Measuring What Cannot Be Surveyed: LLMs as Instruments for Latent Cognitive Variables in Labor Economics

The rapid development and growing deployment of large language models (LLMs) have made it increasingly important to understand their capabilities. A common approach is to evaluate LLMs using assessment instruments originally designed to measure skills and competencies in humans, such as standardized exams, and to use performance on these instruments as evidence for generalizable claims about LLMs' underlying abilities on the same skills the assessments are intended to measure in humans. However, from a validity perspective, such inferences require that the relationship between observed performance and underlying constructs established for humans also holds for LLMs. In particular, a necessary condition for transferring score interpretations is similarity in the latent structure of responses to the assessment. In this study, we examine whether this condition holds in two educational contexts: high-school chemistry and a quantitative reasoning section of a university entrance exam. Using a case study design, we compare human response data with responses generated by six multimodal LLMs. Our analytical approach combines exploratory factor analysis, factor congruence, and resampling to assess latent structure similarity across human learners and LLMs. Across both instruments, we find systematic differences between human and LLM factor structures, showing evidence that the analyzed assessments may not measure the same constructs for humans and LLMs. These findings call into question the validity of evaluation practices that use educational assessments to make claims about AI capabilities.

As Large Language Models reshape the global labor market, policymakers and workers need empirical data on which occupational skills may be most susceptible to automation. We present the Skill Automation Feasibility Index (SAFI), benchmarking four frontier LLMs -- LLaMA 3.3 70B, Mistral Large, Qwen 2.5 72B, and Gemini 2.5 Flash -- across 263 text-based tasks spanning all 35 skills in the U.S. Department of Labor's O*NET taxonomy (1,052 total model calls, 0% failure rate). Cross-referencing with real-world AI adoption data from the Anthropic Economic Index (756 occupations, 17,998 tasks), we propose an AI Impact Matrix -- an interpretive framework that positions skills along four quadrants: High Displacement Risk, Upskilling Required, AI-Augmented, and Lower Displacement Risk. Key findings: (1) Mathematics (SAFI: 73.2) and Programming (71.8) receive the highest automation feasibility scores; Active Listening (42.2) and Reading Comprehension (45.5) receive the lowest; (2) a "capability-demand inversion" where skills most demanded in AI-exposed jobs are those LLMs perform least well at in our benchmark; (3) 78.7% of observed AI interactions are augmentation, not automation; (4) all four models converge to similar skill profiles (3.6-point spread), suggesting that text-based automation feasibility may be more skill-dependent than model-dependent. SAFI measures LLM performance on text-based representations of skills, not full occupational execution. All data, code, and model responses are open-sourced.

LLM judges are increasingly used to assess whether AI outputs meet workplace requirements, but agreement on response rankings does not establish agreement on acceptance rates or occupational aggregates. We introduce O*NET-BENCH, an audit suite derived from an existing survey of 45,796 worker ratings, and evaluate 33 pre-existing judge configurations across six model families on 4,501 test ratings. Twenty-five configurations achieve tie-aware pair accuracy of at least 0.60, although a train-fitted response-only TF-IDF baseline nearly matches the strongest judge. Despite this ordering agreement, judges estimate that 3.0%-97.9% of responses are acceptable, compared with 61.1% for occupation-matched workers. In one fine-tuned lineage, changing from pointwise scoring to a bundled few-shot/listwise protocol improves response ordering while reducing agreement with worker means at the task and occupation levels; this reversal replicates on a task- and worker-disjoint validation split under prespecified criteria. Cross-validated calibration largely removes mean bias, but calibrated scores explain at most 8.5% of individual worker-rating variance. Prediction-assisted estimation yields at most small precision gains at the studied label budgets. These results show that ranking agreement alone is insufficient for occupational measurement. Judges should be validated against the acceptance rates and aggregates their scores will be used to estimate.