Measuring What Matters -- or What's Convenient?: Robustness of LLM-Based Scoring Systems to Construct-Irrelevant Factors

Despite growing interest in using Large Language Models (LLMs) for educational assessment, it remains unclear how closely they align with human scoring. We present a systematic evaluation of instruction-tuned LLMs across three open essay-scoring datasets (ASAP 2.0, ELLIPSE, and DREsS) that cover both holistic and analytic scoring. We analyze agreement with human consensus scores, directional bias, and the stability of bias estimates. Our results show that strong open-weight models achieve moderate to high agreement with humans on holistic scoring (Quadratic Weighted Kappa about 0.6), but this does not transfer uniformly to analytic scoring. In particular, we observe large and stable negative directional bias on Lower-Order Concern (LOC) traits, such as Grammar and Conventions, meaning that models often score these traits more harshly than human raters. We also find that concise keyword-based prompts generally outperform longer rubric-style prompts in multi-trait analytic scoring. To quantify the amount of data needed to detect these systematic deviations, we compute the minimum sample size at which a 95% bootstrap confidence interval for the mean bias excludes zero. This analysis shows that LOC bias is often detectable with very small validation sets, whereas Higher-Order Concern (HOC) traits typically require much larger samples. These findings support a bias-correction-first deployment strategy: instead of relying on raw zero-shot scores, systematic score offsets can be estimated and corrected using small human-labeled bias-estimation sets, without requiring large-scale fine-tuning.

Automated short-answer scoring lags other LLM applications. We meta-analyze 890 culminating results across a systematic review of LLM short-answer scoring studies, modeling the traditional effect size of Quadratic Weighted Kappa (QWK) with mixed effects metaregression. We quantitatively illustrate that that the level of difficulty for human experts to perform the task of scoring written work of children has no observed statistical effect on LLM performance. Particularly, we show that some scoring tasks measured as the easiest by human scorers were the hardest for LLMs. Whether by poor implementation by thoughtful researchers or patterns traceable to autoregressive training, on average decoder-only architectures underperform encoders by 0.37--a substantial difference in agreement with humans. Additionally, we measure the contributions of various aspects of LLM technology on successful scoring such as tokenizer vocabulary size, which exhibits diminishing returns--potentially due to undertrained tokens. Findings argue for systems design which better anticipates known statistical shortcomings of autoregressive models. Finally, we provide additional experiments to illustrate wording and tokenization sensitivity and bias elicitation in high-stakes education contexts, where LLMs demonstrate racial discrimination. Code and data for this study are available.

Large language models have recently been proposed as tools for automated essay scoring, but their agreement with human grading remains unclear. In this work, we evaluate how LLM-generated scores compare with human grades and analyze the grading behavior of several models from the GPT and Llama families in an out-of-the-box setting, without task-specific training. Our results show that agreement between LLM and human scores remains relatively weak and varies with essay characteristics. In particular, compared to human raters, LLMs tend to assign higher scores to short or underdeveloped essays, while assigning lower scores to longer essays that contain minor grammatical or spelling errors. We also find that the scores generated by LLMs are generally consistent with the feedback they generate: essays receiving more praise tend to receive higher scores, while essays receiving more criticism tend to receive lower scores. These results suggest that LLM-generated scores and feedback follow coherent patterns but rely on signals that differ from those used by human raters, resulting in limited alignment with human grading practices. Nevertheless, our work shows that LLMs produce feedback that is consistent with their grading and that they can be reliably used in supporting essay scoring.