journal article·2025-09-11Open access

Expanding the Team: Integrating Generative Artificial Intelligence into the Assessment Development Process

Toni A. May, Kathleen Provinzano, Kristin L. K. Koskey, Connor J. Sondergeld, Gregory E. Stone, James N. Archer, Naorah Rimkunas

Applied Sciences· Volume 15· Issue 18

Abstract

Effective assessment development requires collaboration between multidisciplinary team members, and the process is often time-intensive. This study illustrates a framework for integrating generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) as a collaborator in assessment design, rather than a fully automated tool. The context was the development of a 12-item multiple-choice test for social work interns in a school-based training program, guided by design-based research (DBR) principles. Using ChatGPT to generate draft items, psychometricians refined outputs through structured prompts and then convened a panel of five subject matter experts to evaluate content validity. Results showed that while most AI-assisted items were relevant, 75% required modification, with revisions focused on response option clarity, alignment with learning objectives, and item stems. These findings provide initial evidence that GenAI can serve as a productive collaborator in assessment development when embedded in a human-in-the-loop process, while underscoring the need for continued expert oversight and further validation research.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Cognitive Science and Mapping

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

Affiliations

College of Community and Public Affairs, SUNY-Binghamton University, Binghamton, NY 13902, USA

RAE Group, Medina, OH 44256, USA

MetriKs Amerique, Oswego, NY 13126, USA

Judith Herb College of Arts, Social Sciences and Education, University of Toledo, Toledo, OH 43606, USA

IBM Corp., Armonk, NY 10504, USA

Funding

U.S. Department of Education

References (51)

Show source-provided references
1. American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, and National Council on Measurement in Education (2014). Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing, American Educational Research Association.
2. Kisker, E.E., and Boller, K. (2025, April 25). Forming a Team to Ensure High-Quality Measurement in Education Studies (REL 2014-052), Available online: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs.
3. National Research Council (2001). Knowing What Students Know: The Science and Design of Educational Assessment, The National Academies Press.
4. Shifting sights on STEM education instrumentation development: The importance of moving validity evidence to the forefront rather than a footnote10.1111/ssm.12410 ↗
5. Development of a college student validation survey: A design-based research approach10.1353/csd.2023.a901175 ↗
6. Developing and Validating the Preschool Nutrition Education Practices Survey10.1016/j.jneb.2024.03.009 ↗
7. A validation study of an eighth grade reading comprehension assessment
8. A validation process for observation protocols: Using the Revised SMPs Look-for Protocol as a lens on teachers’ promotion of the standards10.1080/19477503.2017.1379894 ↗
9. Development and validation of a 21st Century Skills assessment: Using an iterative multi-method approach10.1111/ssm.12355 ↗
10. Feasibility assurance: A review of automatic item generation in medical assessment10.1007/s10459-022-10092-z ↗
11. A suggestive approach for assessing item quality, usability and validity of automated item generation10.1007/s10459-023-10225-y ↗
12. A systematic review of automatic question generation for education purposes10.1007/s40593-019-00186-y ↗
13. May, T.A., Fan, Y.K., Stone, G.E., Koskey, K.L.K., Sondergeld, C.J., Folger, T.D., Archer, J.N., Provinzano, K., and Johnson, C.C. (2025). An effectiveness study of generative artificial intelligence tools used to develop multiple-choice test items. Educ. Sci., 15.10.3390/educsci15020144 ↗
14. Maity, S., and Deroy, A. (2024). The future of learning in the age of generative AI: Automated question generation and assessment with large language models. arXiv.10.35542/osf.io/ncjek ↗
15. Scaria, N., Dharani Chenna, S., and Subramani, D. (2024). Automated educational question generation at different Bloom’s skill levels using large language models: Strategies and evaluation. arXiv.10.1007/978-3-031-64299-9_12 ↗
16. How useful are educational questions generated by large language models?10.1007/978-3-031-36336-8_83 ↗
17. Mollick, E., and Mollick, L. (2023). Using AI to Implement Effective Teaching Strategies in Classrooms: Five Strategies, Including Prompts, Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania & Wharton Interactive.10.2139/ssrn.4391243 ↗
18. The rise of artificial intelligence in educational measurement: Opportunities and ethical challenges
19. Office of Educational Technology (2025, March 04). Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Teaching and Learning: Insights and Recommendations, Available online: https://www.ce-jeme.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1090&context=journal.
20. Nguyen-Trung, K. (2025). ChatGPT in thematic analysis: Can AI become a research assistant in qualitative research?. Qual. Quant., 1–34.10.1007/s11135-025-02165-z ↗
21. Kaldaras, L., Akaeze, H.O., and Reckase, M.D. (2024). Developing valid assessments in the era of generative artificial intelligence. Front. Educ., 9.10.3389/feduc.2024.1399377 ↗
22. Circi, R., Hicks, J., and Sikali, E. (2023). Automatic item generation: Foundations and machine learning-based approaches for assessments. Front. Educ., 8.10.3389/feduc.2023.858273 ↗
23. Instructional topics in educational measurement (ITEMS) module: Using automated processes to generate test items10.1111/emip.12018 ↗
24. Validating the interpretations and uses of test scores10.1111/jedm.12000 ↗
25. A cost–benefit analysis of automatic item generation10.1111/emip.12237 ↗
26. A review of automatic item generation techniques leveraging large language models10.21449/ijate.1602294 ↗
27. Ten tips to harnessing generative AI for high-quality MCQs in medical education assessment10.1080/10872981.2025.2532682 ↗
28. Evaluating the quality of medical multiple-choice items created with automated processes10.1111/medu.12202 ↗
29. Can automated item generation be used to develop high-quality MCQs that assess applications of knowledge?10.1186/s41039-020-00134-8 ↗
30. Effects of question formats on student and item performance10.5688/ajpe77471 ↗
31. Changing approaches to classroom assessment: An empirical study across teacher career stages10.1016/j.tate.2017.12.010 ↗
32. Design based research: A methodology to extend and enrich biology education research10.1187/cbe.19-11-0245 ↗
33. Design experiments in educational research10.3102/0013189X032001009 ↗
34. Kelly, E., Lesh, R., and Baek, J. (2008). The compleat design experiment: From soup to nuts. Design Research: Investigating and Assessing Complex Systems in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
35. Developing questionnaires for educational research: AMEE guide no. 8710.3109/0142159X.2014.889814 ↗
36. May, T.A., Johnson, C.C., Walton, J.B., and Harold, S. (2025). The development and validation of a K-12 STEM engagement participant outcome instrument. Educ. Sci., 15.10.3390/educsci15030377 ↗
37. Measuring sixth-grade students’ problem-solving: Validating an instrument addressing the mathematics common core10.1111/ssm.12130 ↗
38. PSM7 and PSM8: Validating two problem-solving measures
39. Writing and using learning objectives10.1187/cbe.22-04-0073 ↗
40. Quality assurance of test blueprinting10.1016/j.profnurs.2019.09.001 ↗
41. Bloom, B.S., Engelhart, M.D., Furst, E.J., Hill, W.H., and Krathwohl, D.R. (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals. Handbook I: Cognitive Domain, David McKay Co.
42. van der Linden, W., and Glas, C. (2010). Implementing the Graduate Management Admission Test computerized adaptive test. Elements of Adaptive Testing, Springer.10.1007/978-0-387-85461-8 ↗
43. Bianchini, G., Ferrato, A., and Limongelli, C. (2025). Multiple choice question generation using large language models: Methodology and educator insights. arXiv.10.1145/3631700.3665233 ↗
44. Ramlochan, S. (2025, April 20). Goal-Oriented vs Process-Oriented Prompting in Large Language Models; Prompt Engineering & AI Institute: 2024. Available online: https://promptengineering.org/unlocking-the-power-of-goal-oriented-prompting-for-ai-assistants/.
45. White, J., Fu, Q., Hays, S., Sandborn, M., Olea, C., Gilbert, H., Elnashar, A., Spencer-Smith, J., and Schmidt, D.C. (2023). A prompt pattern catalog to enhance prompt engineering with ChatGPT. arXiv.
46. Brookhart, S.M., and Nitko, A.J. (2008). Assessment and Grading in Classrooms, Pearson. [5th ed.].
47. McMillan, J.H. (2011). Classroom Assessment: Principles and Practices for Effective Standards-Based Instruction, Pearson. [5th ed.].
48. Miller, D.M., Linn, R.L., and Gronlund, N.E. (2021). Measurement and Assessment in Teaching, Pearson. [11th ed.].
49. Popham, W.J. (2014). Classroom Assessment: What Teachers Need to Know, Pearson. [7th ed.].
50. ABC of content validation and content validity index calculation10.21315/eimj2019.11.2.6 ↗
51. Lincoln, Y.S., and Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry, Sage.10.1016/0147-1767(85)90062-8 ↗