Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42656304›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2026

Psychological empowerment and relational catalysis: a quasi-experimental study on graduate education evaluation reform in the AI era.

Kefei Tan, Bing Gao

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Kefei TanDepartment of Educational, Minzu University of China, Beijing, China.
Bing GaoDepartment of Educational, Minzu University of China, Beijing, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: The rise of generative AI (e.g., ChatGPT, DeepSeek) challenges traditional graduate evaluation systems centered on individual theses and standardized examinations. Current institutional responses-task redesign and AI skills training-have shown limited effectiveness, as they overlook the psychological internalization process, teacher-student relational dynamics, and their synergistic effects. Methods: This study conducted a three-arm quasi-experiment with 155 doctoral students in education over one semester. Group A (traditional model) received no AI guidance; Group B received AI skills training only; Group C received comprehensive reform combining AI training, practical team-based projects, and humble mentor leadership training. Psychological empowerment was measured as a mediator, and humble mentor leadership as a moderator. Data were analyzed using regression with cluster-robust standard errors and bootstrap tests. Results: Group C scored significantly higher than Groups A and B on course satisfaction, professional competence, and psychological empowerment (all Discussion: These findings suggest that the synergy of practical task redesign, psychological empowerment, and humble mentor leadership may be associated with positive student outcomes in AI-era educational reform. However, due to the cluster-assigned design with one cluster per condition and non-equivalent assessment tasks across groups, all results should be interpreted as exploratory and hypothesis-generating rather than causal. Future research should employ multi-cluster or individually randomized designs with common assessment tasks to permit valid causal inference.

Indexed as

artificial intelligenceevaluation reformgraduate educationhumble supervisor leadershippsychological empowerment

Identifiers

PMID42656304
PMCPMC13506429

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.