Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40827247›Full record

ArticleEducational and psychological measurement2026

Human Expertise and Large Language Model Embeddings in the Content Validity Assessment of Personality Tests.

Nicola Milano, Michela Ponticorvo, Davide Marocco

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Educational and psychological measurement, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

3 authors.

Nicola MilanoDepartment of Humanistic Studies, Natural and Artificial Cognition Laboratory "Orazio Miglino," University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1604-5161
Michela PonticorvoDepartment of Humanistic Studies, Natural and Artificial Cognition Laboratory "Orazio Miglino," University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy.
Davide MaroccoDepartment of Humanistic Studies, Natural and Artificial Cognition Laboratory "Orazio Miglino," University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In this article, we explore the application of Large Language Models (LLMs) in assessing the content validity of psychometric instruments, focusing on the Big Five Questionnaire (BFQ) and Big Five Inventory (BFI). Content validity, a cornerstone of test construction, ensures that psychological measures adequately cover their intended constructs. Using both human expert evaluations and advanced LLMs, we compared the accuracy of semantic item-construct alignment. Graduate psychology students employed the Content Validity Ratio to rate test items, forming the human baseline. In parallel, state-of-the-art LLMs, including multilingual and fine-tuned models, analyzed item embeddings to predict construct mappings. The results reveal distinct strengths and limitations of human and AI approaches. Human validators excelled in aligning the behaviorally rich BFQ items, while LLMs performed better with the linguistically concise BFI items. Training strategies significantly influenced LLM performance, with models tailored for lexical relationships outperforming general-purpose LLMs. Here we highlight the complementary potential of hybrid validation systems that integrate human expertise and AI precision. The findings underscore the transformative role of LLMs in psychological assessment, paving the way for scalable, objective, and robust test development methodologies.

Indexed as

Big Five InventoryBig Five Questionnairecontent validityembeddingslarge language modelsnatural language processing

Identifiers

PMID40827247
PMCPMC12356817

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.