arXiv preprint ·
AI-Enabled Quality Assurance for Multiple-Choice Assessment Items
- Published
- Source
- arXiv preprint, posted before peer review
- Original
- Read it at arXiv
- Topics
Abstract
Generating multiple-choice questions is increasingly scalable, but establishing their assessment quality remains difficult. We present a focused narrative review of automated item-writing flaw detection, revision, psychometric screening, and NLP benchmark auditing. Database searches, citation retrieval, and nominated sources yield fourteen research reports reviewed in full text. We distinguish surface checks from content-sensitive judgments and map a 19-criterion rubric to detection methods and reported evidence. High label-level accuracy often coexists with weak positive case detection, while rubric definitions and reference standards vary. Revision evidence is mixed, and the associations reported in prior work do not establish the effects of repair. We propose evaluating quality assurance as a sequence of independently validated decisions, with criterion-specific reporting, calibrated human review, and outcome-based assessment of revisions.
The authors’ abstract, as arXiv lists it. arXiv’s listings, abstracts included, are free for anyone to reuse.
Read it on ReadSearch
Each opens after you create an account, and brings you back to this paper.
More in Computation & Language / NLP
Get the few papers worth your time in Computation & Language / NLP every morning.
ReadSearch reads the new papers in your field each day and brings you the few worth reading, each with its key finding in a sentence.