Empowering medical students with AI writing co-pilots: design and validation of AI self-assessment toolkit
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Assessing and improving academic writing skills is a crucial component of higher education. To support students in this endeavor, a comprehensive self-assessment toolkit was developed to provide personalized feedback and guide their writing improvement. The current study aimed to rigorously evaluate the validity and reliability of this academic writing self-assessment toolkit. METHODS: The development and validation of the academic writing self-assessment toolkit involved several key steps. First, a thorough review of the literature was conducted to identify the essential criteria for authentic assessment. Next, an analysis of medical students' reflection papers was undertaken to gain insights into their experiences using AI-powered tools for writing feedback. Based on these initial steps, a preliminary version of the self-assessment toolkit was devised. An expert focus group discussion was then convened to refine the questions and content of the toolkit. To assess content validity, the toolkit was evaluated by a panel of 22 medical student participants. They were asked to review each item and provide feedback on the relevance and comprehensiveness of the toolkit for evaluating academic writing skills. Face validity was also examined, with the students assessing the clarity, wording, and appropriateness of the toolkit items. RESULTS: The content validity evaluation revealed that 95% of the toolkit items were rated as highly relevant, and 88% were deemed comprehensive in assessing key aspects of academic writing. Minor wording changes were suggested by the students to enhance clarity and interpretability. The face validity assessment found that 92% of the items were rated as unambiguous, with 90% considered appropriate and relevant for self-assessment. Feedback from the students led to the refinement of a few items to improve their clarity in the context of the Persian language. The robust reliability testing demonstrated the consistency and stability of the academic writing self-assessment toolkit in measuring students' writing skills over time. CONCLUSION: The comprehensive evaluation process has established the academic writing self-assessment toolkit as a robust and credible instrument for supporting students' writing improvement. The toolkit's strong psychometric properties and user-centered design make it a valuable resource for enhancing academic writing skills in higher education.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Positioning AI as feedback partner rather than ghostwriter, with structured requirements to critique and adapt AI-generated suggestions, enhances metacognitive engagement and critical evaluation capacities.
“Positioning AI as feedback partner rather than ghostwriter, with structured requirements to critique and adapt AI-generated suggestions, enhances metacognitive engagement and critical evaluation capacities (Akiba and Garte, 2024; Khojasteh et al., 2025; Oates and Johnson, 2025; Song and Song, 2023).”
From Reimagining writing assessment for the AI era: a systematic review on balancing AI support and authentic skill growth (2026) · cites this paper as Khojasteh et al., 2025
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 80 · Cited by 24
Research works printed but not linked: 30
- [1]Hamp-Lyons L, Heasley B. Study writing: A course in written English for academic purposes: Cambridge University Press; 2006.
- [3]Gollins A, Gentner D. A framework for a cognitive theory of writing. Cognitive processes in writing: Routledge; 2016. p. 51–72.
- [4]Mahmood R, Shah A, Alam I. The impact of l1 on l2 in academic english writing: a multilingual dilemma of pakistani students. Engl Specif Purp. 2020;16(5):67–80.
- [14]Perkins SW, Muste JC, Alam T, Singh RP. Improving Clinical Documentation with Artificial Intelligence: A Systematic Review. Perspectives in Health Information Management. 2024;21(2). PMC11605373 40134899
- [19]Rudolph J, Tan S, Tan S. ChatGPT: Bullshit spewer or the end of traditional assessments in higher education? J Appl Learn Teach. 2023;6(1):342–63.
- [21]Boud D, Ajjawi R, Dawson P, Tai J. Developing evaluative judgement in higher education: Routledge London; 2018.
- [22]Gipps C, Stobart G. Fairness in assessment. Educational assessment in the 21st century: Connecting theory and practice: Springer; 2009. p. 105–18.
- [23]Agan Şİ, Deniz S. A Rubric Study for Assessing Paragraph Level Written Texts. Journal of Education and Training Studies. 2019;8(1).
- [27]Wang P-l. Effects of an Automated Writing Evaluation Program: Student Experiences and Perceptions. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching. 2015;12(1).
- [32]Lim WM, Gunasekara A, Pallant JL, Pallant JI, Pechenkina E. Generative AI and the future of education: Ragnarök or reformation? A paradoxical perspective from management educators. Int J Manag Educ. 2023;21(2):100790.
- [35]Washington J. The Impact of Generative Artificial Intelligence on Writer's Self-Efficacy: A Critical Literature Review. Available at SSRN 4538043. 2023.
- [38]Bosco AM, Ferns S. Embedding of authentic assessment in work-integrated learning curriculum. Asia Pac J Cooperative Educ. 2014;15(4):281–90.
- [42]Geerling W, Mateer GD, Wooten J, Damodaran N. ChatGPT has aced the test of understanding in college economics: Now what? Am Econ. 2023;68(2):233–45.
- [45]Egodawatte G. A Rubric to Self-Assess and Peer-Assess Mathematical Problem Solving Tasks of College Students. Acta didactica napocensia. 2010;3(1):75–88.
- [46]Broad B. What we really value: Beyond rubrics in teaching and assessing writing: University Press of Colorado; 2003.
- [50]Seow A. The writing process and process writing. Method Lang Teach An Anthology Curr Pract. 2002;315:320.
- [52]Nielsen K. Self-assessment methods in writing instruction: a conceptual framework, successful practices and essential strategies. J Res Reading. 2014;37(1):1–16. · DOI
- [54]Black P, Wiliam D. Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment Educ Princ Policy Pract. 1998;5(1):7–74.
- [55]Colton D, Covert RW. Designing and constructing instruments for social research and evaluation: John Wiley & Sons; 2007.
- [61]Ferguson P. Student perceptions of quality feedback in teacher education. Assess Eval High Educ. 2011;36(1):51–62. · DOI
- [66]Daud NSBM. Developing Critical Thinking Skills in Tertiary Academic Writing Through the Use of an Instructional Rubric for Peer Evaluation: A Thesis Submitted in Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the University of Canterbury: University of Canterbury; 2011.
- [67]Intja NS, Nahole M. Critical Thinking in Academic Writing Amongst Rukwangali Students: Lecturers’ Perspectives. Critical Thinking in Academic Writing amongst Rukwangali Students: Lecturers? Perspectives. 2021;90(1):14-.
- [68]Kristensen JK, Torkildsen JvK, Andersson B. Repeated mistakes in app-based language learning: Persistence and relation to learning gains. Computers & Education. 2024;210:104966.
- [73]Kurban CF, Şahin M. The Impact of ChatGPT on Higher Education: Exploring the AI Revolution: Emerald Publishing Limited; 2024.
- [76]Zimmerman BJ. Goal setting: A key proactive source of academic self-regulation. Motivation and self-regulated learning: Routledge; 2012. p. 267–95.
- [77]Denisova-Schmidt E. The challenges of academic integrity in higher education: Current trends and prospects. CIHE perspectives. 2017;5:1–27.
- [78]Latham GP, Arshoff AS. Planning: A mediator in goal-setting theory. The Psychology of Planning in Organizations: Routledge; 2015. p. 89–104.
- [82]Alvarez Sainz M, Ferrero AM, Ugidos A. Time management: skills to learn and put into practice. Education+ Training. 2019;61(5):635–48.
- [87]Özlem Ö. Personal goal-setting in an EFL writing class. Dil Dergisi. 2019;170(1):89–107.
- [98]Topping K. Self and peer assessment in school and university: Reliability, validity and utility. Optimising new modes of assessment: In search of qualities and standards: Springer; 2003. p. 55–87.
- Authors
- Khojasteh, L., Kafipour, R., Pakdel, F., & Mukundan, J.
- Affiliations
- Shiraz University of Medical Sciences (IR)
- Taylor's University (MY)
- Corresponding author
- Kafipour, Reza
- Pakdel, Farhad
- Venue
- BMC Medical Education
- Published
- 2025-01-31
- Volume
- 25
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 159-159
- ISSN
- 1472-6920 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC11786331
- OpenAlex
- W4407032891
- Cited by
- 24
- References
- 80
- Citations by year
- 2026: 14 · 2025: 10
- FWCI
- 21.73
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- BMC Medical Education (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
- Social Sciences › Education › Health Education and Validation
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Academic Writing and Publishing
- Keywords
- medical students, writing feedback, content validity, face validity, reliability statistics, reflection papers, Persian language, writing assessment, AI-assisted writing
- MeSH terms
- Empowerment, Education, Medical, Undergraduate, Educational Measurement, Humans, Pilot Projects, Self-Assessment, Students, Medical, Writing, Reproducibility of Results, Focus Groups
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review