Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40558814›Full record

ArticleJournal of Intelligence2025

Scoring German Alternate Uses Items Applying Large Language Models.

Janika Saretzki, Thomas Knopf, Boris Forthmann, Benjamin Goecke, Ann-Kathrin Jaggy, Mathias Benedek, Selina Weiss

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of Intelligence, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Janika SaretzkiDepartment of Psychology, University of Graz, 8010 Graz, Austria.ORCID 0000-0002-6536-8266
Thomas KnopfGESIS-Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences, 68159 Mannheim, Germany.ORCID 0009-0008-0512-0550
Boris ForthmannInstitute of Psychology, University of Münster, 48149 Münster, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-9755-7304
Benjamin GoeckeHector Research Institute of Education Sciences and Psychology, University of Tübingen, 72072 Tübingen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-3050-1848
Ann-Kathrin JaggyHector Research Institute of Education Sciences and Psychology, University of Tübingen, 72072 Tübingen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-5602-4894
Mathias BenedekDepartment of Psychology, University of Graz, 8010 Graz, Austria.ORCID 0000-0001-6258-4476
Selina WeissInstitute for Psychology, University of Hildesheim, 31141 Hildesheim, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-8796-2154

Funding

FWF Austrian Science Fund 10.55776/P35661
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The alternate uses task (AUT) is the most popular measure when it comes to the assessment of creative potential. Since their implementation, AUT responses have been rated by humans, which is a laborious task and requires considerable resources. Large language models (LLMs) have shown promising performance in automatically scoring AUT responses in English as well as in other languages, but it is not clear which method works best for German data. Therefore, we investigated the performance of different LLMs for the automated scoring of German AUT responses. We compiled German data across five research groups including ~50,000 responses for 15 different alternate uses objects from eight lab and online survey studies (including ~2300 participants) to examine generalizability across datasets and assessment conditions. Following a pre-registered analysis plan, we compared the performance of two fine-tuned, multilingual LLM-based approaches [Cross-Lingual Alternate Uses Scoring (CLAUS) and the Open Creativity Scoring with Artificial Intelligence (OCSAI)] with the Generative Pre-trained Transformer (GPT-4) in scoring (a) the original German AUT responses and (b) the responses translated to English. We found that the LLM-based scorings were substantially correlated with human ratings, with higher relationships for OCSAI followed by GPT-4 and CLAUS. Response translation, however, had no consistent positive effect. We discuss the generalizability of the results across different items and studies and derive recommendations and future directions.

Indexed as

alternate uses taskassessmentautomated scoringcreativitydivergent thinkingGermanGPTlarge language models

Identifiers

PMID40558814
PMCPMC12194149

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.