Prompting GPT-5 on Scrum Certification Questions: An Empirical Accuracy Study

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used in exam- and certification-style question answering tasks, where their ability to retrieve, interpret, and apply domain-specific knowledge can be systematically assessed. In Software Engineering, such settings are particularly relevant when questions depend on strict adherence to normative definitions, roles, artifacts, and rules. This paper evaluates the performance of three contemporary LLMs, \textit{GPT-5 mini}, \textit{Gemini 3 Flash}, and \textit{DeepSeek Chat 3.2}, in answering 993 Scrum certification-style questions aligned with the Professional Scrum Master I (PSM I) assessment format. We evaluated the models under three prompting strategies (\textit{zero-shot}, \textit{chain-of-thought}, and \textit{source-grounded}), with repeated executions to assess intra-model stability. We also analyzed performance across Scrum topics and question formats, complemented by a qualitative analysis of recurring error patterns in incorrect answers. Results revealed clear differences among models, with Gemini 3 Flash achieving the highest accuracy, followed by GPT-5 mini and DeepSeek Chat 3.2, while intra-model variability remained low across all conditions. By question format, the models achieved the highest accuracy on single-answer multiple-choice items, whereas multi-select and True/False questions were more error-prone. By topic, performance was more consistent in normatively explicit areas such as Artifacts, Empiricism, and Product Value, but more fragile in Scrum Values, Self-Managing Teams, and Stakeholders & Customers. The qualitative analysis showed that errors were systematic rather than random, involving overgeneralization, restrictive wording, compound distractors, and conflicts between common market interpretations and strict Scrum definitions.

Are large language models (LLMs) bad at capturing human judgment? Two commonly stated limitations are that LLMs fail to capture full distributions of responses, and that their judgments are unstable across wording variations. We demonstrate simple prompting strategies that mitigate these limitations. Across two datasets--a U.S.-representative set of 144 moral scenarios and 38 moral beliefs from the International Social Survey Programme's Family and Changing Gender Roles module covering 32 countries--we show how simple elicitation techniques help improve AI-human alignment. First, prompting models to report standard deviations and response proportions recovers the full range of human responses better than common strategies. Second, ensuring scenarios are clear to human participants--as reflected in human confusion ratings--boosts model alignment, and LLMs can track human confusion ratings. At the same time, we find that LLMs' estimates of their own error are poorly calibrated, though they can predict human variability relatively well. These results suggest that asking better questions to LLMs can yield better answers.

Large language models (LLMs) are widely used for open-ended tasks, but underspecified prompts can lead to low-quality answers and additional interaction. This paper studies whether structured prompt design improves response quality while reducing user effort. We compare three prompt conditions: a raw prompt, a checklist-improved prompt, and a clarifying-question prompt. We evaluate these conditions across four task types--summarization, planning, explanation, and coding--using three LLM systems: ChatGPT, Claude, and Grok. Each output is scored with a unified rubric covering task completion, correctness, compliance, and clarity. Checklist-improved prompts achieved the highest mean rubric score, 7.50 out of 8, compared with 5.67 for raw prompts and 6.67 for clarifying-question prompts. Checklist prompts also produced the best quality-effort tradeoff, using fewer average tokens than both raw and clarifying prompts. These results suggest that a simple prompt checklist can improve LLM responses while reducing unnecessary interaction.