Evaluating generative AI chatbots for large-scale assessment data: comparing LLM-as-a-judge and human ratings

This study focuses on developing and evaluating a customized Generative AI chatbot designed to enhance access to large-scale educational data. The chatbot aims to assist researchers and policymakers in exploring complex datasets, such as NAEP, through natural language queries. The chatbot was built using a Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) framework that integrates multiple specialized agents to retrieve, interpret, and synthesize educational data. One agent was selected as a case study for performance evaluation. The study compared an automated Large Language Model (LLM)-based evaluation (“LLM-as-a-judge”) with human expert ratings to examine validity and consistency across three criteria: correctness, completeness, and communication quality. A total of 141 expert-generated questions reflecting typical user queries were used, each accompanied by a reference answer and source documentation. Chatbot’s responses were evaluated with a three-dimensional framework on Correctness, Completeness, and Communication. In addition to human evaluation, an LLM-based evaluation was implemented, and the model was provided with the rubric, human-written reference answers, and retrieved RAG contents to generate automated quality assessments. Interrater reliability among human raters and the LLM-as-a-judge were computed with quadratic weighted kappa (QWK). Findings showed that the LLM-as-a-judge approach achieved comparable agreement levels with human raters and demonstrated reliability across all evaluation dimensions. Interrater reliability analyses revealed no significant differences between inter-human and human-to-LLM agreement, except in the communication dimension, where human-to-LLM consistency was higher. These results indicate that the LLM-as-a-judge method can serve as a viable and consistent alternative to human evaluation for customized RAG-based chatbot assessment. Integrating LLM-based evaluation into the assessment of Generative AI chatbots provides a scalable, reliable, and cost-effective complement to traditional human review. With human oversight for calibration and validation, this approach enables more efficient and consistent evaluation practices, advancing the use of AI tools that facilitate broader access to large-scale educational data.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Large-scale Assessments in Education
Published
2026-03-12
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40536-026-00287-w
Primary Topic
AI in Service Interactions
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Evaluating generative AI chatbots for large-scale assessment data: comparing LLM-as-a-judge and human ratings

Luke Patterson, Maggie Beiting-Parrish, Blue Webb, Zeyu Jin et al.
Large-scale Assessments in Education
AI in Service Interactions
article

Evaluating generative AI chatbots for large-scale assessment data: comparing LLM-as-a-judge and human ratings

Luke Patterson, Maggie Beiting-Parrish, Blue Webb, Zeyu Jin, Ting Zhang
article en

Abstract

This study focuses on developing and evaluating a customized Generative AI chatbot designed to enhance access to large-scale educational data. The chatbot aims to assist researchers and policymakers in exploring complex datasets, such as NAEP, through natural language queries. The chatbot was built using a Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) framework that integrates multiple specialized agents to retrieve, interpret, and synthesize educational data. One agent was selected as a case study for performance evaluation. The study compared an automated Large Language Model (LLM)-based evaluation (“LLM-as-a-judge”) with human expert ratings to examine validity and consistency across three criteria: correctness, completeness, and communication quality. A total of 141 expert-generated questions reflecting typical user queries were used, each accompanied by a reference answer and source documentation. Chatbot’s responses were evaluated with a three-dimensional framework on Correctness, Completeness, and Communication. In addition to human evaluation, an LLM-based evaluation was implemented, and the model was provided with the rubric, human-written reference answers, and retrieved RAG contents to generate automated quality assessments. Interrater reliability among human raters and the LLM-as-a-judge were computed with quadratic weighted kappa (QWK). Findings showed that the LLM-as-a-judge approach achieved comparable agreement levels with human raters and demonstrated reliability across all evaluation dimensions. Interrater reliability analyses revealed no significant differences between inter-human and human-to-LLM agreement, except in the communication dimension, where human-to-LLM consistency was higher. These results indicate that the LLM-as-a-judge method can serve as a viable and consistent alternative to human evaluation for customized RAG-based chatbot assessment. Integrating LLM-based evaluation into the assessment of Generative AI chatbots provides a scalable, reliable, and cost-effective complement to traditional human review. With human oversight for calibration and validation, this approach enables more efficient and consistent evaluation practices, advancing the use of AI tools that facilitate broader access to large-scale educational data.

Large-scale Assessments in EducationVol. 14(1)
American Institutes for Research (US), College Board (US), Federation of American Scientists (US)
U.S. Department of Education
Quality Education
Openalex Percentile: Top 29%
AI in Service Interactions
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.