ArticleFrontiers in psychology2026
The use of AI tools in academic writing and its associations with college students' critical thinking and academic integrity: a path analysis involving self-regulated learning and innovative behavior.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: AI tools are increasingly used in college students' academic writing, raising concerns about critical thinking and academic integrity. Prior work has focused mainly on writing performance, whereas psychological and behavioral pathways remain less examined. Guided by Social Cognitive Theory, this study examined a path model linking AI tool use with critical thinking and academic integrity via self-regulated learning and innovative behavior. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was conducted with 946 undergraduates from five universities in China. Measures included AI tool use, self-regulated learning, innovative behavior, critical thinking, and academic integrity. The hypothesized model was tested using PLS-SEM with bootstrapping. Results: AI tool use was positively associated with self-regulated learning and innovative behavior. Both intermediaries were positively associated with critical thinking and academic integrity. Bootstrapping supported significant indirect associations from AI tool use to both outcomes through self-regulated learning and innovative behavior. Conclusion: AI tool use in academic writing was associated with higher levels of critical thinking and academic integrity, with self-regulated learning and innovative behavior representing intermediary variables in these associations. The findings may inform AI-supported writing instruction and integrity guidance in higher education.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.