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?
Why use AI?
Study design
