Cole Walsh

Cole Walsh, Rodica Ivan

Automated systems have been widely adopted across the educational testing industry for open-response assessment and essay scoring. These systems commonly achieve performance levels comparable to or superior than trained human raters, but have frequently been demonstrated to be vulnerable to the influence of construct-irrelevant factors (i.e., features of responses that are unrelated to the construct assessed) and adversarial conditions. Given the rising usage of large language models in automated scoring systems, there is a renewed focus on ``hallucinations'' and the robustness of these LLM-based automated scoring approaches to construct-irrelevant factors. This study investigates the effects of construct-irrelevant factors on a dual-architecture LLM-based scoring system designed to score short essay-like open-response items in a situational judgment test. It was found that the scoring system was generally robust to padding responses with meaningless text, spelling errors, and writing sophistication. Duplicating large passages of text resulted in lower scores predicted by the system, on average, contradicting results from previous studies of non-LLM-based scoring systems, while off-topic responses were heavily penalized by the scoring system. These results provide encouraging support for the robustness of future LLM-based scoring systems when designed with construct relevance in mind.

Cole Walsh, Rodica Ivan, Muhammad Zafar Iqbal et al.

Academic programs are increasingly recognizing the importance of personal and professional skills and their critical role alongside technical expertise in preparing students for future success in diverse career paths. With this growing demand comes the need for scalable systems to measure, evaluate, and develop these skills. Situational Judgment Tests (SJTs) offer one potential avenue for measuring these skills in a standardized and reliable way, but open-response SJTs have traditionally relied on trained human raters for evaluation, presenting operational challenges to delivering SJTs at scale. Past attempts at developing NLP-based scoring systems for SJTs have fallen short due to issues with construct validity of these systems. In this article, we explore a novel approach to extracting construct-relevant features from SJT responses using large language models (LLMs). We use the Casper SJT to demonstrate the efficacy of this approach. This study sets the foundation for future developments in automated scoring for personal and professional skills.

Okan Bulut, Maggie Beiting-Parrish, Jodi M. Casabianca et al.

The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) in educational measurement has revolutionized assessment methods, enabling automated scoring, rapid content analysis, and personalized feedback through machine learning and natural language processing. These advancements provide timely, consistent feedback and valuable insights into student performance, thereby enhancing the assessment experience. However, the deployment of AI in education also raises significant ethical concerns regarding validity, reliability, transparency, fairness, and equity. Issues such as algorithmic bias and the opacity of AI decision-making processes pose risks of perpetuating inequalities and affecting assessment outcomes. Responding to these concerns, various stakeholders, including educators, policymakers, and organizations, have developed guidelines to ensure ethical AI use in education. The National Council of Measurement in Education's Special Interest Group on AI in Measurement and Education (AIME) also focuses on establishing ethical standards and advancing research in this area. In this paper, a diverse group of AIME members examines the ethical implications of AI-powered tools in educational measurement, explores significant challenges such as automation bias and environmental impact, and proposes solutions to ensure AI's responsible and effective use in education.