Table 1. Risk of Bias Assessment.

Study	Risk of Bias Item								Total
	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
Blanchette et al. (2005)		x	x	x	x	x			5
Colzato et al. (2013)	x	x	x	x	x	x		x	7
Curnow and Turner (1992)	x	x	x	x			x		5
Gondola and Tuckman (1985) [pilot study]		x	x	x					3
Gondola (1986)		x	x						2
Gondola (1987)		x	x				x		3
Herman-Tofler and Tuckman (1998)		x	x	x				x	4
Hinkle et al. (1993)		x	x	x	x		x		5
Oppezzo and Schwartz (2014)	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	8
Ramocki (2002)						x			1
Steinberg et al. (1997)		x	x			x	x		4
Tuckman and Hinkle (1986)		x	x				x		3
Zhou et al. (2017)	x			x	x	x	x	x	6

Note. Item 1: Was the physical activity manipulation controlled (e.g., completed in a laboratory setting, standardized by duration and intensity, and for interaction with other participants if administered in a group context)? Item 2: Was there evidence of reliability for the creativity measure(s) utilized? Item 3: Was there evidence of validity for the creativity measure(s) utilized? Item 4: Were creativity scoring and evaluation procedures robust to bias (e.g., blinded scoring completed by multiple researchers, provision of strong interrater reliability, and detailed or referenced? Item 5: Were random group assignment and/or counterbalancing procedures appropriate (e.g., were participants assigned to groups based on course enrollment, rather than random selection and were the order of creativity assessments randomized to ensure resistance to temporal artifacts or learning effects?) for the study design? Item 6: Did the intervention use a non-exercise control group or condition? Item 7: Were statistically appropriate/acceptable methods of data analysis used? Item 8: Were point estimates, standard deviations, confidence intervals, and/or effect sizes reported?