ArticleEuropean journal of dental education : official journal of the Association for Dental Education in Europe2026
Examining the Role of Artificial Intelligence in Assessment: A Comparative Study of ChatGPT and Educator-Generated Multiple-Choice Questions in a Dental Exam.
Article in European journal of dental education : official journal of the Association for Dental Education in Europe, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Examining the Role of Artificial Intelligence in Assessment: A Comparative Study of ChatGPT and Educator-Generated Multiple-Choice Questions in a Dental Exam.European journal of dental education : official journal of the Association for Dental Education in Europe · 2026Article
- Psychometric properties and detectability of GPT-4o-generated multiple-choice questions compared with human-authored items across imaging specialties.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- A narrative discussion on the impact of respiratory infectious diseases on dental education in China: implications for curriculum design and student outcomes.Frontiers in dental medicine · 2026Review
- Quality of Large Language Model-Generated MCQs Across Three Medical Disciplines: An Expert Rater-Based Comparison of Gemini, GPT-4 and Perplexity Pro.Advances in medical education and practice · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo compare the item difficulty and discriminative index of multiple-choice questions (MCQs) generated by ChatGPT with those created by dental educators, based on the performance of dental students in a real exam setting. MATERIALS AND
methodsA total of 40 MCQs-20 generated by ChatGPT 4.0 and 20 by dental educators-were developed based on the Oral Diagnosis and Radiology course content. An independent, blinded panel of three educators assessed all MCQs for accuracy, relevance and clarity. Fifth-year dental students participated in an onsite and online exam featuring these questions. Item difficulty and discriminative indices were calculated using classical test theory and point-biserial correlation. Statistical analysis was conducted with the Shapiro-Wilk test, paired sample t-test and independent t-test, with significance set at p < 0.05.
resultsEducators created 20 valid MCQs in 2.5 h, with minor revisions needed for three questions. ChatGPT generated 36 MCQs in 30 min; 20 were accepted, while 44% were excluded due to poor distractors, repetition, bias, or factual errors. Eighty fifth-year dental students completed the exam. The mean difficulty index was 0.41 ± 0.19 for educator-generated questions and 0.42 ± 0.15 for ChatGPT-generated questions, with no statistically significant difference (p = 0.773). Similarly, the mean discriminative index was 0.30 ± 0.16 for educator-generated questions and 0.32 ± 0.16 for ChatGPT-generated questions, also showing no significant difference (p = 0.578). Notably, 60% (n = 12) of ChatGPT-generated and 50% (n = 10) of educator-generated questions met the criteria for 'good quality', demonstrating balanced difficulty and strong discriminative performance.
conclusionChatGPT-generated MCQs performed comparably to educator-created questions in terms of difficulty and discriminative power, highlighting their potential to support assessment design. However, it is important to note that a substantial portion of the initial ChatGPT-generated MCQs were excluded by the independent panel due to issues related to clarity, accuracy, or distractor quality. To avoid overreliance, particularly among faculty who may lack experience in question development or awareness of AI limitations, expert review is essential before use. Future studies should investigate AI's ability to generate complex question formats and its long-term impact on learning.
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.