Using Vision + Language Models to Predict Item Difficulty

Predicting item difficulty from content can provide an initial estimate for newly developed questions before sufficient student responses are available. Existing approaches typically represent the question stem and answer choices as text. When mathematics items contain visual components, a common pipeline first textualizes that evidence and then applies a text predictor. We ask: how should visual evidence be represented for item difficulty prediction? We compare question text alone, visual textualization, which expresses visual evidence in language, and image-native modeling, which retains the original image. Using Eedi items with difficulty calibrated from student responses, we train large language models (LLMs) and vision-language models (VLMs) directly for difficulty regression. Both visual interfaces achieve the lowest point estimates, although the leading systems cannot be reliably ordered. Open-VLM textualization yields lower RMSE point estimates for all evaluated LLMs, while broader adaptation does so for all image-native VLMs. Test-time interventions show dependence on the paired full-item image, but do not isolate the additional visual component. The two visual interfaces also make partially complementary item-level errors and differ substantially in computational workflow. Thus, textualization should not be treated as the only practical interface: image-native modeling is a competitive alternative whose effectiveness depends on how the VLM is adapted.

Accurate estimates of item difficulty are essential for valid assessment and effective adaptive learning. However, for newly created tasks, response data are typically unavailable. Pretesting and expert judgement can be costly and slow, while machine learning methods often require large labelled training datasets. Recent work suggests that large language models (LLMs) may help. However, there is limited evidence on the elicitation procedures and prompt configurations used to emulate experts for difficulty estimation. This study addresses this gap by evaluating three off-the-shelf LLMs as difficulty raters for newly created items without access to response data. Using an item bank from an online learning system, the study examined 6 domains of primary-school mathematics, with empirical difficulty estimates treated as empirical reference. The study used a full factorial design crossing three factors: judgement format (absolute vs pairwise), decision type (hard decisions vs token-probability-based estimates), and prompting strategy (zero-shot vs few-shot). LLM-derived difficulty estimates were compared with empirical difficulties using Spearman rank correlations. Across domains, LLM-based estimates exhibited moderate to strong positive correlations with empirical item difficulties. For simpler arithmetic tasks, some configurations approached the upper end of the accuracy range reported for human experts in previous research. Pairwise comparison consistently outperformed absolute judgement in the absence of additional refinements. However, when token-level probabilities were incorporated and examples of items with known empirical difficulty were provided, the absolute judgement configuration likewise demonstrated moderate-to-high alignment. The study positions LLMs as a promising tool for initial item calibration and offers insights into effective workflow configuration.

Item discrimination is a fundamental psychometric property of educational assessment, which measures whether an item meaningfully distinguishes students with higher proficiency from students with lower proficiency. While various existing works have explored whether large language models (LLMs) can estimate item difficulty, it remains unclear whether they can capture item discrimination. In this work, we evaluate 42 proprietary and open-weight LLMs in zero-shot settings using two complementary approaches: direct discrimination prediction, where models explicitly estimate an item's discrimination value from its content, and response-based Classical Test Theory (CTT) calibration, where LLM answers are treated as synthetic student responses to compute discrimination scores. Our results show that direct prediction yields weak alignment with human-calibrated discrimination: the best-performing model reaches only a Spearman correlation of 0.152. Response-based CTT calibration provides a stronger but still limited signal, with the all-persona synthetic respondent pool reaching a Spearman correlation of 0.241. These findings highlight item discrimination as an open challenge for LLM-based psychometric evaluation: current LLMs contain non-random discrimination-relevant signal, but they do not yet reliably capture how assessment items distinguish human students.