ArticleJournal of medical education and curricular development
Assessing the Utility of AI Versus Human-Created MCQs in Pediatric Medical Education.
Article in Journal of medical education and curricular development. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Multiple-choice questions (MCQs) remain central to assessment in medical education, but their development is resource intensive. Generative artificial intelligence (AI) offers a potential solution by automating MCQ creation. However, little is known about the psychometric quality of AI-generated MCQs compared with human-authored items, particularly in pediatric education. Objective: This study aimed to directly compare the quality of AI- and human-generated MCQs in pediatrics using item analysis grounded in classical test theory. Methods: A formative exam comprising both AI (Microsoft Copilot) and human-generated pediatric MCQs was administered to 4th-year medical students. Item analysis was performed to calculate difficulty indices, discrimination indices, item-total correlations, and distractor functioning. Reliability was assessed using KR-20. Descriptive and inferential statistics, including paired Results: Human-authored questions outperformed AI-generated questions across all quality indicators. AI questions showed lower discrimination (mean 0.19 vs. 0.29) and a higher proportion outside the acceptable difficulty range (56% vs. 32%). Distractor analysis also favored human questions, with fewer nonfunctioning distractors and more items containing fully functional distractors. While some AI items met ideal psychometric thresholds, overall consistency was lower. Conclusion: Generative AI in its current form cannot yet match human expertise in producing consistently high-quality MCQs for pediatrics. However, AI shows potential as a supplementary tool, particularly within hybrid human-AI workflows that combine efficiency with expert oversight. These findings highlight both the opportunities and limitations of AI in medical education assessment and underscore the importance of balancing reliability, validity, acceptability, and cost-effectiveness when integrating AI into assessment design.
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.