Systematic Review Flow (PRISMA 2020)
Transparent flow of article identification, LLM screening, full-text eligibility assessment, and inclusion into living synthesis with expert validation.
✓ PRISMA funnel conservation verified (100% stage closure)
Zero data leakage: n_in = n_out + ∑n_excl + n_pending verified across identification, screening, eligibility, and synthesis.
ID: 20240 →
Screen: 19073 →
Eligible: 2784 →
Included: 102
Expert Validation & Taste Loop
Independent of the formal PRISMA selection rules: editorial verdicts by the curator to calibrate quality and active learning.
👍 10
Approved in digest
(14 total in corpus)
👎 29
Rejected with reason
(1 pre / 18 post analysis)
Breakdown of expert rejection reasons:
not_novel: 4
not_for_educators: 3
off_topic: 13
too_narrow: 2
duplicate: 5
other: 1
weak_method: 1
📋 Structured Review Summary (PRISMA 2020: Item 2)
Background: Living systematic review of Large Language Models (LLMs) and autonomous agents in higher education. Focuses on engineering countermeasures to academic dishonesty and redesign of assessment.
Objectives: Systematic identification, screening, and synthesis of empirical evidence regarding reliability, methodological rigor, and consensus challenges in higher education GenAI integration.
Eligibility Criteria: Scholarly works with open-access full text; topic relevance R ≥ 4.0; weighted final score ≥ 5.0.
Information Sources: Multi-register tracking: arXiv, Crossref, OpenAlex, Semantic Scholar, ERIC, plus forward/backward citation loops (depth 1–2).
Risk of Bias & Quality: Multi-criteria methodological rigor (M, 0–10). Screening reliability validated via dual evaluation: Gwet's AC1, stratified recall, and ROC AUC.
Synthesis & Included: Included n = 102 verified works into the living review with extracted claims, limitations, and empirical findings.
🎯 PICO / PECO Search & Eligibility Framework (PRISMA 2020: Items 4–5)
| Component | Protocol Definition | Inclusion / Exclusion Boundaries |
|---|---|---|
| P (Population) | Higher education: universities, colleges, undergraduate/graduate students, instructors, and examiners. | Included: higher/tertiary education. Excluded: purely K-12 primary education without transferability. |
| I / E (Intervention / Exposure) | Use of modern LLMs (GPT-4, Claude, Gemini, Llama) and agentic frameworks for exam solving, tutoring, or automated grading. | Included: empirical testing and deployment of LLMs. Excluded: legacy non-generative ML or symbolic AI. |
| C (Comparator) | Traditional non-AI assessments, human baselines, or comparative evaluation of engineering defenses (guardrails, multi-agent validation). | Included: baselines, cohort comparisons, or countermeasures. Excluded: purely speculative essays without comparator. |
| O (Outcomes) | Task performance, exam breach rates, countermeasure resilience, shift in assessment rubrics, cognitive learning outcomes. | Included: empirical accuracy, resilience, rubric difficulty, psychometrics. Excluded: unverified claims. |
| S (Study Design) | Empirical studies: controlled experiments (RCT), quasi-experiments, case studies, psychometric evaluations, benchmark audits. | Included: peer-reviewed/preprint research with empirical data. Excluded: opinion blogs, press releases. |
* Footnote *: Prefilter Mathematical Model, Indicators & Scoring Formula (Rubric v2.3)
Rubric Indicators & Parameters
| Symbol | Indicator Name | Weight / Value |
|---|---|---|
| M | Methodological Rigor | wM = 0.32 |
| E | Engineering Countermeasures | wE = 0.25 |
| C | Consensus Challenge | wC = 0.43 |
| N | Novelty | wN = 0.00 |
| R | Topic Relevance (0–10) | Rmin = 4.0, Rfull = 7.0 |
| Gate | Binary Scope Gate | PASS / FAIL |
| Поріг | Pass Threshold | Score ≥ 5.0 |
Relevance R is a multiplier, not a summand: papers with R < R_min receive 0, and high-quality off-topic papers cannot outrank topical ones.
Scoring Formulae (MathML Core)
1. Final Prefilter Score:
2. Weighted Quality Score (Q):
3. Logical Prefilter Screening Criterion:
Methods & reporting (PRISMA 2020 items 1–15, 23–27)
Review type, objective, eligibility (1, 3–5)
Living systematic review: a daily-updated, automation-assisted selection. It is a literature-selection tool, not a published review with meta-analysis.
Topic (given to the model): Validity of educational assessment under generative AI and how to keep it (AI-resistant / AI-resilient assessment). Core: how generative AI changes what grades and test scores mean (validity arguments in the sense of Kane and Messick), assessment redesign, and quantitative methods that detect or model the distortion in assessment and learning data: item response theory, differential item functioning between humans and LLMs, item parameter drift, rater drift, item compromise and preknowledge, score shifts under unsupervised or online conditions (proctored vs unproctored exams, cheating, grade inflation), change-point and concept-drift detection, LLMs as test takers or raters, computerized adaptive testing and automated test assembly. Computational, statistical and engineering work is preferred, but a solid conceptual or empirical education study of assessment under generative AI belongs here too. Detectors of AI-generated text and watermarking are only adjacent to the topic. The audience is university educators and researchers: work about primary and secondary school (K-12) is off topic unless its findings or methods clearly transfer to higher education.
- Include: a scholarly article with topic relevance R ≥ 4.0, final score ≥ 5.0; a legal open-access full text that was actually read.
- Exclude: non-articles (datasets, code, errata), duplicates and preprints of published works, retracted works, K-12 with no transfer to higher education, works without full text (paywall, fetch errors), expert-rejected works (👎, reason recorded).
- Manual additions (origin = manual) bypass score screening but go through eligibility assessment.
Information sources & last searched (6)
| Channel | Records | Last record |
|---|---|---|
search — arXiv, OpenAlex, Semantic Scholar, ERIC | 18128 | 2026-11-13 22:29 |
ref — reference lists of read works | 2085 | 2026-11-13 22:30 |
manual — added manually | 27 | 2026-10-07 12:05 |
Citation candidates take metadata from OpenAlex; Crossref/Unpaywall supply DOIs, versions and open PDFs.
Search strategy (7)
Current search version: v1.0. A work matches if its title/abstract hits a term from EVERY group of at least one query (OR within a group; case-insensitive, word boundaries).
Queries (groups):
education × ai; psychometrics × ai; integrity × education; drift × education; drift × psychometrics
education: education, educational, student, learner, teacher, lecturer, classroom, university, higher education, school, curriculum, assessment, exam, examination, examinee, test taker, test score, grading, homework, coursework, online course, essay, academic integrity, academic misconduct, plagiarism, cheating, e-learning, MOOC
ai: generative AI, GenAI, large language model, LLM, ChatGPT, GPT-4, chatbot, AI-generated, AI-assisted, AI-resistant, AI-resilient, AI tool, artificial intelligence
integrity: proctoring, proctored, unproctored, non-proctored, remote proctoring, online exam, online test, online testing, exam integrity, testing integrity, academic integrity, academic dishonesty, cheating, contract cheating, grade inflation
psychometrics: item response theory, IRT, Rasch, psychometric, educational measurement, educational testing, differential item functioning, computerized adaptive testing, adaptive testing, automated test assembly, knowledge tracing, automated scoring, automated essay scoring, validity argument, construct validity, assessment validity, predictive validity
drift: parameter drift, dynamic item response, item parameter drift, rater drift, severity drift, concept drift, change point, change-point detection, item compromise, preknowledge, item exposure, test security, aberrant response, person-fit, differential item functioning
Semantic Scholar phrases: assessment validity generative AI; AI-resilient assessment higher education; AI-resistant assessment design; generative AI exam performance natural experiment; differential item functioning large language models humans; LLM as test taker item response theory; proctored versus unproctored online exam scores; generative AI grade inflation; item parameter drift detection; item compromise preknowledge detection; concept drift knowledge tracing; change point detection educational testing
arXiv: cs.CY, cs.CL, cs.HC, cs.AI, cs.LG, stat.AP, stat.ME. Result caps per query: OpenAlex 50, Semantic Scholar 25, ERIC 25. Citation searching: depth 1 from read and 👍 works, depth 2 from 👍 only; neighbours of 👍 works bypass the lexical filter.
| Search version | Records (search) | First | Last |
|---|---|---|---|
v1.0 | 18128 | 2026-10-06 | 2026-11-13 |
Selection process & automation (8, 9, 11)
- Abstract screening: a single automated reviewer — an LLM (gemini-3.1-flash-lite, gemini-3.5-flash-lite), batches of 20, models alternate; every evaluation is stored (prefilter_evaluations) with model and rubric version.
- Full-text analysis and data collection: gemini-3.8-flash, gemini-3.7-flash, gemini-3.6-flash, prompt
v2.1. Only after PDF→Markdown conversion; the model is never called without full text. - Verification: code checks every quote against the text (exact match after normalisation); unconfirmed claims are discarded.
- Human: no independent second reviewer. The owner gives 👍/👎 verdicts on a sample (50% near threshold, 30% top, 20% random); they steer the queue and few-shot examples but do not change the score.
- Data items (10): summary, method/data/sample, claims, limitations, study design (assessment_design, psychometric_modeling, natural_experiment, detector_evaluation, survey, rct, quasi_experiment, qualitative, theoretical, review, other), tags, rubric criteria.
- Risk of bias (11): not assessed formally (RoB, GRADE not applied); criterion M (methodological rigor, 0–10) is a ranking score, not a RoB tool. No effect measures or meta-analysis (12, 13d–f, 15): synthesis is qualitative, via article analyses and tags.
| Screening model | Scored |
|---|---|
gemini-3.1-flash-lite | 9509 |
gemini-3.5-flash-lite | 8898 |
— | 732 |
| Analysis model | prompt | Analyses |
|---|---|---|
gemini-3.1-flash-lite | v2.1 | 275 |
gemini-3.6-flash | v2.1 | 265 |
gemini-3.8-flash | v2.1 | 116 |
gemini-3.7-flash | v2.1 | 108 |
Scoring rubric v2.3 (0–10 anchors)
The model scores 0–10 per criterion; the anchors below are embedded in the prompt. Formula and weights are in the footnote above. Changing anchors or weights without a new version is blocked by a hash check.
| Criterion | Weight | 2 | 5 | 8 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Topic relevance (R) | × min(1, R/7.0) | No link to education or assessment: image, audio or model watermarking, model IP protection, general NLP benchmarks, AI in industry. | Adjacent: generative AI in education without an assessment focus; academic integrity with no evidence on assessment outcomes; detectors of AI-generated text or of student AI use; general psychometrics (adaptive testing, test assembly, IRT) with no drift, validity or AI angle. | Core: validity of assessment under generative AI (what grades and scores mean when AI is available); how grades shift under unsupervised conditions or cheating (proctored vs unproctored exams, grade inflation); AI-resistant or AI-resilient assessment design; quantitative methods that detect or model distorted assessment or learning data (DIF between humans and LLMs, item parameter or rater drift, item compromise/preknowledge, change-point or concept-drift detection, LLMs as test takers or raters). |
| Methodological rigor (M) | 0.32 | Vague evaluation, convenience sample of a few dozen, self-report only, no control group or baseline. | Clear dataset or sample (hundreds), standard metrics or validated instruments, comparison with baselines or a control group. | Randomized/controlled or preregistered, large or multi-site/multilingual data, adversarial or robustness checks, effect sizes with uncertainty. |
| Engineering countermeasures (E) | 0.25 | No method or countermeasure: describes impact, attitudes or policy only. | A concrete method or countermeasure with an evaluation: statistical test or model, detector, scoring procedure, or an assessment design tried on real cohorts. | A rigorous, reusable method: formal model with guarantees or error control, open code, validated on both real and simulated data. |
| Consensus challenge (C) | 0.43 | Reconfirms standard wisdom. | Nuances the consensus (e.g. detectors fail under mild paraphrasing; AI use does not harm an outcome it is assumed to harm). | Directly refutes high-profile claims with rigorous evidence. |
| Novelty (N) | 0.00 | Replicates well-known findings (another survey of student attitudes to ChatGPT, another test of one detector on a handful of prompts). | New dataset, benchmark, population or setting, or a previously untried technique. | Fundamentally new attack or defence, a theoretical/impossibility result, or a finding that changes how the field frames the problem. |
The model interpolates between anchors. The deep-analysis score is computed by code with the same formula from criteria_breakdown.
| Rubric version | Papers scored |
|---|---|
v2.0 | 261 |
v2.1 | 183 |
v2.2 | 20 |
v2.3 (current) | 18675 |
Screening Validation: Reliability & Agreement Metrics
Reference standard: expert verdicts. Full PRISMA systematic review metrics computed: recall, specificity, NPV, F₁, F₂, ROC AUC, DOR, paradox-immune Gwet's AC₁, and continuous score agreement.
| Measure | Value | Meaning |
|---|---|---|
| Seed-set recall | 50% (1/2), 95% CI 9–91% | Share of manually added 👍 works (bypassing screening) scoring ≥ threshold 5.0. Unbiased sensitivity estimate on this set. |
| Estimated corpus recall | 100% (100–100%) | Post-stratified by score band from judged works; conservative interval. Relevant works missed ≈ 0 (0–0). Not measured (too few verdicts in band): 16316 screened-out works. |
| Sensitivity / Recall | 100% (12/12), 95% CI 76–100% | Share of relevant works passed by screening: TP / (TP + FN). |
| Specificity | 20% (4/20), 95% CI 8–42% | Share of irrelevant works rejected by screening: TN / (TN + FP). |
| Precision / PPV | 43% (12/28), 95% CI 27–61% | Share of expert-approved among screening passes: TP / (TP + FP). |
| Negative Predictive Value (NPV) | 100% (4/4), 95% CI 51–100% | Share of truly irrelevant among screened-out works: TN / (TN + FN). Protects against losing relevant papers. |
| F-scores (F₁ and F₂) | F₁: 0.60 · F₂: 0.79 | F₂ weights recall twice as much as precision — critical safety metric against false exclusions in PRISMA. |
| Balanced Accuracy | 60.0% | Arithmetic mean of sensitivity and specificity, unaffected by class imbalance. |
| Diagnostic Odds Ratio (DOR) | 6.82 | DOR = (TP · TN) / (FP · FN) with Haldane-Anscombe correction. Overall discriminative capability of screening. |
| ROC AUC | 0.65 (95% CI 0.43–0.84) | Probability a 👍 work outscores a 👎 one (0.5 = chance). CI computed via DeLong / Bootstrap. |
| Inter-Rater Agreement (Gwet's AC₁ & Cohen's κ) | — | Gwet's AC₁ is paradox-immune inter-rater agreement on double-scored works, robust to severe class imbalance (80-90% screening rejection). |
| Continuous Score Agreement |
MAD: — r Пірсона: — |
Mean Absolute Difference (MAD) and Pearson r between scores of screening models on shared papers. |
| Score band | Works | Judged | 👍 | 👍 rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.0–2.0 | 10554 | 2 (too few) | 0 | 0% |
| 2.0–4.0 | 4399 | 0 (too few) | 0 | — |
| 4.0–5.0 | 1363 | 2 (too few) | 0 | 0% |
| 5.0–6.0 ✓ | 1537 | 3 | 2 | 67% |
| 6.0–8.0 ✓ | 1186 | 23 | 8 | 35% |
| 8.0–10.0 ✓ | 37 | 2 (too few) | 2 | 100% |
| Screening model | Seed recall | AUC | Sens / Spec | Prec / NPV | F₁ / AC₁ | 👍 / 👎 (TP/FP/FN/TN) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
gemini-3.1-flash-lite |
50% (1/2), 95% CI 9–91% | 0.63 | 100% (12/12), 95% CI 76–100% / 16% (3/19), 95% CI 6–38% | 43% (12/28), 95% CI 27–61% / 100% (3/3), 95% CI 44–100% | 0.60 / 0.05 | 12 / 19 (12/16/0/3) |
gemini-3.5-flash-lite |
— | — | — / 100% (1/1), 95% CI 21–100% | — / 100% (1/1), 95% CI 21–100% | — / 1.00 | 0 / 1 (0/0/0/1) |
— |
— | — | — / — | — / — | — / — | 0 / 0 (0/0/0/0) |
To narrow intervals, judge works from lower score bands: /admin/taste includes 20% random picks. Metrics update automatically with each verdict.
Methodological Rigor & Study Designs (11, 18)
Methodological rigor M (0–10) is evaluated during full-text analysis. Study design distribution reflects verified empirical classifications.
Mean Rigor (M)
6.46 / 10
Analyzed papers: 754
Quality Stratification
🟢 High rigor (M ≥ 7.0): 355
🟡 Moderate rigor (4.0 ≤ M < 7.0): 373
🔴 Low rigor (M < 4.0): 26
| Study Design | Paper Count |
|---|---|
psychometric_modeling | 286 |
other | 55 |
theoretical | 27 |
rct | 17 |
assessment_design | 210 |
natural_experiment | 5 |
quasi_experiment | 61 |
review | 24 |
detector_evaluation | 48 |
survey | 7 |
experimental | 1 |
qualitative | 13 |
PRISMA 2020 27-Item Compliance Checklist
Full audit of compliance with PRISMA 2020 checklist (Page et al., 2021) for automated systematic reviews.
| № | Section / Item | Checklist Description | Status | Implementation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Title | Identify as living systematic review | ✓ Впроваджено | Page title, report metadata |
| 2 | Abstract | Structured summary (background, objectives, methods, results) | ✓ Впроваджено | #prisma-abstract block above |
| 3 | Rationale | Rationale in context of existing knowledge | ✓ Впроваджено | Topic description and rationale |
| 4 | Objectives | Explicit objectives using PICO / PECO | ✓ Впроваджено | #pico-framework table above |
| 5 | Eligibility criteria | Inclusion/exclusion criteria, language, dates | ✓ Впроваджено | Thresholds R, Score, Open Access |
| 6 | Information sources | Databases, registers, search dates | ✓ Впроваджено | arXiv, Crossref, OpenAlex, Semantic Scholar, ERIC, citations |
| 7 | Search strategy | Full search strategy, boolean filters, versions | ✓ Впроваджено | search_version, term groups, API limits |
| 8 | Selection process | Selection process, automation, independent screening | ✓ Впроваджено | LLM screening rotation + editorial taste loop |
| 9 | Data collection | Data collection from full-text reports | ✓ Впроваджено | PDF → MD parser, deep prompt v2.1 |
| 10a-b | Data items | List of outcomes and study characteristics | ✓ Впроваджено | Summary, sample, design, claims, countermeasures |
| 11 | Study risk of bias | Assessment of study methodological quality | ✓ Впроваджено | Rigor criterion M (0–10), quality distribution |
| 12 | Effect measures | Effect measures for outcomes | — Обґрунтовано N/A | Qualitative synthesis without meta-analytic pooled effects |
| 13a-f | Synthesis methods | Synthesis criteria and grouping methods | ✓ Впроваджено | Tag-based clustering, comparative study cards |
| 14 | Reporting bias | Assessment of reporting/publication bias | ✓ Впроваджено | Analysis of paywall exclusions & open access skew |
| 15 | Certainty assessment | Certainty assessment of body of evidence | ✓ Впроваджено | Automated quote grounding against full-text Markdown |
| 16 | Study selection | Selection results (flow diagram, counts) | ✓ Впроваджено | 100% stage conservation closure verified |
| 17 | Study characteristics | Characteristics of included studies table | ✓ Впроваджено | Interactive table with DOI, venue, year, tags |
| 18 | Risk of bias in studies | Risk of bias findings across studies | ✓ Впроваджено | Methodological rigor M & study designs table |
| 19 | Results of individual studies | Results for each individual study | ✓ Впроваджено | Public paper pages /doi/{doi} with full analysis |
| 20a-d | Results of syntheses | Results of syntheses & sub-groups | ✓ Впроваджено | Daily living editions, RSS feed, tag filters |
| 21 | Reporting biases | Results of reporting biases assessment | ✓ Впроваджено | Paywall n=387, retracted n=0 |
| 22 | Certainty of evidence | Summary of evidence certainty | ✓ Впроваджено | Gwet's AC₁, Cohen's κ, stratified recall, ROC AUC |
| 23a-d | Discussion | Discussion, limitations, implications | ✓ Впроваджено | Limitations section (23b, 23c) in methods |
| 24a-c | Registration & protocol | Registration, protocol availability, amendments | ✓ Впроваджено | Public repo, version history of search & rubric |
| 25 | Support | Financial & non-financial support | ✓ Впроваджено | Free API tiers declared in methods |
| 26 | Competing interests | Competing interests statement | ✓ Впроваджено | Declared in methods section |
| 27 | Data & code availability | Availability of data, analytical code, materials | ✓ Впроваджено | Export to CSV / JSON buttons, open-source code |
Limitations (23b, 23c)
- Open access only: paywalled papers never reach the synthesis, so the sample skews to open and preprint work.
- Screening ranks by quality and novelty rather than pure eligibility, so the sample skews towards counter-consensus work. Validity is measured against one expert (see above); a single LLM reviewer, model bias and version differences remain possible.
- The lexical filter and result caps can miss works with other terminology; sources skew English-language.
- Records scored under an older rubric version are not rescored automatically (see version table).
- Free Gemini quota: daily limits slow analysis; some selected works wait in the queue.
Registration, protocol, amendments, support, data (24–27)
- Registration: not registered. The protocol is the configuration (topic, queries, rubric, thresholds) in the project repository; it is reproduced in this block.
- Amendments: search versions (search_version) and rubric versions (rubric_version), tables above.
- Funding: none declared, free API tiers are used. Competing interests: none declared.
- Data: analyses and metadata are on article pages, RSS and sitemap; full texts are private (copyright) and not published.
Filter by Tags
Select one or more tags to refine the flow numbers and article corpus.
#psychometrics (115)
#Psychometrics (71)
#Item Response Theory (60)
#academic integrity (52)
#assessment validity (52)
#Assessment Validity (51)
#item response theory (46)
#higher education (44)
#Automated Essay Scoring (43)
#automated essay scoring (40)
#Generative AI (32)
#Construct Validity (31)
#LLM as rater (27)
#construct validity (27)
#Large Language Models (25)
#Higher Education (24)
#IRT (24)
#large language models (24)
#LLM Evaluation (23)
#GPT-4 (22)
#generative AI (22)
#assessment redesign (20)
#Academic Integrity (19)
#Automated Scoring (19)
#prompt engineering (19)
#ChatGPT (18)
#LLM as Rater (17)
#Prompt Engineering (17)
#automated scoring (17)
#Assessment Redesign (16)
#assessment design (16)
#assessment_design (16)
#AI-resilient assessment (14)
#validity (14)
#LLMs as raters (13)
#automated assessment (13)
#differential item functioning (13)
#Computer Science Education (12)
#Computerized Adaptive Testing (12)
#LLM-as-a-judge (12)
#academic_integrity (12)
#benchmarking (12)
#formative assessment (12)
#inter-rater reliability (12)
#Automated Item Generation (11)
#Differential Item Functioning (11)
#Knowledge Tracing (11)
#LLMs as Test Takers (11)
#Quadratic Weighted Kappa (11)
#assessment-validity (11)
#assessment_validity (11)
#rater drift (11)
#AI-resistant assessment (10)
#Inter-Rater Reliability (10)
#LLM evaluation (10)
#automated item generation (10)
#automated_essay_scoring (10)
#computerized adaptive testing (10)
#item_response_theory (10)
#AI-Resilient Assessment (9)
| # | Status / Stage | Paper | LLM Score | Expert Review |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 15701 | Screened Out |
Generative AI in Teacher Education: Applying OER-Enabled Pedagogy
Journal of Interactive Learning Research (2026) · doi:10.70725/728577khkodp · v1.0 |
1.1 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 15702 | Screened Out |
Can Generative AI Chatbots Promote Second Language Acquisition? A Meta-Analysis
Journal of Computer Assisted Learning (2025) · doi:10.1111/jcal.70060 · v1.0 |
2.6 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 15703 | Screened Out |
AI-Assisted Marking: Functionality and Limitations of ChatGPT in Written Assessment Evaluation
Australasian Journal of Educational Technology (2024) · doi:10.14742/ajet.9463 · v1.0 |
4.8 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 15704 | Screened Out |
Investigating the Role of ChatGPT in Supporting Metacognitive Processes during Problem-Solving Activities
Digital Experiences in Mathematics Education (2025) · doi:10.1007/s40751-024-00164-7 · v1.0 |
2.2 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 15705 | Screened Out |
Assessment as a Dilemmatic Space in the GenAI Age: Mapping and Unpacking University Teachers' Conflicting Priorities in Assessment
Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education (2025) · doi:10.1080/02602938.2024.2444890 · v1.0 |
2.7 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 15706 | Screened Out |
Do Interactions with ChatGPT Influence L2 Learners' Oral Speaking Ability, Summarization Ability, and Perceptions of Generative AI Tasks?
TESOL Quarterly: A Journal for Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages and of Standard English as a Second Dialect (2025) · doi:10.1002/tesq.70001 · v1.0 |
2.4 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 15707 | Screened Out |
Generative AI Offers More, but Students Revise Less: Comparing the Effects of Teacher and AI Feedback on Student Essay Revisions
International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education (2026) · doi:10.1186/s41239-026-00579-9 · v1.0 |
4.8 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 15708 | No Fulltext |
Idiographic Item Response Theory: Modeling Person-Specific Differential Item Functioning in Intensive Longitudinal Data
arXiv/Crossref (2026) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/qfcbu_v1 · v1.0 |
5.5 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 15709 | scored |
The Development of Father Involvement Scale for the Indonesian Cultural Context (FIS-IV)
Jurnal Psikologi Islam dan Budaya (2026) · doi:10.15575/jpib.v9i1.52070 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 15710 | scored |
Validation of the General Practice Physical Activity Questionnaire after severe COVID-19
ERJ Open Research (2026) · doi:10.1183/23120541.01496-2025 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 15711 | scored |
Assessing the Structural Validity and Measurement Invariance of the Whole Person Health Index
Global Advances in Integrative Medicine and Health (2026) · doi:10.1177/27536130261453376 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 15712 | scored |
Detecting Differential Item Functioning in the Measurement of Ethnomathematical Knowledge among Preservice Teachers: A Rasch Analysis
IJEMS Indonesian Journal of Education and Mathematical Science (2026) · doi:10.30596/ijems.v7i2.29464 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 15713 | scored |
Exploring Gender Bias in the Dual Continua of Mental Health Measurement: Differential Item Functioning Analysis
JP3I (Jurnal Pengukuran Psikologi dan Pendidikan Indonesia) (2026) · doi:10.15408/jp3i.v15i1.45690 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 15714 | scored |
Investigating Differential Item Functioning (DIF) in Geometry Test Scores: Holistic vs. Analytical Scoring Rubrics
JP3I (Jurnal Pengukuran Psikologi dan Pendidikan Indonesia) (2026) · doi:10.15408/jp3i.v15i1.40842 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 15715 | scored |
The Swedish version of the Bergen Social Media Addiction Scale: A psychometric evaluation among adolescents
Addictive Behaviors Reports (2026) · doi:10.1016/j.abrep.2026.100704 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 15716 | scored |
Robust-Mean–Geometric-Mean and Robust Haberman Linking with Invariant Item Discriminations Under Sparse Differential Item Functioning
Mathematics (2026) · doi:10.3390/math14091549 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 15717 | scored |
Psychometric Validation of the Scientific Epistemic Beliefs Questionnaire Among Mexican University Students Using Item Response Theory
Journal of Intelligence (2026) · doi:10.3390/jintelligence14050076 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 15718 | scored |
Evaluating Test Quality in English for Mathematics Course: An Item Analysis Approach
Kontinu Jurnal Penelitian Didaktik Matematika (2026) · doi:10.30659/kontinu.10.1.176-190 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 15719 | scored |
AllTestSim: Comprehensive Software Tool for Simulating Fixed-Form, Linear-on-the-Fly, Multistage, and Computerized Adaptive Testing
Applied Psychological Measurement (2026) · doi:10.1177/01466216261449756 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 15720 | scored |
Analysis of Cognitive Ability Instruments Test Based on Marzano's Taxonomy on Temperature and Heat Material Using the Rasch Model
Jurnal Pendidikan Fisika (2026) · doi:10.26618/063d8z95 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 15721 | scored |
Measuring navigational and digital health literacy in individuals with long-term conditions: latent trait analyses using Rasch modelling
Frontiers in Public Health (2026) · doi:10.3389/fpubh.2026.1751340 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 15722 | scored |
Development and validation of a computerized adaptive testing for borderline personality disorder
BMC Psychiatry (2026) · doi:10.1186/s12888-026-08148-0 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 15723 | scored |
Safety climate questionnaire development in military organisations: A bounded narrative synthesis and validity-evidence workflow
Methods in Psychology (2026) · doi:10.1016/j.metip.2026.100256 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 15724 | Not Article |
Peer Review Report For: Measuring Professional Competency in School Counselors: Development and Rasch Validation of a Multidimensional Instrument [version 1; peer review: 1 approved with reservations]
arXiv/Crossref (2026) · doi:10.5256/f1000research.197385.r478756 · v1.0 |
- | — |
| 15725 | Screened Out |
HOW GENERATIVE AI CHANGES PROGRAMMING EDUCATION: TOWARDS AN AI-ENABLED PROGRAMMING COMPETENCE FRAMEWORK
Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) (2026) · doi:10.5281/zenodo.21862147 · v1.0 |
3.7 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 15726 | Screened Out |
Differential learning effects of generative AI-based short-form content across grammar items: A study of beginner Chinese learners of Korean
The Journal of Linguistics Science (2026) · doi:10.21296/jls.2026.06.117.251 · v1.0 |
2.9 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 15727 | scored |
Structural Failure of Calibration-Based Quantum Computing Architectures - A Critical Assessment of the Framework by Julian Kelly et al
Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) (2026) · doi:10.5281/zenodo.21080130 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 15728 | scored |
What do century-long rainfall trends reveal about climate change in Bihar’s Makhana-growing wetland districts?
MAUSAM (2026) · doi:10.54302/mausam.v77i3.7005 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 15729 | scored |
CYBERSECURITY ESSENTIALS : A Practical Guide: Fundamentals of Network Security, Cryptography, Ethical Hacking, Digital Forensics, and Emerging Cybersecurity Technologies
Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) (2026) · doi:10.5281/zenodo.21072833 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 15730 | scored |
AdaptiveIDS: A Comparative Reinforcement Learning Framework Using DQN and PPO for Evolving Cyber Threat Detection
arXiv/Crossref (2026) · doi:10.67535/tsp.000003.036 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 15731 | abstract_only |
Design, Simulation, Implementation, and Operational Evaluation of the CACGWA Student Revision and CBT Portal: A 500-Item-Bank Randomized Assessment Model for Senior Secondary School Examinations
arXiv/Crossref (2026) · doi:10.68232/cj.e001 · v1.0 |
6.7 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 15732 | Screened Out |
Investigating the factors affecting pre-service teachers’ plagiarism behavior using ChatGPT: Relevance of fraud triangle theory and the theory of planned behavior
Journal of Education and e-Learning Research (2026) · doi:10.20448/jeelr.v13i3.9376 · v1.0 |
3.4 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 15733 | Screened Out |
Ambivalence in Schoolchildren’s Perceptions of Artificial Intelligence Technologies AI
Ойкумена. Регионоведческие исследования (2026) · doi:10.63973/1998-6785/2026-3/132-143 · v1.0 |
3.3 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 15734 | Screened Out |
THE IMPACT OF GENERATIVE AI USE AND ACADEMIC INTEGRITY ON STUDENTS' MORAL REASONING IN ISLAMIC RELIGIOUS EDUCATION
Journal Of Communication Education (2026) · doi:10.58217/joceip.v20i3.597 · v1.0 |
3.8 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 15735 | scored |
Sangam: Explorations in Arts, Science, and Commerce for a Changing Society
Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) (2026) · doi:10.5281/zenodo.22874631 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 15736 | Screened Out |
The use of artificial intelligence in English language teaching at higher education institutions: a theoretical analysis of the problem
Visnyk Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv Military-Special Sciences (2026) · doi:10.17721/1728-2217.2026.67.5-12 · v1.0 |
1.8 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 15737 | Screened Out |
Políticas educativas para la integración responsable de la inteligencia artificial en la educación universitaria: desafíos éticos y oportunidades pedagógicas
Educational Regent Multidisciplinary Journal (2026) · doi:10.63969/gfmnyn91 · v1.0 |
1.9 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 15738 | scored |
TA’LIM JARAYONIDA SUN’IY INTELLEKT TEXNOLOGIYALARIDAN FOYDALANISHNING PEDAGOGIK IMKONIYATLARI
Zamonaviy jamiyat va innovatsiyalar ilmiy-nazariy jurnali (2026) · doi:10.67547/fanistiqbollari.2026.572 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 15739 | Screened Out |
The Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Education: Opportunities, Challenges, and the Future of Learning in Developing Countries: A Bangladesh-Focused Systematic Critical Literature Review and the Socio-Technical AI Integration Framework (STAIF)
Preprints.org (2026) · doi:10.20944/preprints202609.1833.v1 · v1.0 |
3.3 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 15740 | Screened Out |
From bookshelves to bots: academic integrity, generative AI, and the recurring anxiety of higher education
Higher Education Research & Development (2026) · doi:10.1080/07294360.2026.2733706 · v1.0 |
2.4 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 15741 | scored |
Beyond Cheating: Preparing Students and Institutions for Responsible Generative AI Use in Higher Education Author: Vanzal Dhliwayo Institution: Southeast New Mexico College Abstract The rapid adoption of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) tools such as ChatGPT, CoPilot and many more has generated both excitement and concern across higher education. Much of the early institutional conversation centered on whether students would use systems such as ChatGPT to complete assignments, quizzes, examinations, and other academic work. Although these concerns are legitimate, framing generative AI primarily as a cheating problem overlooks its considerable educational potential. Research has shown that artificial intelligence technologies have the potential to revolutionize education than anything else (Harry, et al.,2023). There are many things these tools can do. Students can use them to clarify difficult concepts, generate practice questions, organize notes, receive formative feedback, brainstorm ideas, and examine alternative explanations. Educators can use it to develop examples, improve instructional materials, create formative assessments, differentiate explanations, prepare rubrics, and revise course materials. It has also been shown by recent research that the educational effects of generative AI depend less on the mere presence of the technology than on how instructors design learning experiences around it. One of the meta-analysis' research projects concluded that artificial intelligence tools have a positive effect on student's academic performance (Liu et al., 2025), while some other publications show a concern in continuing gaps in institutional guidance, professional development, automated online learning, and assessment strategy (Fan et al., 2026; Baggia et al., 2026). In this short paper I will present a practice-oriented review of research on artificial technology tools in higher education and propose a good framework for integrating those tools while protecting academic integrity. Throughout the paper I will pay more attention to AI literacy, assessment design, transparency, equity, privacy, human oversight, and syllabus development. In this paper I argue that universities and colleges need to move away from a simple binary of "AI allowed" versus "AI prohibited" and instead specify appropriate AI use according to the learning objectives of individual assignments. The proposed framework has five parts: Course outcomes first; Label AI permissions; Educate for AI literacy; Assess learning processes; and Review risks, equity, and policy. I also provided one adaptable syllabus template. My conclusion is that instead of just labeling generative AI as a cheating tool, institutions need to protect academic integrity by teaching students how to use AI responsibly, redesigning assessments to reveal students' thinking, and establishing clear expectations rather than relying predominantly on prohibition or automated AI detection. Keywords: generative artificial intelligence, ChatGPT, higher education, academic integrity, AI literacy, syllabus design, assessment, teaching and learning ________________________________________
Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) (2026) · doi:10.5281/zenodo.22880210 · v1.0 |
0.0 (Flash Lite) | — |
| 15742 | scored |
Maladaptive Personality Traits and Statement Validity Assessment. Mapping DSM-5 Trait Domains and Facets onto Lying, Suggestibility, and Autobiographical Memory Quality
arXiv/Crossref (2026) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/pt9jy_v1 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 15743 | Not Article |
Design and Implementation of a Web Based Online Exam System (OES) with Real Time Cheating Detection to Improve Assessment Efficiency in Vocational Schools
Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) (2026) · doi:10.5281/zenodo.22876225 · v1.0 |
- | — |
| 15744 | scored |
Assessment Processes in Distance Education: A Delphi Study
Journal of Computer and Education Research (2026) · doi:10.18009/jcer.1891578 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 15745 | scored |
Sustaining rigor and depth in student learning and attainment in the age of generative AI
Figshare (2026) · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.33948028 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 15746 | scored |
Kesadaran Diri Siswa Sekolah Dasar: Kaitannya Dengan Tanggung Jawab Dan Kemandirian Belajar
Jurnal Pendidikan Sains Geologi dan Geofisika (GeoScienceEd Journal) (2026) · doi:10.29303/goescienceed.v7i4.3176 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 15747 | scored |
Designing ethical AI literacy across secondary to graduate STEM pathways: ensuring cross-disciplinary outcomes and workforce alignment
Journal of Microbiology and Biology Education (2026) · doi:10.1128/jmbe.00351-25 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 15748 | Screened Out |
When AI Becomes Evidence: A Comparative Audit of Machine-Signal Disclosure in University Academic Integrity Procedures
Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) (2026) · doi:10.5281/zenodo.22879567 · v1.0 |
3.8 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 15749 | scored |
Governing generative AI in multilingual higher education: a critical language policy analysis of Indonesian frameworks
Current Issues in Language Planning (2026) · doi:10.1080/14664208.2026.2734198 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 15750 | Screened Out |
Mapping Research on Generative Artificial Intelligence for Programming Education: A Systematic Review
Journal of Computer Assisted Learning (2026) · doi:10.1002/jcal.70341 · v1.0 |
2.5 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |