ChatGPT prompts for generating multiple-choice questions in medical education and evidence on their validity: a literature review.

IF 3.6 4区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Yavuz Selim Kıyak, Emre Emekli
{"title":"ChatGPT prompts for generating multiple-choice questions in medical education and evidence on their validity: a literature review.","authors":"Yavuz Selim Kıyak, Emre Emekli","doi":"10.1093/postmj/qgae065","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>ChatGPT's role in creating multiple-choice questions (MCQs) is growing but the validity of these artificial-intelligence-generated questions is unclear. This literature review was conducted to address the urgent need for understanding the application of ChatGPT in generating MCQs for medical education. Following the database search and screening of 1920 studies, we found 23 relevant studies. We extracted the prompts for MCQ generation and assessed the validity evidence of MCQs. The findings showed that prompts varied, including referencing specific exam styles and adopting specific personas, which align with recommended prompt engineering tactics. The validity evidence covered various domains, showing mixed accuracy rates, with some studies indicating comparable quality to human-written questions, and others highlighting differences in difficulty and discrimination levels, alongside a significant reduction in question creation time. Despite its efficiency, we highlight the necessity of careful review and suggest a need for further research to optimize the use of ChatGPT in question generation. Main messages  Ensure high-quality outputs by utilizing well-designed prompts; medical educators should prioritize the use of detailed, clear ChatGPT prompts when generating MCQs. Avoid using ChatGPT-generated MCQs directly in examinations without thorough review to prevent inaccuracies and ensure relevance. Leverage ChatGPT's potential to streamline the test development process, enhancing efficiency without compromising quality.</p>","PeriodicalId":20374,"journal":{"name":"Postgraduate Medical Journal","volume":" ","pages":"858-865"},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Postgraduate Medical Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/postmj/qgae065","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

ChatGPT's role in creating multiple-choice questions (MCQs) is growing but the validity of these artificial-intelligence-generated questions is unclear. This literature review was conducted to address the urgent need for understanding the application of ChatGPT in generating MCQs for medical education. Following the database search and screening of 1920 studies, we found 23 relevant studies. We extracted the prompts for MCQ generation and assessed the validity evidence of MCQs. The findings showed that prompts varied, including referencing specific exam styles and adopting specific personas, which align with recommended prompt engineering tactics. The validity evidence covered various domains, showing mixed accuracy rates, with some studies indicating comparable quality to human-written questions, and others highlighting differences in difficulty and discrimination levels, alongside a significant reduction in question creation time. Despite its efficiency, we highlight the necessity of careful review and suggest a need for further research to optimize the use of ChatGPT in question generation. Main messages  Ensure high-quality outputs by utilizing well-designed prompts; medical educators should prioritize the use of detailed, clear ChatGPT prompts when generating MCQs. Avoid using ChatGPT-generated MCQs directly in examinations without thorough review to prevent inaccuracies and ensure relevance. Leverage ChatGPT's potential to streamline the test development process, enhancing efficiency without compromising quality.

医学教育中用于生成选择题的 ChatGPT 提示及其有效性证据:文献综述。
ChatGPT 在创建多选题(MCQ)方面的作用越来越大,但这些人工智能生成的问题的有效性尚不明确。为了满足了解 ChatGPT 在医学教育中生成 MCQ 的应用的迫切需求,我们进行了此次文献综述。经过数据库搜索和对 1920 项研究的筛选,我们发现了 23 项相关研究。我们提取了生成 MCQ 的提示语,并评估了 MCQ 的有效性证据。研究结果表明,提示语各不相同,包括参考特定考试风格和采用特定角色,这与推荐的提示语工程策略一致。有效性证据涉及多个领域,准确率参差不齐,一些研究表明其质量与人工编写的试题相当,而另一些研究则强调了难度和区分度方面的差异,同时显著缩短了试题创建时间。尽管 ChatGPT 的效率很高,但我们强调有必要对其进行仔细审查,并建议有必要开展进一步研究,以优化 ChatGPT 在问题生成中的应用。主要信息 通过使用精心设计的提示确保高质量的输出;医学教育者在生成 MCQ 时应优先使用详细、清晰的 ChatGPT 提示。避免在未经全面审查的情况下直接在考试中使用 ChatGPT 生成的 MCQ,以防止不准确并确保相关性。利用 ChatGPT 的潜力简化测试开发流程,在不影响质量的前提下提高效率。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Postgraduate Medical Journal
Postgraduate Medical Journal 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
8.50
自引率
2.00%
发文量
131
审稿时长
2.5 months
期刊介绍: Postgraduate Medical Journal is a peer reviewed journal published on behalf of the Fellowship of Postgraduate Medicine. The journal aims to support junior doctors and their teachers and contribute to the continuing professional development of all doctors by publishing papers on a wide range of topics relevant to the practicing clinician and teacher. Papers published in PMJ include those that focus on core competencies; that describe current practice and new developments in all branches of medicine; that describe relevance and impact of translational research on clinical practice; that provide background relevant to examinations; and papers on medical education and medical education research. PMJ supports CPD by providing the opportunity for doctors to publish many types of articles including original clinical research; reviews; quality improvement reports; editorials, and correspondence on clinical matters.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信