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.
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.