ArticlePloS one2026
Testing standards for AI-based scores in automated essay scoring.
Article in PloS one, 2026. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Recent developments in the field of artificial intelligence and machine learning allow the wide application of large language models for the evaluation of written text and other non-numerical data. When applied in the context of psychological and educational assessments, such models can be used for assigning scores to essays and other types of responses. In contrast to classical tests, essays do not consist of test items, which leads to specific challenges in the evaluation of testing standards for scores obtained from AI models that differ from those observed for classical ability tests and personality questionnaires. To address these challenges, we discuss the evaluation of validity, fairness, and reliability for scores obtained from models of artificial intelligence in the context of automated essay scoring. We review existing methods, propose new methods, and further illustrate the reviewed methods with an empirical example based on the Hewlett Foundation data set on automated essay scoring. By applying the proposed framework to an evaluation based on a DistilBERT model, we find the model to be robust with sufficiently high internal consistency (Spearman-Brown coefficients in the range from .77 to .92). We further found empirical evidence for the validity of the evaluation model, but also indications for violations of fairness when comparing the human and AI scores across different topics. This study provides a standardized, replicable toolkit for researchers and practitioners to evaluate the psychometric quality of AI-based assessments.
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.