ArticleJMIR formative research2024
Assessing ChatGPT's Capability for Multiple Choice Questions Using RaschOnline: Observational Study.
Article in JMIR formative research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundChatGPT (OpenAI), a state-of-the-art large language model, has exhibited remarkable performance in various specialized applications. Despite the growing popularity and efficacy of artificial intelligence, there is a scarcity of studies that assess ChatGPT's competence in addressing multiple-choice questions (MCQs) using KIDMAP of Rasch analysis-a website tool used to evaluate ChatGPT's performance in MCQ answering.
objectiveThis study aims to (1) showcase the utility of the website (Rasch analysis, specifically RaschOnline), and (2) determine the grade achieved by ChatGPT when compared to a normal sample.
methodsThe capability of ChatGPT was evaluated using 10 items from the English tests conducted for Taiwan college entrance examinations in 2023. Under a Rasch model, 300 simulated students with normal distributions were simulated to compete with ChatGPT's responses. RaschOnline was used to generate 5 visual presentations, including item difficulties, differential item functioning, item characteristic curve, Wright map, and KIDMAP, to address the research objectives.
resultsThe findings revealed the following: (1) the difficulty of the 10 items increased in a monotonous pattern from easier to harder, represented by logits (-2.43, -1.78, -1.48, -0.64, -0.1, 0.33, 0.59, 1.34, 1.7, and 2.47); (2) evidence of differential item functioning was observed between gender groups for item 5 (P=.04); (3) item 5 displayed a good fit to the Rasch model (P=.61); (4) all items demonstrated a satisfactory fit to the Rasch model, indicated by Infit mean square errors below the threshold of 1.5; (5) no significant difference was found in the measures obtained between gender groups (P=.83); (6) a significant difference was observed among ability grades (P<.001); and (7) ChatGPT's capability was graded as A, surpassing grades B to E.
conclusionsBy using RaschOnline, this study provides evidence that ChatGPT possesses the ability to achieve a grade A when compared to a normal sample. It exhibits excellent proficiency in answering MCQs from the English tests conducted in 2023 for the Taiwan college entrance examinations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.