SynthesisFrontiers in psychology2026
The role of generative AI in facilitating children's creative thinking and cognitive development: a systematic scoping review.
Synthesis 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) has reshaped STEAM education, with growing interest in its use to enhance children's creative thinking a key cognitive development component. However, systematic synthesis of GenAI's application in child-centered creative learning remains limited. This scoping review explores GenAI's roles, effects, challenges, and future directions. Methods: This study follows JBI guidance and is reported in accordance with PRISMA-ScR. Searches were conducted in July 2025 and updated in May 2026 across Web of Science, Scopus, ERIC, APA PsycInfo, ACM Digital Library, ProQuest, and Google Scholar. Publication status and evidence-source type were charted explicitly. Results: Twenty-four evidence sources were included: 22 primary empirical studies and two secondary syntheses used only for contextual interpretation. Text-based LLMs and multimodal text/image tools predominated. The primary studies reported possible benefits for divergent thinking, narrative creativity, and creative self-efficacy, but the heterogeneous designs, absence of formal critical appraisal, and inclusion of preprints preclude conclusions about confirmed efficacy. Conclusion: The emerging evidence suggests that carefully facilitated GenAI may support some forms of children's creative activity, but the evidence base is small, methodologically heterogeneous, geographically concentrated, and partly non-peer-reviewed. Claims about effectiveness, scalability, and equity therefore remain provisional. Future research should use stronger comparative and longitudinal designs and directly include rural, underserved, and low-resource communities before GenAI is presented as a democratizing intervention.
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.