assessment platform engineers

Abstract: Research on medical item difficulty has largely focused on prediction rather than on identifying interpretable patterns associated with empirical difficulty. This study used empirical difficulty labels to guide large language models (LLMs) in inducing difficulty rubrics and examined how rubric guidance affected LLM difficulty judgments. Using training items and their empirical difficulty estimates from the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) and the Physician Assistant National Certifying Examination (PANCE), Claude Opus 5 induced separate rubrics for absolute and pairwise difficulty judgment. None of the induced rubrics treated surface features, such as stem length, option count, or images, as major sources of difficulty. Several patterns emerged across both examinations, including cue convergence, misleading cues, and option competition, although their specific forms differed. Retrieval of knowledge that could not be derived from the stem was particularly prominent in the PANCE rubrics, whereas the USMLE rubrics placed greater emphasis on integrating multiple clinical cues. We compared commercial and open-weight LLMs on held-out items under unguided and rubric-guided conditions. Rubric guidance changed how models used the difficulty scale but did not consistently improve performance. In absolute judgments, guidance encouraged broader use of the scale and generally improved coarse-grained agreement, without consistently improving rank ordering. In pairwise comparisons, its effects varied across models and examinations, and judgments became more sensitive to presentation order. These findings suggest that the value of label-guided rubric induction may lie more in generating interpretable, testable hypotheses from empirical difficulty data than in reliably improving difficulty judgments.

Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) promise to automate one of higher education's most resource-intensive activities: assessing student writing. Existing evaluations are typically limited to a single model, a single prompt and a single institution. Using 761 undergraduate psychology assignments from three UK universities, we evaluated three frontier LLMs, individually and in ensemble, on accuracy, prompt sensitivity, error independence, generalisability and evidential basis. Agreement between human and machine marks varied widely, with no model or prompt optimal across institutions. All models compressed marks towards a common central tendency, overvaluing the weakest assignments and undervaluing the strongest. Because this error was shared, ensembling failed to remove it. Machine marks also rewarded linguistic features more strongly than human marks. Since human-machine agreement was a joint product of model, prompt and institution, we conclude that current LLMs lack evaluative capacity transferable across contexts, and that single-context validation overstates readiness for deployment.

Abstract: The development of automated speaking assessment (ASA) is limited by the scarcity of public datasets, with most existing work relying on read-aloud speech, which limits applicability to real-world communication scenarios. In this work, we introduce OpenEnded, a corpus of English practice speech from Mandarin speakers in open-response tasks. Unlike prior open-response datasets that provide only holistic proficiency scores, OpenEnded offers utterance-level assessments of accuracy, fluency, and prosody. Approximately 10,000 utterances are collected and annotated using a hybrid framework: 1,000 are manually labeled via multi-rater scoring with discrepancy resolution to form a high-quality test set, while the remaining are pseudo-labeled by an audio language model (ALM) for training and development sets. We evaluate ALMs and existing ASA models on the OpenEnded test set and introduce VoxPA as an additional baseline. Results show that ALM-generated pseudo-labels improve training over original ALM scoring, while VoxPA achieves the best performance among all baselines.