ArticleJournal of educational evaluation for health professions2025
Comparing generative artificial intelligence platforms and nursing student performance on a women's health nursing examination in Korea: a Rasch model approach.
Article in Journal of educational evaluation for health professions, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Prompt engineering for single-best-answer multiple-choice questions in licensing examinations: a narrative review with a case study involving the Korean Medical Licensing Examination.Journal of educational evaluation for health professions · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis psychometric study aimed to compare the ability parameter estimates of generative artificial intelligence (AI) platforms with those of nursing students on a 50-item women's health nursing examination at Hallym University, Korea, using the Rasch model. It also sought to estimate item difficulty parameters and evaluate AI performance across varying difficulty levels.
methodsThe exam, consisting of 39 multiple-choice items and 11 true/false items, was administered to 111 fourth-year nursing students in June 2023. In December 2024, 6 generative AI platforms (GPT-4o, ChatGPT Free, Claude.ai, Clova X, Mistral.ai, Google Gemini) completed the same items. The responses were analyzed using the Rasch model to estimate the ability and difficulty parameters. Unidimensionality was verified by the Dimensionality Evaluation to Enumerate Contributing Traits (DETECT), and analyses were conducted using the R packages irtQ and TAM.
resultsThe items satisfied unidimensionality (DETECT=-0.16). Item difficulty parameter estimates ranged from -3.87 to 1.96 logits (mean=-0.61), with a mean difficulty index of 0.79. Examinees' ability parameter estimates ranged from -0.71 to 3.14 logits (mean=1.17). GPT-4o, ChatGPT Free, and Claude.ai outperformed the median student ability (1.09 logits), scoring 2.68, 2.34, and 2.34, respectively, while Clova X, Mistral.ai, and Google Gemini exhibited lower scores (0.20, -0.12, 0.80). The test information curve peaked below θ=0, indicating suitability for examinees with low to average ability.
conclusionAdvanced generative AI platforms approximated the performance of high-performing students, but outcomes varied. The Rasch model effectively evaluated AI competency, supporting its potential utility for future AI performance assessments in nursing 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.