Evaluating the Psychometric Characteristics of Generated Multiple-Choice Test Items
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Item development is a time- and resource-intensive process. Automatic item generation integrates cognitive modeling with computer technology to systematically generate test items. To date, however, items generated using cognitive modeling procedures have received limited use in operational testing situations. As a result, the psychometric characteristics of generated multiple-choice test items are largely unknown and undocumented. We present item analysis results from one of the first empirical studies designed to evaluate the psychometric properties of generated multiple-choice items using the results from a high stakes national medical licensure examination. The item analysis results for the correct option revealed that the generated items measured examinees’ performance across a broad range of ability levels while, at the same time, providing a consistently strong level of discrimination for each item. Results for the incorrect options revealed that the generated items consistently differentiated the low from the high performing examinees.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.140 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it