Estimating the cognitive complexity of reading comprehension (RC) items is crucial for assessing item difficulty before it is administered to learners. Unlike syntactic and semantic features, such as passage length or semantic similarity between options, cognitive features that arise during answer reasoning are not readily extractable using existing NLP tools and have traditionally relied on human annotation. In this study, we examine whether large language models (LLMs) can estimate the cognitive complexity of RC items by focusing on two dimensions-Evidence Scope and Transformation Level-that indicate the degree of cognitive burden involved in reasoning about the answer. Our experimental results demonstrate that LLMs can approximate the cognitive complexity of items, indicating their potential as tools for prior difficulty analysis. Further analysis reveals a gap between LLMs' reasoning ability and their metacognitive awareness: even when they produce correct answers, they sometimes fail to correctly identify the features underlying their own reasoning process.

Item difficulty plays a crucial role in test performance, interpretability of scores, and equity for all test-takers, especially in large-scale assessments. Traditional approaches to item difficulty modeling rely on field testing and classical test theory (CTT)-based item analysis or item response theory (IRT) calibration, which can be time-consuming and costly. To overcome these challenges, text-based approaches leveraging machine learning and language models, have emerged as promising alternatives. This paper reviews and synthesizes 37 articles on automated item difficulty prediction in large-scale assessment settings published through May 2025. For each study, we delineate the dataset, difficulty parameter, subject domain, item type, number of items, training and test data split, input, features, model, evaluation criteria, and model performance outcomes. Results showed that although classic machine learning models remain relevant due to their interpretability, state-of-the-art language models, using both small and large transformer-based architectures, can capture syntactic and semantic patterns without the need for manual feature engineering. Uniquely, model performance outcomes were summarized to serve as a benchmark for future research and overall, text-based methods have the potential to predict item difficulty with root mean square error (RMSE) as low as 0.165, Pearson correlation as high as 0.87, and accuracy as high as 0.806. The review concludes by discussing implications for practice and outlining future research directions for automated item difficulty modeling.

Item (question) difficulties play a crucial role in educational assessments, enabling accurate and efficient assessment of student abilities and personalization to maximize learning outcomes. Traditionally, estimating item difficulties can be costly, requiring real students to respond to items, followed by fitting an item response theory (IRT) model to get difficulty estimates. This approach cannot be applied to the cold-start setting for previously unseen items either. In this work, we present SMART (Simulated Students Aligned with IRT), a novel method for aligning simulated students with instructed ability, which can then be used in simulations to predict the difficulty of open-ended items. We achieve this alignment using direct preference optimization (DPO), where we form preference pairs based on how likely responses are under a ground-truth IRT model. We perform a simulation by generating thousands of responses, evaluating them with a large language model (LLM)-based scoring model, and fit the resulting data to an IRT model to obtain item difficulty estimates. Through extensive experiments on two real-world student response datasets, we show that SMART outperforms other item difficulty prediction methods by leveraging its improved ability alignment.

Machine learning has been proposed as a way to improve educational assessment by making fine-grained predictions about student performance and learning relationships between items. One challenge with many machine learning approaches is incorporating new items, as these approaches rely heavily on historical data. We develop Text-LENS by extending the LENS partial variational auto-encoder for educational assessment to leverage item text embeddings, and explore the impact on predictive performance and generalization to previously unseen items. We examine performance on two datasets: Eedi, a publicly available dataset that includes item content, and LLM-Sim, a novel dataset with test items produced by an LLM. We find that Text-LENS matches LENS' performance on seen items and improves upon it in a variety of conditions involving unseen items; it effectively learns student proficiency from and makes predictions about student performance on new items.

Estimating item difficulty through field-testing is often resource-intensive and time-consuming. As such, there is strong motivation to develop methods that can predict item difficulty at scale using only the item content. Large Language Models (LLMs) represent a new frontier for this goal. The present research examines the feasibility of using an LLM to predict item difficulty for K-5 mathematics and reading assessment items (N = 5170). Two estimation approaches were implemented: (a) a direct estimation method that prompted the LLM to assign a single difficulty rating to each item, and (b) a feature-based strategy where the LLM extracted multiple cognitive and linguistic features, which were then used in ensemble tree-based models (random forests and gradient boosting) to predict difficulty. Overall, direct LLM estimates showed moderate to strong correlations with true item difficulties. However, their accuracy varied by grade level, often performing worse for early grades. In contrast, the feature-based method yielded stronger predictive accuracy, with correlations as high as r = 0.87 and lower error estimates compared to both direct LLM predictions and baseline regressors. These findings highlight the promise of LLMs in streamlining item development and reducing reliance on extensive field testing and underscore the importance of structured feature extraction. We provide a seven-step workflow for testing professionals who would want to implement a similar item difficulty estimation approach with their item pool.

High-quality test items are essential for educational assessments, particularly within Item Response Theory (IRT). Traditional validation methods rely on resource-intensive pilot testing to estimate item difficulty and discrimination. More recently, Item-Writing Flaw (IWF) rubrics emerged as a domain-general approach for evaluating test items based on textual features. However, their relationship to IRT parameters remains underexplored. To address this gap, we conducted a study involving over 7,000 multiple-choice questions across various STEM subjects (e.g., math and biology). Using an automated approach, we annotated each question with a 19-criteria IWF rubric and studied relationships to data-driven IRT parameters. Our analysis revealed statistically significant links between the number of IWFs and IRT difficulty and discrimination parameters, particularly in life and physical science domains. We further observed how specific IWF criteria can impact item quality more and less severely (e.g., negative wording vs. implausible distractors). Overall, while IWFs are useful for predicting IRT parameters--particularly for screening low-difficulty MCQs--they cannot replace traditional data-driven validation methods. Our findings highlight the need for further research on domain-general evaluation rubrics and algorithms that understand domain-specific content for robust item validation.

Prediction of item difficulty based on its text content is of substantial interest. In this paper, we focus on the related problem of recovering IRT-based difficulty when the data originally reported item p-value (percent correct responses). We model this item difficulty using a repository of reading passages and student data from US standardized tests from New York and Texas for grades 3-8 spanning the years 2017-23. This repository is annotated with meta-data on (1) linguistic features of the reading items, (2) test features of the passage, and (3) context features. A penalized regression prediction model with all these features can predict item difficulty with RMSE 0.52 compared to baseline RMSE of 0.92, and with a correlation of 0.77 between true and predicted difficulty. We supplement these features with embeddings from LLMs (ModernBERT, BERT, and LlAMA), which marginally improve item difficulty prediction. When models use only item linguistic features or LLM embeddings, prediction performance is similar, which suggests that only one of these feature categories may be required. This item difficulty prediction model can be used to filter and categorize reading items and will be made publicly available for use by other stakeholders.

In an educational setting, an estimate of the difficulty of multiple-choice questions (MCQs), a commonly used strategy to assess learning progress, constitutes very useful information for both teachers and students. Since human assessment is costly from multiple points of view, automatic approaches to MCQ item difficulty estimation are investigated, yielding however mixed success until now. Our approach to this problem takes a different angle from previous work: asking various Large Language Models to tackle the questions included in two different MCQ datasets, we leverage model uncertainty to estimate item difficulty. By using both model uncertainty features as well as textual features in a Random Forest regressor, we show that uncertainty features contribute substantially to difficulty prediction, where difficulty is inversely proportional to the number of students who can correctly answer a question. In addition to showing the value of our approach, we also observe that our model achieves state-of-the-art results on the BEA publicly available dataset.

Language models (LMs) are increasingly used to simulate human-like responses in scenarios where accurately mimicking a population's behavior can guide decision-making, such as in developing educational materials and designing public policies. The objective of these simulations is for LMs to capture the variations in human responses, rather than merely providing the expected correct answers. Prior work has shown that LMs often generate unrealistically accurate responses, but there are no established metrics to quantify how closely the knowledge distribution of LMs aligns with that of humans. To address this, we introduce "psychometric alignment," a metric that measures the extent to which LMs reflect human knowledge distribution. Assessing this alignment involves collecting responses from both LMs and humans to the same set of test items and using Item Response Theory to analyze the differences in item functioning between the groups. We demonstrate that our metric can capture important variations in populations that traditional metrics, like differences in accuracy, fail to capture. We apply this metric to assess existing LMs for their alignment with human knowledge distributions across three real-world domains. We find significant misalignment between LMs and human populations, though using persona-based prompts can improve alignment. Interestingly, smaller LMs tend to achieve greater psychometric alignment than larger LMs. Further, training LMs on human response data from the target distribution enhances their psychometric alignment on unseen test items, but the effectiveness of such training varies across domains.