The Use of Artificial Intelligence Tools in Assessing Content Validity: A Comparative Study with Human Experts
Fuente:
arXiv
Salvato in:
| Autori principali: | , , |
|---|---|
| Natura: | Preprint |
| Pubblicazione: |
2025
|
| Soggetti: | |
| Accesso online: | |
| Tags: |
Aggiungi Tag
Nessun Tag, puoi essere il primo ad aggiungerne!!
|
| _version_ | 1866909544954724352 |
|---|---|
| author | Gurdil, Hatice Anadol, Hatice Ozlem Soguksu, Yesim Beril |
| author_facet | Gurdil, Hatice Anadol, Hatice Ozlem Soguksu, Yesim Beril |
| contents | In this study, it was investigated whether AI evaluators assess the content validity of B1-level English reading comprehension test items in a manner similar to human evaluators. A 25-item multiple-choice test was developed, and these test items were evaluated by four human and four AI evaluators. No statistically significant difference was found between the scores given by human and AI evaluators, with similar evaluation trends observed. The Content Validity Ratio (CVR) and the Item Content Validity Index (I-CVI) were calculated and analyzed using the Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test, with no statistically significant difference. The findings revealed that in some cases, AI evaluators could replace human evaluators. However, differences in specific items were thought to arise from varying interpretations of the evaluation criteria. Ensuring linguistic clarity and clearly defining criteria could contribute to more consistent evaluations. In this regard, the development of hybrid evaluation systems, in which AI technologies are used alongside human experts, is recommended. |
| format | Preprint |
| id |
arxiv_https___arxiv_org_abs_2503_15525 |
| institution | arXiv |
| publishDate | 2025 |
| record_format | arxiv |
| spellingShingle | The Use of Artificial Intelligence Tools in Assessing Content Validity: A Comparative Study with Human Experts Gurdil, Hatice Anadol, Hatice Ozlem Soguksu, Yesim Beril Human-Computer Interaction Artificial Intelligence Computers and Society In this study, it was investigated whether AI evaluators assess the content validity of B1-level English reading comprehension test items in a manner similar to human evaluators. A 25-item multiple-choice test was developed, and these test items were evaluated by four human and four AI evaluators. No statistically significant difference was found between the scores given by human and AI evaluators, with similar evaluation trends observed. The Content Validity Ratio (CVR) and the Item Content Validity Index (I-CVI) were calculated and analyzed using the Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test, with no statistically significant difference. The findings revealed that in some cases, AI evaluators could replace human evaluators. However, differences in specific items were thought to arise from varying interpretations of the evaluation criteria. Ensuring linguistic clarity and clearly defining criteria could contribute to more consistent evaluations. In this regard, the development of hybrid evaluation systems, in which AI technologies are used alongside human experts, is recommended. |
| title | The Use of Artificial Intelligence Tools in Assessing Content Validity: A Comparative Study with Human Experts |
| topic | Human-Computer Interaction Artificial Intelligence Computers and Society |
| url | https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.15525 |