From Feature-Based Models to Generative AI: Validity Evidence for Constructed Response Scoring

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2603.19280v1
• Date: Sun, 01 Mar 2026 23:21:18 GMT
• Title: From Feature-Based Models to Generative AI: Validity Evidence for Constructed Response Scoring
• Abstract summary: We compare the validity evidence needed in scoring systems using human ratings, feature-based natural language processing AI scoring engines, and generative AI.<n>The evidence needed in the generative AI context is more extensive than in the feature-based scoring context because of the lack of transparency and other unique concerns to generative AI such as consistency.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: The rapid advancements in large language models and generative artificial intelligence (AI) capabilities are making their broad application in the high-stakes testing context more likely. Use of generative AI in the scoring of constructed responses is particularly appealing because it reduces the effort required for handcrafting features in traditional AI scoring and might even outperform those methods. The purpose of this paper is to highlight the differences in the feature-based and generative AI applications in constructed response scoring systems and propose a set of best practices for the collection of validity evidence to support the use and interpretation of constructed response scores from scoring systems using generative AI. We compare the validity evidence needed in scoring systems using human ratings, feature-based natural language processing AI scoring engines, and generative AI. The evidence needed in the generative AI context is more extensive than in the feature-based scoring context because of the lack of transparency and other concerns unique to generative AI such as consistency. Constructed response score data from a large corpus of independent argumentative essays written by 6-12th grade students demonstrate the collection of validity evidence for different types of scoring systems and highlight the numerous complexities and considerations when making a validity argument for these scores.

Related papers

• CoCoNUTS: Concentrating on Content while Neglecting Uninformative Textual Styles for AI-Generated Peer Review Detection [60.52240468810558]
  We introduce CoCoNUTS, a content-oriented benchmark built upon a fine-grained dataset of AI-generated peer reviews.<n>We also develop CoCoDet, an AI review detector via a multi-task learning framework, to achieve more accurate and robust detection of AI involvement in review content.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-28T06:03:11Z)
• The next question after Turing's question: Introducing the Grow-AI test [51.56484100374058]
  This study aims to extend the framework for assessing artificial intelligence, called GROW-AI.<n>GROW-AI is designed to answer the question "Can machines grow up?" -- a natural successor to the Turing Test.<n>The originality of the work lies in the conceptual transposition of the process of "growing" from the human world to that of artificial intelligence.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-22T10:19:42Z)
• General Scales Unlock AI Evaluation with Explanatory and Predictive Power [57.7995945974989]
  benchmarking has guided progress in AI, but it has offered limited explanatory and predictive power for general-purpose AI systems.<n>We introduce general scales for AI evaluation that can explain what common AI benchmarks really measure.<n>Our fully-automated methodology builds on 18 newly-crafted rubrics that place instance demands on general scales that do not saturate.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-09T01:13:56Z)
• Are Large Language Models Ready for Business Integration? A Study on Generative AI Adoption [0.6144680854063939]
  This research examines the readiness of other Large Language Models (LLMs) such as Google Gemini for potential business applications.<n>A dataset of 42,654 reviews from distinct Disneyland branches was employed.<n>Results presented a spectrum of responses, including 75% successful simplifications, 25% errors, and instances of model self-reference.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-28T21:01:22Z)
• Validity Arguments For Constructed Response Scoring Using Generative Artificial Intelligence Applications [0.0]
  generative AI is particularly appealing because it reduces the effort required for handcrafting features in traditional AI scoring.<n>We compare the validity evidence needed in scoring systems using human ratings, feature-based natural language processing AI scoring engines, and generative AI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-04T16:59:29Z)
• AI-generated Essays: Characteristics and Implications on Automated Scoring and Academic Integrity [13.371946973050845]
  We examine and benchmark the characteristics and quality of essays generated by popular large language models (LLMs)<n>Our findings highlight limitations in existing automated scoring systems, and identify areas for improvement.<n>Despite concerns that the increasing variety of LLMs may undermine the feasibility of detecting AI-generated essays, our results show that detectors trained on essays generated from one model can often identify texts from others with high accuracy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-22T21:30:58Z)
• Is Contrasting All You Need? Contrastive Learning for the Detection and Attribution of AI-generated Text [4.902089836908786]
  WhosAI is a triplet-network contrastive learning framework designed to predict whether a given input text has been generated by humans or AI.<n>We show that our proposed framework achieves outstanding results in both the Turing Test and Authorship tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-12T15:44:56Z)
• Psittacines of Innovation? Assessing the True Novelty of AI Creations [0.26107298043931204]
  We task an AI with generating project titles for hypothetical crowdfunding campaigns. We compare within AI-generated project titles, measuring repetition and complexity. Results suggest that the AI generates unique content even under increasing task complexity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-17T13:08:11Z)
• AES Systems Are Both Overstable And Oversensitive: Explaining Why And Proposing Defenses [66.49753193098356]
  We investigate the reason behind the surprising adversarial brittleness of scoring models. Our results indicate that autoscoring models, despite getting trained as "end-to-end" models, behave like bag-of-words models. We propose detection-based protection models that can detect oversensitivity and overstability causing samples with high accuracies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-09-24T03:49:38Z)
• Evaluation Toolkit For Robustness Testing Of Automatic Essay Scoring Systems [64.4896118325552]
  We evaluate the current state-of-the-art AES models using a model adversarial evaluation scheme and associated metrics. We find that AES models are highly overstable. Even heavy modifications(as much as 25%) with content unrelated to the topic of the questions do not decrease the score produced by the models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-07-14T03:49:43Z)
• A general framework for scientifically inspired explanations in AI [76.48625630211943]
  We instantiate the concept of structure of scientific explanation as the theoretical underpinning for a general framework in which explanations for AI systems can be implemented. This framework aims to provide the tools to build a "mental-model" of any AI system so that the interaction with the user can provide information on demand and be closer to the nature of human-made explanations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-03-02T10:32:21Z)

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.