An Automatic Question Usability Evaluation Toolkit
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Evaluating multiple-choice questions (MCQs) involves either labor intensive human assessments or automated methods that prioritize readability, often overlooking deeper question design flaws. To address this issue, we introduce the Scalable Automatic Question Usability Evaluation Toolkit (SAQUET), an open-source tool that leverages the Item-Writing Flaws (IWF) rubric for a comprehensive and automated quality evaluation of MCQs. By harnessing the latest in large language models such as GPT-4, advanced word embeddings, and Transformers designed to analyze textual complexity, SAQUET effectively pinpoints and assesses a wide array of flaws in MCQs. We first demonstrate the discrepancy between commonly used automated evaluation metrics and the human assessment of MCQ quality. Then we evaluate SAQUET on a diverse dataset of MCQs across the five domains of Chemistry, Statistics, Computer Science, Humanities, and Healthcare, showing how it effectively distinguishes between flawed and flawless questions, providing a level of analysis beyond what is achievable with traditional metrics. With an accuracy rate of over 94% in detecting the presence of flaws identified by human evaluators, our findings emphasize the limitations of existing evaluation methods and showcase potential in improving the quality of educational assessments.
Key facts. Cited by 9 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 12 of its 27 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 30 May 2024.
Builds on
12 of 27 references.
References · 12
- 2015A Diversity-Promoting Objective Function for Neural Conversation Modelscited by 1,068
- 2020Tangled up in BLEU: Reevaluating the Evaluation of Automatic Machine Translation Evaluation Metricscited by 155
- 2023A Comparative Study of AI-Generated (GPT-4) and Human-crafted MCQs in Programming Educationcited by 34
- 2018Identifying Well-formed Natural Language Questionscited by 29
- 2022Multiple-Choice Question Generation: Towards an Automated Assessment Frameworkcited by 23
- 2023Assessing the Quality of Multiple-Choice Questions Using GPT-4 and Rule-Based Methodscited by 23
- 2023Scalable Educational Question Generation with Pre-trained Language Modelscited by 19
- 2024How Teachers Can Use Large Language Models and Bloom's Taxonomy to Create Educational Quizzescited by 17
- 2023Distractor generation for multiple-choice questions with predictive prompting and large language modelscited by 15
- 2022Evaluating the Knowledge Dependency of Questionscited by 9
- 2023Automatic Answerability Evaluation for Question Generationcited by 5
- 2023Automating question generation from educational textcited by 3
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2024: 1; 2025: 5; 2026: 3.
9 papers.
- 2025Which of These Best Describes Multiple Choice Evaluation with LLMs? A) Forced B) Flawed C) Fixable D) All of the Abovecited by 51
- 2025SATA-BENCH: Select All That Apply Benchmark for Multiple Choice Questionscited by 9
- 2024DiVERT: Distractor Generation with Variational Errors Represented as Text for Math Multiple-choice Questionscited by 7
- 2026KNIGHT: Knowledge Graph-Driven Multiple-Choice Question Generation with Adaptive Hardness Calibrationcited by 4
- 2025Evaluating LLM-Generated Q&A Test: a Student-Centered Studycited by 3
- 2026BenchMarker: An Education-Inspired Toolkit for Highlighting Flaws in Multiple-Choice Benchmarkscited by 3
- 2025The Impact of Item-Writing Flaws on Difficulty and Discrimination in Item Response Theorycited by 0
- 2025Tell Me Who Your Students Are: GPT Can Generate Valid Multiple-Choice Questions When Students' (Mis)Understanding Is Hintedcited by 0
- 2026Check The Scoreboard: An Analysis of Scoring Schemes on Multiple-Choice Evaluationcited by 0
- 2026Check The Scoreboard: An Analysis of Scoring Schemes on Multiple-Choice Evaluation30 Aug 2026
- 2026KNIGHT: Knowledge Graph-Driven Multiple-Choice Question Generation with Adaptive Hardness Calibration23 Feb 2026
- 2026BenchMarker: An Education-Inspired Toolkit for Highlighting Flaws in Multiple-Choice Benchmarks5 Feb 2026
- 2025SATA-BENCH: Select All That Apply Benchmark for Multiple Choice Questions31 May 2025
- 2025Evaluating LLM-Generated Q&A Test: a Student-Centered Study10 May 2025
- 2025Tell Me Who Your Students Are: GPT Can Generate Valid Multiple-Choice Questions When Students' (Mis)Understanding Is Hinted9 May 2025
- 2025The Impact of Item-Writing Flaws on Difficulty and Discrimination in Item Response Theory13 Mar 2025
- 2025Which of These Best Describes Multiple Choice Evaluation with LLMs? A) Forced B) Flawed C) Fixable D) All of the Above19 Feb 2025
- 2024DiVERT: Distractor Generation with Variational Errors Represented as Text for Math Multiple-choice Questions27 Jun 2024