Cited by 1Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationInnovations in Medical EducationArtificial Intelligence in Education

Prompt engineering for single-best-answer multiple-choice questions in licensing examinations: a narrative review with a case study involving the Korean Medical Licensing Examination

Open access
Kim, Bokyoung, Kang, Junseok, Kim, Min-Young, Ahn, Jihyun·2025·Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions

Abstract

The emergence of large language models (LLMs) has generated growing interest in their potential applications for medical assessment and item development. This practice-oriented narrative review examines the potential of LLMs, particularly ChatGPT, for generating and validating single-best-answer multiple-choice questions in health professions licensing examinations, using a Korean Medical Licensing Examination (KMLE)-focused case perspective. We frame LLMs as human-in-the-loop tools rather than replacements for high-stakes testing. Recent applications of LLMs in assessment were reviewed, including prompting strategies such as few-shot, multi-stage, and chain-of-thought methods, as well as retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) to align outputs with exam blueprints. Approaches to enforcing formatting rules, checklist-based self-validation, and iterative refinement were analyzed for their role in supporting item development. Findings indicate that LLMs can perform near passing thresholds on high-stakes exams and assist with grading and feedback tasks. Prompt engineering enhances structural fidelity and clinical plausibility, while human oversight remains critical for accuracy, cultural appropriateness, and psychometric defensibility. The emerging multimodal generation of images, audio, and video suggests the feasibility of new item formats, provided robust validation safeguards are implemented. The most effective approach is a human-in-the-loop workflow that leverages artificial intelligence efficiency while embedding expert judgment, psychometric evaluation, and ethical governance. This practice-oriented roadmap—integrating strategic prompt selection, RAG-based blueprint alignment, rigorous validation gates, and KMLE-specific formatting—offers an implementable and methodologically defensible approach for licensing examinations.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3352/jeehp.2025.22.34

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cited by 1

Authors
Kim, B., Kang, J., Kim, M.-Y., & Ahn, J.
Affiliations
Harvard University (US)
Venue
Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions
Published
2025-10-27
Volume
22
Pages
34
ISSN
  • 1738-1339 (ISSN-L)
  • 1975-5937
OpenAlex
W4415565800
Cited by
1
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1
FWCI
0.06
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
Keywords
prompt engineering, large language models, ChatGPT, multiple-choice question generation, item development, licensing examinations, human-in-the-loop, retrieval-augmented generation, chain-of-thought prompting, few-shot prompting, item validation, high-stakes testing, medical assessment, psychometric assessment
MeSH terms
Educational Measurement, Humans, Language, Licensure, Medical, Psychometrics, Republic of Korea

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