ArticleBMC psychology2025
AI as a partner in assessment: generating situational judgment tests with large language models.
Article in BMC psychology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
Situational Judgment Tests (SJTs) are important tools for evaluating individual abilities by presenting specific scenarios and assessing the responses. This study explores the potential of Large Language Models (LLMs) in developing SJTs, with emotional regulation as an example. We proposed and evaluated two approaches using ERNIE 4.0, an advanced Chinese LLM: generating new items from scratch (Approach 1) and adapting items from existing examples (Approach 2). The quality of generated items was assessed through expert evaluations and empirical testing with 93 psychology undergraduates and 184 participants from a general population pool. Results indicate that items generated by ERNIE 4.0, particularly new items from Approach 1, met or exceeded the quality of existing tests in both expert evaluations and empirical validations, while adapted items showed some limitations. This research demonstrates LLMs’ potential for developing valid assessments, offering insights for future applications.
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.