We present the framework Omethi, which is aimed at scoring short text responses in a semi-automatic fashion, particularly fit to international large-scale assessments. We evaluate its effectiveness for the massively multilingual PISA tests. Responses are passed through a conditional flow of hierarchically combined scoring components to assign a score. Once a score is assigned, hierarchically lower components are discarded. Models implemented in this study ranged from lexical matching of normalized texts—with excellent accuracy but weak generalizability—to fine-tuned large language models—with lower accuracy but high generalizability. If not scored by any automatic component, responses are passed on to manual scoring. The paper is the first to provide an evaluation of automatic scoring on multilingual PISA data in eleven languages (including Arabic, Finnish, Hebrew, and Kazakh) from three domains (_n_ = 3.8 million responses). On average, results show a manual effort reduction of 71 percent alongside an agreement of _κ_ = .957, when including manual scoring, and _κ_ = .804 for only the automatically scored responses. The evaluation underscores the framework’s effective adaptivity and operational feasibility with its shares of used components varying substantially across domains and languages while maintaining homogeneously high accuracy.

The advent of artificial intelligence (AI) has marked a transformative era in educational measurement and evaluation, particularly in the development of assessment items. Large language models (LLMs) have emerged as promising tools for scalable automatic item generation (AIG), yet concerns remain about the validity of AI-generated items in various domains. To address this issue, we propose STAIR-AIG (Systematic Tool for Assessment Item Review in Automatic Item Generation), a human-in-the-loop framework that integrates expert judgment to optimize the quality of AIG items. To explore the functionality of the tool, AIG items were generated in the domain of critical thinking. Subsequently, the human expert and four OpenAI LLMs conducted a review of the AIG items. The results show that while the LLMs demonstrated high consistency in their rating of the AIG items, they exhibited a tendency towards leniency. In contrast, the human expert provided more variable and strict evaluations, identifying issues such as the irrelevance of the construct and cultural insensitivity. These findings highlight the viability of STAIR-AIG as a structured human-AI collaboration approach that facilitates rigorous item review, thus optimizing the quality of AIG items. Furthermore, STAIR-AIG enables iterative review processes and accumulates human feedback, facilitating the refinement of models and prompts. This, in turn, would establish a more reliable and comprehensive pipeline to improve AIG practices.