Search and Filter

Repository Feedback

Your feedback helps us improve the repository's content relevance and usability. Please share your thoughts to help us better serve researchers and practitioners.

Submit feedback

Submit a research study

Contribute to the repository:

Add a paper

An Automatic Question Usability Evaluation Toolkit

Authors
Steven Moore,
Eamon Costello,
Huy A. Nguyen,
John Stamper
Date
Publisher
arXiv
Evaluating multiple-choice questions (MCQs) involves either labor intensive human assessments or automated methods that prioritize readability, often overlooking deeper question design flaws. To address this issue, we introduce the Scalable Automatic Question Usability Evaluation Toolkit (SAQUET), an open-source tool that leverages the Item-Writing Flaws (IWF) rubric for a comprehensive and automated quality evaluation of MCQs. By harnessing the latest in large language models such as GPT-4, advanced word embeddings, and Transformers designed to analyze textual complexity, SAQUET effectively pinpoints and assesses a wide array of flaws in MCQs. We first demonstrate the discrepancy between commonly used automated evaluation metrics and the human assessment of MCQ quality. Then we evaluate SAQUET on a diverse dataset of MCQs across the five domains of Chemistry, Statistics, Computer Science, Humanities, and Healthcare, showing how it effectively distinguishes between flawed and flawless questions, providing a level of analysis beyond what is achievable with traditional metrics. With an accuracy rate of over 94% in detecting the presence of flaws identified by human evaluators, our findings emphasize the limitations of existing evaluation methods and showcase potential in improving the quality of educational assessments.
Study at a glance
  • Question: Can an automated tool accurately identify design flaws in multiple-choice questions?
  • Setting and data: Multiple-choice questions across five subject areas: chemistry, statistics, computer science, humanities, and healthcare.
  • Method: Compares an automated evaluation tool against human assessments and traditional metrics.
Why it matters

Evaluating multiple-choice questions currently involves either labor-intensive human assessments or automated methods that prioritize readability, often overlooking deeper question design flaws.

Key findings
  • Across chemistry, statistics, computer science, humanities, and healthcare, an automated tool detected multiple-choice question flaws identified by human evaluators with over 94% accuracy.
  • Commonly used automated evaluation measures differed notably from human assessments of multiple-choice question quality.
  • The AI tool distinguished between flawed and flawless questions, providing a level of analysis beyond traditional evaluation metrics.

Summary drafted with AI from the paper’s abstract and may contain errors. See the full paper for details.

What is the application?
Who is the user?
Who age?