ReviewJournal of educational evaluation for health professions2025
Prompt engineering for single-best-answer multiple-choice questions in licensing examinations: a narrative review with a case study involving the Korean Medical Licensing Examination.
Review in Journal of educational evaluation for health professions, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The emergence of large language models (LLMs) has generated growing interest in their potential applications for medical assessment and item development. This practice-oriented narrative review examines the potential of LLMs, particularly ChatGPT, for generating and validating single-best-answer multiple-choice questions in health professions licensing examinations, using a Korean Medical Licensing Examination (KMLE)-focused case perspective. We frame LLMs as human-in-the-loop tools rather than replacements for high-stakes testing. Recent applications of LLMs in assessment were reviewed, including prompting strategies such as few-shot, multi-stage, and chain-of-thought methods, as well as retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) to align outputs with exam blueprints. Approaches to enforcing formatting rules, checklist-based self-validation, and iterative refinement were analyzed for their role in supporting item development. Findings indicate that LLMs can perform near passing thresholds on high-stakes exams and assist with grading and feedback tasks. Prompt engineering enhances structural fidelity and clinical plausibility, while human oversight remains critical for accuracy, cultural appropriateness, and psychometric defensibility. The emerging multimodal generation of images, audio, and video suggests the feasibility of new item formats, provided robust validation safeguards are implemented. The most effective approach is a human-in-the-loop workflow that leverages artificial intelligence efficiency while embedding expert judgment, psychometric evaluation, and ethical governance. This practice-oriented roadmap-integrating strategic prompt selection, RAG-based blueprint alignment, rigorous validation gates, and KMLE-specific formatting-offers an implementable and methodologically defensible approach for licensing examinations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.