article · Nursing Reports
Background/Objectives: High-quality multiple-choice questions (MCQs) are essential for valid assessment in graduate-level nursing programs, yet developing such items is resource-intensive for educators. Large language models such as ChatGPT may generate educational assessment content; however, evidence regarding their effectiveness in producing graduate-level nursing examination items remains limited. This study compared the perceived quality of ChatGPT-generated and educator-authored MCQs for graduate-level nursing examinations and examined exploratory associations between assessor characteristics and quality ratings. Methods: A comparative cross-sectional study was conducted among 27 international nurse educators who independently evaluated 50 MCQs (25 ChatGPT-generated and 25 educator-authored) using an expert-reviewed rubric assessing eight quality domains, with the primary outcome being the between-source difference in perceived quality ratings. Participants were blinded to question source. Results: ChatGPT-generated MCQs received nominally higher ratings than educator-authored items across most domains, but effect sizes were uniformly small (Cohen’s d = 0.11–0.33). No significant differences were observed in perceived difficulty or distractor plausibility; after Bonferroni correction for multiple domain comparisons, differences in cognitive level, scenario relevance, and instructional alignment remained significant. Conclusions: ChatGPT-generated MCQs achieved perceived-quality ratings broadly comparable to educator-authored items when supported by structured prompting and expert refinement, although expert review remains necessary before classroom use, and these results should be regarded as preliminary. These findings support AI-assisted item development as a complementary strategy pending replication in larger, more rigorous studies.
This page summarises published work. The authoritative version sits with the publisher.
DOI: 10.3390/nursrep16090304
Is something wrong with this record? Report it or request removal.
Discussion
Have you built on this work, tried to replicate it, or seen it applied in practice? Share what you know. Verified researchers and MARATTO™ domain experts can open a discussion, and any member can reply. Contributions are reviewed before they appear.
No discussion yet. Open the first thread.
New to MARATTO™? Create a free account.