An Investigation of Large Language Model ChatGPT as an Author of USMLE-Style Questions

Objectives: Demand for high-quality practice items, particularly for high-stakes assessments like the USMLE, suggests a role for innovative, efficient approaches to item generation.This study investigates the potential of ChatGPT, an artificial intelligence (AI) large language model, as an author of USMLE-style questions.The aim was to evaluate the utility and feasibility of ChatGPT as an author of USMLE-style questions, focusing on adherence to style and content guidelines, efficiency, and psychometric parameters.Methods: The study comparatively analyzed vignette-based multiple-choice items generated by ChatGPT and human authors.ChatGPT-4 was fine-tuned with official USMLE practice questions and the NBME Item-Writing Guide to develop a chatbot generating USMLE-style items when prompted with learning objectives.These AI-written items (AIWI) and comparable human-written items (HWI) were screened by a panel of experts for adherence to predetermined style and content guidelines.The items were aggregated into assessments administered to medical students, measuring item difficulty (p-value), point-biserial correlation coefficients, and internal consistency reliability.These metrics were compared between AI and human authors through a parsimonious MANOVA model.Results: Across 180 AIWI, ChatGPT had 290 unique guideline violations, including 241 (75.1%) that could impact future student performance on assessments ("malignant" violations).Common errors included alphabetization of answer choices; keying a correct, single best answer choice; and generating a stem necessary to answer the question.The median time spent per item was five minutes and the mean was 5.68 minutes (95% CI, 5.21-6.14),equating to 10.6 items per hour (95% CI, 9.8-11.5).The average item difficulty (p-value) and average corrected point-biserial correlation coefficient were comparable across AIWI and HWI; the differences were not statistically significant.Conclusions: This study explored the potential of ChatGPT in generating USMLE-style questions for students, as well as medical educators and test developers.The findings suggest that while ChatGPT can produce questions with psychometric properties similar to those created by human experts, its frequent production of factually incorrect or misleading content requires substantial human oversight and renders its unsupervised use by students inadvisable.Despite these challenges, the research highlighted AI's potential as a complement to human expertise to alleviate the workload of generating assessment items.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Academic Pathology
Published
2025-07-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acpath.2025.100187
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Topic Modeling
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
2.48
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

An Investigation of Large Language Model ChatGPT as an Author of USMLE-Style Questions

A.S.R. Macnow
1 citations
Academic Pathology
Topic Modeling
2.48
article

An Investigation of Large Language Model ChatGPT as an Author of USMLE-Style Questions

A.S.R. Macnow
article en
1 citations

Abstract

Objectives: Demand for high-quality practice items, particularly for high-stakes assessments like the USMLE, suggests a role for innovative, efficient approaches to item generation.This study investigates the potential of ChatGPT, an artificial intelligence (AI) large language model, as an author of USMLE-style questions.The aim was to evaluate the utility and feasibility of ChatGPT as an author of USMLE-style questions, focusing on adherence to style and content guidelines, efficiency, and psychometric parameters.Methods: The study comparatively analyzed vignette-based multiple-choice items generated by ChatGPT and human authors.ChatGPT-4 was fine-tuned with official USMLE practice questions and the NBME Item-Writing Guide to develop a chatbot generating USMLE-style items when prompted with learning objectives.These AI-written items (AIWI) and comparable human-written items (HWI) were screened by a panel of experts for adherence to predetermined style and content guidelines.The items were aggregated into assessments administered to medical students, measuring item difficulty (p-value), point-biserial correlation coefficients, and internal consistency reliability.These metrics were compared between AI and human authors through a parsimonious MANOVA model.Results: Across 180 AIWI, ChatGPT had 290 unique guideline violations, including 241 (75.1%) that could impact future student performance on assessments ("malignant" violations).Common errors included alphabetization of answer choices; keying a correct, single best answer choice; and generating a stem necessary to answer the question.The median time spent per item was five minutes and the mean was 5.68 minutes (95% CI, 5.21-6.14),equating to 10.6 items per hour (95% CI, 9.8-11.5).The average item difficulty (p-value) and average corrected point-biserial correlation coefficient were comparable across AIWI and HWI; the differences were not statistically significant.Conclusions: This study explored the potential of ChatGPT in generating USMLE-style questions for students, as well as medical educators and test developers.The findings suggest that while ChatGPT can produce questions with psychometric properties similar to those created by human experts, its frequent production of factually incorrect or misleading content requires substantial human oversight and renders its unsupervised use by students inadvisable.Despite these challenges, the research highlighted AI's potential as a complement to human expertise to alleviate the workload of generating assessment items.

Academic PathologyVol. 12(3)
Thomas Jefferson University (US)
Quality Education
Openalex Percentile: Top 10%
Topic Modeling
2.48
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.