ArticleFrontiers in pharmacology2025
Challenging the curve: can ChatGPT-generated MCQs reduce grade inflation in pharmacy education.
Article in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluating AI-generated examination papers in periodontology: a comparative study with human-designed counterparts.BMC medical education · 2025Trial
- Can AI Write MCQs? A Comparison of ChatGPT-Generated and Educator-Authored Multiple-Choice Questions in Graduate Nursing Education.Nursing reports (Pavia, Italy) · 2026Article
- Assessing academic entitlement in pharmacy students: insights from Saudi Arabia.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Grade inflation in higher education poses challenges to maintaining academic standards, particularly in pharmacy education, where assessing student competency is crucial. This study investigates the impact of AI-generated multiple-choice questions (MCQs) on exam difficulty and reliability in a pharmacy management course at a Saudi university. Methods: A quasi-experimental design compared the 2024 midterm exam, featuring ChatGPT-generated MCQs, with the 2023 exam that utilized human-generated questions. Both exams covered identical topics. Exam reliability was assessed using the Kuder-Richardson Formula 20 (KR-20), while difficulty and discrimination indices were analyzed. Statistical tests, including t-tests and chi-square tests, were conducted to compare performance metrics. Results: The 2024 exam demonstrated higher reliability (KR-20 = 0.83) compared to the 2023 exam (KR-20 = 0.78). The 2024 exam included a greater proportion of moderate questions (30%) and one difficult question (3.3%), whereas the 2023 exam had 93.3% easy questions. The mean student score was significantly lower in 2024 (17.75 vs. 21.53, p < 0.001), and the discrimination index improved (0.35 vs. 0.25, p = 0.007), indicating enhanced differentiation between students. Discussion: The findings suggest that AI-generated MCQs contribute to improved exam rigor and a potential reduction in grade inflation. However, careful review of AI-generated content remains essential to ensure alignment with course objectives and accuracy. Conclusion: AI tools like ChatGPT offer promising opportunities to enhance assessment integrity and support fairer evaluations in pharmacy education.
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.