Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Generative AI is increasingly used in education, yet evidence on the quality and validity of AI-generated assessments in science remains limited. This study examines whether large language models can support the development of high-quality multiple-choice tests in secondary-school chemistry. Using GPT-4, we generated an electrochemistry test from the curriculum and evaluated item quality against established item-writing criteria. The instrument was administered to 95 students at the end of an electrochemistry unit. Psychometric functioning was examined with Rasch modelling, and competence-level alignment was investigated through scale anchoring. The AI-generated items generally satisfied item-writing standards, with strengths in curricular alignment, alongside recurrent weaknesses in specialized language and option-length balance. Rasch analyses indicated acceptable fit and a stable item hierarchy, with measurement precision concentrated in the mid-ability range and distractor quality varying across items. Alignment between intended competence levels and empirical levels was weak, indicating that competence-level claims cannot be inferred from empirical difficulty alone. This study is, to our knowledge, the first in chemistry to generate a curriculum-anchored multiple-choice test with an LLM and evaluate it with mixed methods. Taken together, AI-generated items can serve as an initial draft requiring human oversight, with expert review and model-based checks before any consequential use.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Rodemer et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: