Publication Date
| In 2026 | 0 |
| Since 2025 | 1 |
| Since 2022 (last 5 years) | 1 |
| Since 2017 (last 10 years) | 1 |
| Since 2007 (last 20 years) | 1 |
Descriptor
| Difficulty Level | 2 |
| Psychology | 2 |
| Test Construction | 2 |
| Test Items | 2 |
| Artificial Intelligence | 1 |
| Comparative Analysis | 1 |
| Computer Software | 1 |
| Cues | 1 |
| Educational Research | 1 |
| Evaluators | 1 |
| Formative Evaluation | 1 |
| More ▼ | |
Source
| Teaching of Psychology | 2 |
Author
| Alexander Kah | 1 |
| Emily Courtney | 1 |
| Laffitte, Rondeau G., Jr. | 1 |
| Mariah Wilkerson | 1 |
| Roger Young | 1 |
| Yi-Hsin Chen | 1 |
Publication Type
| Journal Articles | 2 |
| Reports - Research | 2 |
Education Level
| Higher Education | 1 |
| Postsecondary Education | 1 |
Audience
Location
Laws, Policies, & Programs
Assessments and Surveys
What Works Clearinghouse Rating
Direct linkRoger Young; Emily Courtney; Alexander Kah; Mariah Wilkerson; Yi-Hsin Chen – Teaching of Psychology, 2025
Background: Multiple-choice item (MCI) assessments are burdensome for instructors to develop. Artificial intelligence (AI, e.g., ChatGPT) can streamline the process without sacrificing quality. The quality of AI-generated MCIs and human experts is comparable. However, whether the quality of AI-generated MCIs is equally good across various domain-…
Descriptors: Item Response Theory, Multiple Choice Tests, Psychology, Textbooks
Peer reviewedLaffitte, Rondeau G., Jr. – Teaching of Psychology, 1984
A study involving undergraduate college students enrolled in an introductory psychology course showed that test item arrangement by difficulty or by order of content presentation has no effect on total achievement test score. The data also fail to demonstrate any influence of test item order on student perception of test difficulty. (RM)
Descriptors: Difficulty Level, Educational Research, Higher Education, Psychology
