Comparative judgment (CJ) is a method that can be used to assess the writing quality of student essays based on repeated pairwise comparisons by multiple assessors. Although the assessment method is known to have high validity and reliability, it can be particularly inefficient, as assessors must make many judgments before the scores become reliable. Prior research has investigated methods to improve the efficiency of CJ, yet these methods introduce additional challenges, notably stemming from the initial lack of information at the start of the assessment, which is known as a cold-start problem. This paper reports on a study in which we predict the initial quality scores of essays to establish a warm start for CJ. To achieve this, we construct informative prior distributions for the quality scores based on the predicted initial quality scores. Through simulation studies, we demonstrate that our approach increases the efficiency of CJ: On average, assessors need to make 30% fewer judgments for each essay to reach an overall reliability level of 0.70.

This paper presents the results of our participation in the BEA 2024 shared task on the automated prediction of item difficulty and item response time (APIDIRT), hosted by the NBME (National Board of Medical Examiners). During this task, practice multiple-choice questions from the United States Medical Licensing Examination® (USMLE®) were shared, and research teams were tasked with devising systems capable of predicting the difficulty and average response time for new exam questions.Our team, part of the interdisciplinary itec research group, participated in the task. We extracted linguistic features and clinical embeddings from question items and tested various modeling techniques, including statistical regression, machine learning, language models, and ensemble methods. Surprisingly, simplermodels such as Lasso and random forest regression, utilizing principal component features from linguistic and clinical embeddings, outperformed more complex models. In the competition, our random forest model ranked 4th out of 43 submissions for difficulty prediction, while the Lasso model secured the 2nd position out of 34 submissions for response time prediction. Further analysis suggests that had we submitted the Lasso model for difficulty prediction, we would have achieved an even higher ranking. We also observed that predicting response time is easier than predicting difficulty, with features such as item length, type, exam step, and analytical thinking influencing response time prediction more significantly.