Evaluating Artificial Intelligence Competency in Education: Performance of ChatGPT-4 in the American Registry of Radiologic Technologists (ARRT) Radiography Certification Exam
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The American Registry of Radiologic Technologists (ARRT) leads the certification process with an exam comprising 200 multiple-choice questions. This study aims to evaluate ChatGPT-4's performance in responding to practice questions similar to those found in the ARRT board examination. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used a dataset of 200 practice multiple-choice questions for the ARRT certification exam from BoardVitals. Each question was fed to ChatGPT-4 fifteen times, resulting in 3000 observations to account for response variability. RESULTS: ChatGPT's overall performance was 80.56%, with higher accuracy on text-based questions (86.3%) compared to image-based questions (45.6%). Response times were longer for image-based questions (18.01 s) than for text-based questions (13.27 s). Performance varied by domain: 72.6% for Safety, 70.6% for Image Production, 67.3% for Patient Care, and 53.4% for Procedures. As anticipated, performance was best on on easy questions (78.5%). CONCLUSION: ChatGPT demonstrated effective performance on the BoardVitals question bank for ARRT certification. Future studies could benefit from analyzing the correlation between BoardVitals scores and actual exam outcomes. Further development in AI, particularly in image processing and interpretation, is necessary to enhance its utility in educational settings.
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 | 0.007 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".