Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42073905›Full record

ArticleBehavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland)2026

The Best of Two Worlds: IRT-Enhanced Automated Essay Interpretable Scoring.

Wei Xia, Jin Wu, Jiarui Yu, Chanjin Zheng

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors.

Wei XiaDepartment of Educational Psychology, Faculty of Education, East China Normal University, Shanghai 200062, China.
Jin WuShanghai Institute of Artificial Intelligence for Education, East China Normal University, Shanghai 200062, China.ORCID 0009-0001-7240-8238
Jiarui YuSchool of Computer Science and Technology, Faculty of Information, East China Normal University, Shanghai 200062, China.
Chanjin ZhengShanghai Institute of Artificial Intelligence for Education, East China Normal University, Shanghai 200062, China.ORCID 0000-0003-1232-0020

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The Automated Essay Scoring (AES) systems confront two fundamental challenges: opaque "black-box" decision-making that limits educator trust, and insufficient validation across linguistically diverse educational contexts. This study proposes IRT-AESF, an innovative framework that bridges educational measurement theory and artificial intelligence by integrating item response theory (IRT) with deep learning. The framework generates three theoretically grounded psychometric parameters: student ability, item difficulty, and item discrimination, which provide transparent and interpretable explanations for scoring decisions. We rigorously evaluated IRT-AESF through 5-fold cross-validation on three large-scale datasets comprising 41,328 authentic essays from English and Chinese educational settings, including both classroom assessments and high-stakes examinations. Results demonstrate statistically significant improvements over competitive baseline models, achieving an 8.4% relative increase in quadratic weighted kappa while maintaining robust cross-lingual performance. This research advances the development of transparent, trustworthy automated assessment systems that deliver not only scores but meaningful diagnostic insights for educational practice.

Indexed as

Automated Essay ScoringBidirectional Encoder Representations from TransformersGeneralized Partial Credit ModelItem Response Theory

Identifiers

PMID42073905
PMCPMC13113330

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.