@inproceedings{sauberli-etal-2025-llms,
    title = "Do {LLM}s Give Psychometrically Plausible Responses in Educational Assessments?",
    author = {S{\"a}uberli, Andreas  and
      Frassinelli, Diego  and
      Plank, Barbara},
    editor = {Kochmar, Ekaterina  and
      Alhafni, Bashar  and
      Bexte, Marie  and
      Burstein, Jill  and
      Horbach, Andrea  and
      Laarmann-Quante, Ronja  and
      Tack, Ana{\"i}s  and
      Yaneva, Victoria  and
      Yuan, Zheng},
    booktitle = "Proceedings of the 20th Workshop on Innovative Use of NLP for Building Educational Applications (BEA 2025)",
    month = jul,
    year = "2025",
    address = "Vienna, Austria",
    publisher = "Association for Computational Linguistics",
    url = "https://preview.aclanthology.org/acl25-workshop-ingestion/2025.bea-1.21/",
    pages = "266--278",
    ISBN = "979-8-89176-270-1",
    abstract = "Knowing how test takers answer items in educational assessments is essential for test development, to evaluate item quality, and to improve test validity. However, this process usually requires extensive pilot studies with human participants. If large language models (LLMs) exhibit human-like response behavior to test items, this could open up the possibility of using them as pilot participants to accelerate test development. In this paper, we evaluate the human-likeness or psychometric plausibility of responses from 18 instruction-tuned LLMs with two publicly available datasets of multiple-choice test items across three subjects: reading, U.S. history, and economics. Our methodology builds on two theoretical frameworks from psychometrics which are commonly used in educational assessment, classical test theory and item response theory. The results show that while larger models are excessively confident, their response distributions can be more human-like when calibrated with temperature scaling. In addition, we find that LLMs tend to correlate better with humans in reading comprehension items compared to other subjects. However, the correlations are not very strong overall, indicating that LLMs should not be used for piloting educational assessments in a zero-shot setting."
}