Established Psychometric vs. Ecologically Valid Questionnaires: Rethinking Psychological Assessments in Large Language Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2509.10078v1
• Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2025 09:14:42 GMT
• Title: Established Psychometric vs. Ecologically Valid Questionnaires: Rethinking Psychological Assessments in Large Language Models
• Abstract summary: Concerns have been raised about applying human-designed questionnaires to Large Language Models.<n>It remains unclear how established questionnaires and ecologically valid questionnaires differ in their outcomes.
• Score: 15.537707340415407
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Researchers have applied established psychometric questionnaires (e.g., BFI, PVQ) to measure the personality traits and values reflected in the responses of Large Language Models (LLMs). However, concerns have been raised about applying these human-designed questionnaires to LLMs. One such concern is their lack of ecological validity--the extent to which survey questions adequately reflect and resemble real-world contexts in which LLMs generate texts in response to user queries. However, it remains unclear how established questionnaires and ecologically valid questionnaires differ in their outcomes, and what insights these differences may provide. In this paper, we conduct a comprehensive comparative analysis of the two types of questionnaires. Our analysis reveals that established questionnaires (1) yield substantially different profiles of LLMs from ecologically valid ones, deviating from the psychological characteristics expressed in the context of user queries, (2) suffer from insufficient items for stable measurement, (3) create misleading impressions that LLMs possess stable constructs, and (4) yield exaggerated profiles for persona-prompted LLMs. Overall, our work cautions against the use of established psychological questionnaires for LLMs. Our code will be released upon publication.

Related papers

• Not What, But How: A Framework for Auditing LLM Responses across Positioning, Generalization, Anthromorphism, and Maxims [54.31707479192195]
  Large language models (LLMs) are being increasingly used to answer subjective, information-seeking questions.<n>Existing evaluations for subjective cultural queries largely focus on factual correctness, ignoring how the response is framed.<n>We introduce FRANZ, an automated FRAmework for respoNse characteriZation to conduct communicative audit of LLM responses along four dimensions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-01T17:01:31Z)
• An Analysis of Large Language Models for Simulating User Responses in Surveys [8.614942349812429]
  Using Large Language Models to simulate user opinions has received growing attention.<n>LLMs are known to exhibit biases toward dominant viewpoints, raising concerns about their ability to represent users from diverse demographic and cultural backgrounds.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-07T15:03:09Z)
• Objective quantification of mood states using large language models [0.0]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) showcase an excellent level of response consistency across wide-ranging contexts.<n>We leverage these parallels to establish a framework for quantifying mental states.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-13T16:52:06Z)
• Fostering Appropriate Reliance on Large Language Models: The Role of Explanations, Sources, and Inconsistencies [66.30619782227173]
  Large language models (LLMs) can produce erroneous responses that sound fluent and convincing.<n>We identify several features of LLM responses that shape users' reliance.<n>We find that explanations increase reliance on both correct and incorrect responses.<n>We observe less reliance on incorrect responses when sources are provided or when explanations exhibit inconsistencies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-12T16:35:41Z)
• Cognitive phantoms in LLMs through the lens of latent variables [0.3441021278275805]
  Large language models (LLMs) increasingly reach real-world applications, necessitating a better understanding of their behaviour. Recent studies administering psychometric questionnaires to LLMs report human-like traits in LLMs, potentially influencing behaviour. This approach suffers from a validity problem: it presupposes that these traits exist in LLMs and that they are measurable with tools designed for humans. This study investigates this problem by comparing latent structures of personality between humans and three LLMs using two validated personality questionnaires.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-06T12:42:35Z)
• Evaluating Large Language Models with Psychometrics [59.821829073478376]
  This paper offers a comprehensive benchmark for quantifying psychological constructs of Large Language Models (LLMs)<n>Our work identifies five key psychological constructs -- personality, values, emotional intelligence, theory of mind, and self-efficacy -- assessed through a suite of 13 datasets.<n>We uncover significant discrepancies between LLMs' self-reported traits and their response patterns in real-world scenarios, revealing complexities in their behaviors.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-25T16:09:08Z)
• LLMs Assist NLP Researchers: Critique Paper (Meta-)Reviewing [106.45895712717612]
  Large language models (LLMs) have shown remarkable versatility in various generative tasks. This study focuses on the topic of LLMs assist NLP Researchers. To our knowledge, this is the first work to provide such a comprehensive analysis.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-24T01:30:22Z)
• Limited Ability of LLMs to Simulate Human Psychological Behaviours: a Psychometric Analysis [0.27309692684728604]
  We prompt OpenAI's flagship models, GPT-3.5 and GPT-4, to assume different personas and respond to a range of standardized measures of personality constructs. We found that the responses from GPT-4, but not GPT-3.5, using generic persona descriptions show promising, albeit not perfect, psychometric properties.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-12T10:52:15Z)
• You don't need a personality test to know these models are unreliable: Assessing the Reliability of Large Language Models on Psychometric Instruments [37.03210795084276]
  We examine whether the current format of prompting Large Language Models elicits responses in a consistent and robust manner. Our experiments on 17 different LLMs reveal that even simple perturbations significantly downgrade a model's question-answering ability. Our results suggest that the currently widespread practice of prompting is insufficient to accurately and reliably capture model perceptions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-16T09:50:53Z)
• Challenging the Validity of Personality Tests for Large Language Models [2.9123921488295768]
  Large language models (LLMs) behave increasingly human-like in text-based interactions. LLMs' responses to personality tests systematically deviate from human responses.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-09T11:54:01Z)
• Do LLMs exhibit human-like response biases? A case study in survey design [66.1850490474361]
  We investigate the extent to which large language models (LLMs) reflect human response biases, if at all. We design a dataset and framework to evaluate whether LLMs exhibit human-like response biases in survey questionnaires. Our comprehensive evaluation of nine models shows that popular open and commercial LLMs generally fail to reflect human-like behavior.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-07T15:40:43Z)
• Revisiting the Reliability of Psychological Scales on Large Language Models [62.57981196992073]
  This study aims to determine the reliability of applying personality assessments to Large Language Models. Analysis of 2,500 settings per model, including GPT-3.5, GPT-4, Gemini-Pro, and LLaMA-3.1, reveals that various LLMs show consistency in responses to the Big Five Inventory.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-31T15:03:28Z)
• Can ChatGPT Assess Human Personalities? A General Evaluation Framework [70.90142717649785]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have produced impressive results in various areas, but their potential human-like psychology is still largely unexplored. This paper presents a generic evaluation framework for LLMs to assess human personalities based on Myers Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) tests.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-01T06:16:14Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.