Do Assessment Instruments Measure the Same Thing for Humans and LLMs? A Latent Structure Analysis

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.15630v1
• Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2026 08:52:58 GMT
• Title: Do Assessment Instruments Measure the Same Thing for Humans and LLMs? A Latent Structure Analysis
• Abstract summary: This study examines whether similarity in the latent structure of responses to an assessment holds for large language models (LLMs)<n>We find systematic differences between human and LLM factor structures, showing evidence that the analyzed assessments may not measure the same constructs for humans and LLMs.<n>These findings call into question the validity of evaluation practices that use educational assessments to make claims about AI capabilities.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: The rapid development and growing deployment of large language models (LLMs) have made it increasingly important to understand their capabilities. A common approach is to evaluate LLMs using assessment instruments originally designed to measure skills and competencies in humans, such as standardized exams, and to use performance on these instruments as evidence for generalizable claims about LLMs' underlying abilities on the same skills the assessments are intended to measure in humans. However, from a validity perspective, such inferences require that the relationship between observed performance and underlying constructs established for humans also holds for LLMs. In particular, a necessary condition for transferring score interpretations is similarity in the latent structure of responses to the assessment. In this study, we examine whether this condition holds in two educational contexts: high-school chemistry and a quantitative reasoning section of a university entrance exam. Using a case study design, we compare human response data with responses generated by six multimodal LLMs. Our analytical approach combines exploratory factor analysis, factor congruence, and resampling to assess latent structure similarity across human learners and LLMs. Across both instruments, we find systematic differences between human and LLM factor structures, showing evidence that the analyzed assessments may not measure the same constructs for humans and LLMs. These findings call into question the validity of evaluation practices that use educational assessments to make claims about AI capabilities.

Related papers

• Interpretable Humans, Alien LLMs: Expert Analysis of Latent Structures in Assessment Responses [0.0]
  The evaluation of large language models (LLMs) relies heavily on human-designed assessments.<n>We investigate whether the latent factors governing LLM performance carry the same substantive, human-interpretable meaning as the cognitive constructs governing human learners.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-18T14:08:25Z)
• Teaching Values to Machines: Simulating Human-Like Behavior in LLMs [9.380468624733123]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) demonstrate a remarkable capacity to adopt different personas and roles.<n>It remains unclear whether they can manifest behavior that adheres to a coherent, human-like value structure.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-28T14:56:21Z)
• A Survey of Large Language Models for Perception and Measurement of Human Psychology [55.608047817598965]
  A central issue is whether Large Language Models possess the capability to accurately perceive and measure complex, latent human psychological constructs.<n>This paper provides a systematic review focused on the use of LLMs as instruments for human psychological measurement.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-20T14:54:09Z)
• Assessment Design in the AI Era: A Method for Identifying Items Functioning Differentially for Humans and Chatbots [0.0]
  The rapid adoption of large language models (LLMs) in education raises profound challenges for assessment design.<n>We introduce a statistically principled approach for identifying items on which humans and LLMs show systematic response differences.<n>The method is based on Differential Item Functioning (DIF) analysis.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-24T19:39:39Z)
• IV Co-Scientist: Multi-Agent LLM Framework for Causal Instrumental Variable Discovery [61.15184885636171]
  In the presence of confounding between an endogenous variable and the outcome, instrumental variables (IVs) are used to isolate the causal effect of the endogenous variable.<n>We investigate whether large language models (LLMs) can aid in this task.<n>We introduce IV Co-Scientist, a multi-agent system that proposes, critiques, and refines IVs for a given treatment-outcome pair.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-08T12:28:29Z)
• On Evaluating LLM Alignment by Evaluating LLMs as Judges [68.15541137648721]
  evaluating large language models' (LLMs) alignment requires them to be helpful, honest, safe, and to precisely follow human instructions.<n>We examine the relationship between LLMs' generation and evaluation capabilities in aligning with human preferences.<n>We propose a benchmark that assesses alignment without directly evaluating model outputs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-25T18:33:24Z)
• Humanizing LLMs: A Survey of Psychological Measurements with Tools, Datasets, and Human-Agent Applications [25.38031971196831]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in human-centered tasks.<n>Assessing their psychological traits is crucial for understanding their social impact and ensuring trustworthy AI alignment.<n>This study aims to propose future directions for developing more interpretable, robust, and generalizable psychological assessment frameworks for LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-30T06:09:40Z)
• Comparing Human Expertise and Large Language Models Embeddings in Content Validity Assessment of Personality Tests [0.0]
  We explore the application of Large Language Models (LLMs) in assessing the content validity of psychometric instruments.<n>Using both human expert evaluations and advanced LLMs, we compared the accuracy of semantic item-construct alignment.<n>The results reveal distinct strengths and limitations of human and AI approaches.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-15T10:54:35Z)
• 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)
• Evaluating Interventional Reasoning Capabilities of Large Language Models [58.52919374786108]
  Large language models (LLMs) are used to automate decision-making tasks.<n>In this paper, we evaluate whether LLMs can accurately update their knowledge of a data-generating process in response to an intervention.<n>We create benchmarks that span diverse causal graphs (e.g., confounding, mediation) and variable types.<n>These benchmarks allow us to isolate the ability of LLMs to accurately predict changes resulting from their ability to memorize facts or find other shortcuts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-08T14:15:56Z)
• Is Self-knowledge and Action Consistent or Not: Investigating Large Language Model's Personality [11.660251022962141]
  We investigate the validity of conventional personality questionnaires in capturing the human-like personality traits of Large Language Models (LLMs)<n>Our objective is to assess the congruence between the personality traits LLMs claim to possess and their demonstrated tendencies in real-world scenarios.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-22T16:32:08Z)
• Can Large Language Models Be an Alternative to Human Evaluations? [80.81532239566992]
  Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated exceptional performance on unseen tasks when only the task instructions are provided. We show that the result of LLM evaluation is consistent with the results obtained by expert human evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-03T07:28:50Z)

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.