From setting to vetting: using artificial intelligence for Single Best Answer questions review.

Korean journal of medical education Pub Date : 2026-03-01 Epub Date: 2026-02-19 DOI:10.3946/kjme.2025.068
Olivia Ng, Siew Ping Han, Magdalene Hui Min Lee, Dong Haur Phua
{"title":"From setting to vetting: using artificial intelligence for Single Best Answer questions review.","authors":"Olivia Ng, Siew Ping Han, Magdalene Hui Min Lee, Dong Haur Phua","doi":"10.3946/kjme.2025.068","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Maintaining the quality of Single Best Answer (SBA) questions remains a challenge in medical education, especially as artificial intelligence (AI)-generated items become more common. While considerable attention has been paid to AI question generation, the vetting process is under-explored and difficult to scale.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study investigates the feasibility and reliability of using a large language model to support the vetting of SBA questions. An AI-based reviewer, QA-bot, was developed using custom GPT and embedded with 25 criteria aligned with Bloom's taxonomy (Levels 1-3). QA-bot and two experienced educators independently evaluated 32 AI-generated SBA questions using the shared evaluation rubric.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The rubric showed high internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha=0.878), and strong inter-rater reliability between human reviewers (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC]=0.893). QA-bot demonstrated good alignment with human raters (ICC=0.861 and 0.840). While the AI performed well on objective, rule-based criteria, it was less consistent in detecting irrelevant complexity and accurately judging difficulty.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>These findings suggest that AI can function as an efficient first-pass reviewer, improving consistency and reducing workload, with human oversight remaining essential for educational and clinical relevance.</p>","PeriodicalId":37737,"journal":{"name":"Korean journal of medical education","volume":"38 1","pages":"10-14"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2026-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12971135/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Korean journal of medical education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3946/kjme.2025.068","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/2/19 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: Maintaining the quality of Single Best Answer (SBA) questions remains a challenge in medical education, especially as artificial intelligence (AI)-generated items become more common. While considerable attention has been paid to AI question generation, the vetting process is under-explored and difficult to scale.

Methods: This study investigates the feasibility and reliability of using a large language model to support the vetting of SBA questions. An AI-based reviewer, QA-bot, was developed using custom GPT and embedded with 25 criteria aligned with Bloom's taxonomy (Levels 1-3). QA-bot and two experienced educators independently evaluated 32 AI-generated SBA questions using the shared evaluation rubric.

Results: The rubric showed high internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha=0.878), and strong inter-rater reliability between human reviewers (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC]=0.893). QA-bot demonstrated good alignment with human raters (ICC=0.861 and 0.840). While the AI performed well on objective, rule-based criteria, it was less consistent in detecting irrelevant complexity and accurately judging difficulty.

Conclusion: These findings suggest that AI can function as an efficient first-pass reviewer, improving consistency and reducing workload, with human oversight remaining essential for educational and clinical relevance.

从设置到审查:使用人工智能进行单最佳答案问题审查。
目的:保持单一最佳答案(SBA)问题的质量仍然是医学教育中的一个挑战,特别是在人工智能(AI)生成的问题变得越来越普遍的情况下。虽然人工智能问题生成已经引起了相当大的关注,但审查过程尚未得到充分探索,而且难以扩展。方法:本研究探讨了使用大型语言模型支持SBA问题筛选的可行性和可靠性。基于ai的审稿人QA-bot使用自定义GPT开发,并嵌入了与Bloom分类法一致的25个标准(级别1-3)。QA-bot和两位经验丰富的教育工作者使用共享的评估标准独立评估了32个人工智能生成的SBA问题。结果:评价结果具有较高的内部一致性(Cronbach’s alpha=0.878),评价人之间具有较强的等级间信度(类内相关系数[ICC]=0.893)。QA-bot与人类评分者表现出良好的一致性(ICC=0.861和0.840)。虽然人工智能在客观的、基于规则的标准上表现良好,但在检测不相关的复杂性和准确判断难度方面却不太一致。结论:这些发现表明,人工智能可以作为一种高效的首次审查者,提高一致性并减少工作量,而人类监督对于教育和临床相关性仍然至关重要。
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
Korean journal of medical education
Korean journal of medical education Social Sciences-Education
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
20
期刊介绍: The journal seeks to provide theoretical foundations, practical analysis, and up-to-date developments in health professional education: Curriculum development Teaching and learning Student assessment Educational evaluation Educational management and policy The journal welcomes high-quality papers on all levels of health professional education, including: Undergraduate education Postgraduate training Continuous professional development Interprofessional education.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书