LLMs Struggle to Measure What Distinguishes Students of Different Proficiency Levels: A Study of Item Discrimination in Reading Comprehension Assessment
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Existing work on LLM-based educational assessment has focused largely on item difficulty, but difficulty alone does not indicate whether an item meaningfully distinguishes higher- from lower-proficiency students. Item discrimination captures this complementary and fundamental psychometric property. We investigate whether LLMs can predict human item discrimination from assessment content. We evaluate 42 proprietary and open-weight LLMs using two complementary approaches. Direct discrimination prediction asks models to explicitly predict an item's discrimination value, while response-based proxy estimation treats LLM answers as synthetic responses and applies a Classical Test Theory (CTT)-inspired item-rest calculation. Direct predictions show weak alignment with human item discrimination. The response-based proxy provides a stronger but still limited ranking signal, reaching a CEFR-stratified rank correlation of 0.231. Further analysis shows that this correlation comes mainly from differences across models rather than proficiency prompts that reliably simulate students at different ability levels. Current LLMs therefore contain some discrimination-relevant information, but they do not yet reliably model the ability-conditioned human response behavior that gives item discrimination its psychometric meaning.
Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 20 of its 72 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 17 Jun 2026.
Builds on
20 of 72 references.
References · 20
- 2018BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understandingcited by 40,204
- 2024The Llama 3 Herd of Modelscited by 14,192
- 2023Llama 2: Open Foundation and Fine-Tuned Chat Modelscited by 12,865
- 2025Qwen3 Technical Reportcited by 8,195
- 2023Generative Agents: Interactive Simulacra of Human Behaviorcited by 3,500
- 2023Just Ask for Calibration: Strategies for Eliciting Calibrated Confidence Scores from Language Models Fine-Tuned with Human Feedbackcited by 788
- 2022Teaching Models to Express Their Uncertainty in Wordscited by 731
- 2025Missing Premise exacerbates Overthinking: Are Reasoning Models losing Critical Thinking Skill?cited by 58
- 2025QuestBench: Can LLMs ask the right question to acquire information in reasoning tasks?cited by 56
- 2024Leveraging LLM-Respondents for Item Evaluation: a Psychometric Analysiscited by 31
- 2025Learning to Make MISTAKEs: Modeling Incorrect Student Thinking And Key Errorscited by 19
- 2024LLM-based Cognitive Models of Students with Misconceptionscited by 16
8 more
- 2025Reasoning and Sampling-Augmented MCQ Difficulty Prediction via LLMscited by 14
- 2025Do LLMs Give Psychometrically Plausible Responses in Educational Assessments?cited by 14
- 2023A quantitative study of NLP approaches to question difficulty estimationcited by 12
- 2025Text-Based Approaches to Item Difficulty Modeling in Large-Scale Assessments: A Systematic Reviewcited by 10
- 2025Modeling Student Learning with 3.8 Million Program Tracescited by 10
- 2023Analysis of the Cambridge Multiple-Choice Questions Reading Dataset with a Focus on Candidate Response Distributioncited by 7
- 2024Are You Doubtful? Oh, It Might Be Difficult Then! Exploring the Use of Model Uncertainty for Question Difficulty Estimationcited by 7
- 2025Can LLMs Estimate Student Struggles? Human-AI Difficulty Alignment with Proficiency Simulation for Item Difficulty Predictioncited by 7
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 2.
2 papers.