AI-augmented versus expert-authored multiple-choice questions: a psychometric comparison in a high-stakes specialty examination.
- DOI
- 10.48620/102289
- Published
- 2026
- Container
- Not recorded
- Publisher
- University of Bern
- Open access
- yes
Credibility signals
limited evidence Score 47/100 under policy 1.0.0. This is a metadata assessment, not a judgment of the paper's conclusions.
Show all credibility signals
- cautionDOI registered: No matching Crossref record was present in this response.
- cautionDOI resolves: No matching Crossref record was present in this response.
- not scoredDirectory of Open Access Journals: No matching DOAJ record was present in this response. No allow-list match; this is not evidence of low credibility.
- not scoredMEDLINE indexed: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredOpenAlex core source: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredKnown publisher allow-list: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredROR affiliation: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredRetraction Watch retraction: No retraction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch expression of concern: No expression of concern notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch correction: No correction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch reinstatement: No reinstatement notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- supportingOpen access status: Normalized open-access status: open.
- supportingPublication license: A publication license was supplied: http://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2. Presence improves reuse transparency, not research validity.
- not scoredPublication version: A publication version was supplied but is not scored.
- cautionMetadata completeness: 5 of 6 scored descriptive metadata groups are present; missing fields increase uncertainty.
Cite this work
BibTeX
@article{allodium:10.48620/102289,
title = {AI-augmented versus expert-authored multiple-choice questions: a psychometric comparison in a high-stakes specialty examination.},
author = {Anschütz, Wilma and Stricker, Daniel and Canonica, Claudia and Montavon, Céline and De Geyter, Christian and Huwendiek, Sören},
year = {2026},
doi = {10.48620/102289},
url = {https://doi.org/10.48620/102289}
}RIS
TY - JOUR TI - AI-augmented versus expert-authored multiple-choice questions: a psychometric comparison in a high-stakes specialty examination. AU - Anschütz, Wilma AU - Stricker, Daniel AU - Canonica, Claudia AU - Montavon, Céline AU - De Geyter, Christian AU - Huwendiek, Sören PY - 2026 DO - 10.48620/102289 UR - https://doi.org/10.48620/102289 ER -
APA
Wilma, A., Daniel, S., Claudia, C., Céline, M., Christian, D. G., & Sören, H. (2026). AI-augmented versus expert-authored multiple-choice questions: a psychometric comparison in a high-stakes specialty examination.. https://doi.org/10.48620/102289
Source records
- datacite · retrieved 2026-11-10T09:08:51.567Z