9 study sessions.
Results and safety
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 14 Jul 2026.
- BackgroundÇelik, T. İ., & Akay, C. (2025). The Impact of Brainstorming Technique on Academic Achievement and Creative Thinking: A Meta-Analysis Study. Sage Open, 15(3). 62
- BackgroundMuller, M., Houde, S., Gonzalez, G., Brimijoin, K., Ross, S. I., Silva Moran, D. A., & Weisz, J. D. (2024). Group brainstorming with an AI agent: Creating and selecting ideas. Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Computational Creativity (ICCC 2024). https://computationalcreativity.net/iccc24/papers/ICCC24_paper_18.pdf
- BackgroundAmabile, Teresa. (1982). Social psychology of creativity: A consensual assessment technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 43. 997-1013. 10.1037/0022-3514.43.5.997
- Background: PubMed 27330520Koo TK, Li MY. A Guideline of Selecting and Reporting Intraclass Correlation Coefficients for Reliability Research. J Chiropr Med. 2016 Jun;15(2):155-63. doi: 10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012. Epub 2016 Mar 31.
- Background: PubMed 40764253Zhang C, Shao Y, Yuan Y, Shen W. Artificial Intelligence Reshapes Creativity: A Multidimensional Evaluation. Psych J. 2025 Dec;14(6):831-840. doi: 10.1002/pchj.70042. Epub 2025 Aug 5.
- Background: PubMed 39134737Lee BC, Chung JJ. An empirical investigation of the impact of ChatGPT on creativity. Nat Hum Behav. 2024 Oct;8(10):1906-1914. doi: 10.1038/s41562-024-01953-1. Epub 2024 Aug 12.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No. 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.
Related trials for Creativity
Recruiting
Behavioural Study in Chronic Pain : Creativity and Motivation, and Circuits Involved in Functional MRI
Chronic Pain
Not yet recruitingObservational study
Creative Processes and Children With a Neurodeveloppement Disorder
Neurodevelopmental Disorders (NDD)
Not yet recruiting
Integrating AI-Assisted Design Thinking Into Nursing Education
Nurse Training
RecruitingPhase 1/2
Effects of Psilocybin on Electrophysiology and the Dynamic Content of Thought
Healthy
Recruiting
Virtual Poetry Workshops to Enhance Patient Well Being and Reduce Anxiety
Dyspepsia, Gastroparesis
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part.
Kaya Bhandari contact
Mohit Bhandari, MD, PhD, FRCSC principal investigator
McMaster University
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Artificial Intelligence First (Early Integration) and Artificial Intelligence Last (Late Integration) in people with Creativity, run by McMaster University at 1 site in Canada.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 3 inclusion and 1 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: opening soon, as of the sponsor's last update on 14 Jul 2026. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in Canada. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
Contact Alexandra Leone, BSc (905-527-4322 ext. 44490, leonea5@mcmaster.ca), or a site near the patient. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Creativity Score of the Selected Best Idea (time frame: Evaluated cross-sectionally upon the conclusion of each 12-minute session, across the 9 study sessions.). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT07693803, which also lists 6 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 14 Jul 2026.