A Process for Reviewing and Evaluating Generated Test Items
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Testing organization needs large numbers of high‐quality items due to the proliferation of alternative test administration methods and modern test designs. But the current demand for items far exceeds the supply. Test items, as they are currently written, evoke a process that is both time‐consuming and expensive because each item is written, edited, and reviewed by a subject‐matter expert. One promising approach that may address this challenge is with automatic item generation. Automatic item generation combines cognitive and psychometric modeling practices to guide the production of items that are generated with the aid of computer technology. The purpose of this study is to describe and illustrate a process that can be used to review and evaluate the quality of the generated item by focusing on the content and logic specified within the item generation procedure. We illustrate our process using an item development example from mathematics drawn from the Common Core State Standards and from surgical education drawn from the health sciences domain.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.131 | 0.338 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.013 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".