Use of artificial intelligence processing tools to evaluate qualitative data: Student researchers compared to faculty researchers

IF 1.3 Q3 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES

Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning Pub Date : 2025-06-19 DOI:10.1016/j.cptl.2025.102418

Shanna K. O'Connor , Erin E. Miller , Alyssa R. Zweifel , Danielle M. Schievelbein , Anjali R. Parmar , James W. Amell

{"title":"Use of artificial intelligence processing tools to evaluate qualitative data: Student researchers compared to faculty researchers","authors":"Shanna K. O'Connor , Erin E. Miller , Alyssa R. Zweifel , Danielle M. Schievelbein , Anjali R. Parmar , James W. Amell","doi":"10.1016/j.cptl.2025.102418","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Artificial intelligence (AI) has emerged as a promising tool to support qualitative data analysis, yet its role in faculty-led studies that incorporate student researchers remains under investigation. This study examined differences in inductive thematic analysis generated by student and faculty researchers using AI compared to traditional faculty-led coding.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Three qualitative datasets were analyzed using OpenAI's ChatGPT by faculty and student researchers.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Findings showed AI-assisted analyses identified most themes accurately, though faculty-generated AI results aligned more closely with expert-reviewed themes than student-generated AI results.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>AI may be a valuable tool to enhance efficiency particularly in initial evaluation of qualitative data.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":47501,"journal":{"name":"Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning","volume":"17 10","pages":"Article 102418"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S187712972500139X","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Artificial intelligence (AI) has emerged as a promising tool to support qualitative data analysis, yet its role in faculty-led studies that incorporate student researchers remains under investigation. This study examined differences in inductive thematic analysis generated by student and faculty researchers using AI compared to traditional faculty-led coding.

Methods

Three qualitative datasets were analyzed using OpenAI's ChatGPT by faculty and student researchers.

Results

Findings showed AI-assisted analyses identified most themes accurately, though faculty-generated AI results aligned more closely with expert-reviewed themes than student-generated AI results.

Conclusions

AI may be a valuable tool to enhance efficiency particularly in initial evaluation of qualitative data.

查看原文本刊更多论文

使用人工智能处理工具来评估定性数据：学生研究人员与教师研究人员的比较

人工智能（AI）已经成为支持定性数据分析的有前途的工具，但它在包括学生研究人员的教师主导的研究中的作用仍在调查中。本研究考察了学生和教师研究人员使用人工智能生成的归纳主题分析与传统的教师主导编码的差异。方法采用OpenAI的ChatGPT软件对教师和学生的三个定性数据集进行分析。研究结果显示，人工智能辅助分析准确地识别了大多数主题，尽管教师生成的人工智能结果比学生生成的人工智能结果更接近专家审查的主题。结论sai是提高定性资料初步评价效率的有效工具。

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

Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES-

CiteScore

2.10

自引率

16.70%

发文量

192