Causal Modelling of Support Interventions for Student Competency Assessment

Accurate assessment of student competencies is essential for enabling educators to identify individual needs, design targeted interventions, and evaluate the effectiveness of educational strategies. Empirical assessment procedures are typically grounded in psychometric models, such as item response theory, which relate student competence levels to performance on assessment tasks. In this paper, we advocate adopting a structural causal modelling approach to educational assessment, moving beyond probabilistic belief updating toward a framework that explicitly supports interventional and counterfactual reasoning. We propose a corresponding protocol for its construction and analyse the practical relevance of forms of reasoning that remain inaccessible to standard associative models, including the explicit modelling of interventions such as hints and the related counterfactual scenario analysis. Although our protocol requires the structural equations to be elicited from experts, the necessary information is purely logical and does not rely on probabilistic, less tenable assumptions. We illustrate the approach using data from an assessment that employs complex tasks designed to measure compulsory school student algorithmic skills.

Do Assessment Instruments Measure the Same Thing for Humans and LLMs? A Latent Structure Analysis

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.

Developing and Validating the Spanish Version of the Large Language Models Dependency Scale (LLM-D12-SP)

There is a growing need for reliable and culturally validated instruments to assess psychological dependency on large language models (LLMs), particularly as LLMs are increasingly used for task execution, decision-making, and communication in organizational and work-related settings. This need is especially relevant for Spanish-speaking populations, where LLM adoption is rapidly expanding, yet validated psychometric tools remain scarce. The present study reports the first validation of the Spanish version of the Large Language Model Dependency Scale (LLM-D12-SP), extending prior validations conducted in English- and Arabic-speaking samples. The LLM-D12 is a two-dimensional instrument assessing Instrumental Dependency (reliance on LLMs for performing tasks and supporting decisions) and Relationship Dependency (psychological reliance on LLMs for companionship and social interaction). A total of 386 Spanish-speaking participants (M = 28.0 years, SD = 6.1; 55% male) completed the LLM-D12-SP. Confirmatory factor analysis supported the original two-factor structure. The scale demonstrated good internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = 0.89 total; 0.86 Instrumental; 0.85 Relationship). Discriminant validity analyses indicated that the two subscales represent related but distinct constructs. External validation showed that both dependency dimensions were positively associated with internet addiction and perceived trustworthiness of LLMs, while showing weak or no association with need for cognition. Together with prior English and Arabic validations, these findings establish cross-linguistic support for the scale's structure and provide a psychometrically sound tool for investigating psychological aspects of LLM use in organizational contexts.

Equality, Equity, and Causality in Fairness Research: A Commentary on Cheng (2026)

This is an invited commentary on the Psychometrika focus article "Fairness Issues and Evaluation in Psychometrics and AI/ML: What Can We Learn from Each Field?" by Ying Cheng (2026, doi:10.1017/psy.2026.10110). Cheng offers a systematic comparison between long-standing test fairness and modern algorithmic fairness. Her mapping of the entire testing workflow onto the AI/ML fairness paradigm, rather than only the final selection stage, is a crucial contribution to interdisciplinary fairness research. This commentary extends her discussion by examining two conceptual issues: the distinction between equality and equity, and the role of causality in fairness research. Together, the focus article and this commentary point to directions for future fairness research across the psychometrics and AI/ML communities.

Measuring How Students Rely on Generative AI in Academic Writing: Development and Multi-Source Validation of the Generative AI Reliance Types Scale (GenAI-RTS)

As generative AI (GenAI) becomes increasingly embedded in undergraduate academic writing, how students rely on these tools, rather than simply whether they use them, has become a central question for learning, academic integrity, and educational equity. Existing measures of reliance were developed inductively, focused on discrete problem-solving tasks, and validated mainly with homogeneous samples. This study developed and validated the GenAI Reliance Types Scale (GenAI-RTS), a 20-item instrument measuring four theoretically derived types of GenAI reliance: Strategic, Instrumental, Dependent, and Dialogic. Validation followed the multisource framework of the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing, drawing on a survey of 382 undergraduates at a U.S. Minority-Serving Institution and interviews with 14 purposively sampled students. Confirmatory factor analyses of six competing models supported a five-factor structure in which Strategic Reliance comprises two facets, Deliberate Use and Critical Evaluation, alongside Instrumental, Dependent, and Dialogic factors (CFI = .92, RMSEA = .08; DWLS CFI = .98, RMSEA = .07). Subscale reliability was acceptable to good (omega = .75-.88), and scalar measurement invariance held across gender, first-generation status, and STEM/non-STEM majors, to our knowledge the first such evidence for a GenAI reliance instrument. Rasch analysis indicated that a five-point response format would improve category functioning. Strategic reliance was positively associated with AI literacy, and the reliance types differentiated students across multiple writing process and outcome variables. The GenAI-RTS offers researchers and educators a theoretically grounded, psychometrically validated instrument for identifying undergraduate reliance profiles and supporting research, assessment, and AI literacy intervention.

Plausible but Not Valid: A Psychometric Audit of LLMs as Synthetic Survey Respondents

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as synthetic survey respondents, but existing evaluations ask whether answers look plausible at the individual level. We argue the right question is psychometric: do LLMs preserve the joint distribution, latent structure, reliability, mediation pathways, and demographic effects of real human survey data? We introduce a Lithuanian organisational-psychology dataset (n=263 employees; Dunham Attitudes Toward Change, UWES-17, Koopmans IWPQ; 68 items, 12 subscales) and condition a 37-model lineup spanning OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, and twelve open-weight families on real respondent profiles under a five-level persona-disclosure ladder, presentation and reasoning-effort ablations, counterfactual demographic swaps (gender, role, education), a cross-language check, and a verbatim-recall memorization probe. The resulting Psychometric Similarity Score (PSS) is anchored against five non-LLM statistical baselines and a held-out human-vs-human ceiling, with respondent-bootstrap confidence intervals and an item-permutation null for Tucker's phi. LLMs reproduce the qualitative direction of human psychometric relationships, but a Gaussian-copula baseline beats every LLM on the sample-driven PSS components; the LLM "crowd" is more similar to itself (mean inter-LLM PSS 0.73) than to humans; and memorization does not drive the leaderboard (recall-PSS rank correlation 0.00). Counterfactual swaps reveal education-driven effects (mean |d|=0.56) that dwarf gender (0.12) and role (0.18); Tucker's phi on UWES falls inside the permutation null for 8 of 37 models. Downstream, every LLM shows a strong acquiescence shift (+0.84 SD), synthetic-trained regressors lose predictive validity on held-out humans (mean R^2 -0.18 vs 0.28), and models fabricate indirect effects on 3 of 10 placebo mediation paths. LLM samples are not a drop-in replacement for human survey data.

Apparent Psychological Profiles of Large Language Models are Largely a Measurement Artifact

Psychological instruments designed for humans are increasingly used to assign large language models (LLMs) stable psychological profiles that affect their usability, safety assessment, and use as proxies for human participants in research. Using a formal psychometric framework, we show that these profiles are largely a measurement artifact. Administering a battery of personality and risk-preference instruments spanning self-reports and behavioral tasks to 56 instruction-tuned LLMs alongside large human reference samples, we report four findings. First, differences between models are driven not by the traits an instrument targets but by a directional response bias, a tendency to respond toward one end of the scale, or one labeled option, regardless of item content; a variance decomposition attributes 81-90% of between-model variation to this bias, against 9-16% in humans. Second, the bias declines with model capability but is not eliminated by it. Third, because bias rather than trait drives responding, an instrument's apparent reliability is almost entirely predicted by its response orthogonality, a term we coin for the proportion of items for which trait and bias point in opposite directions. Fourth, the profile a model appears to have shifts with the items used and can be manufactured through item selection. These results demonstrate that the apparent psychological profiles of LLMs are artifacts of the instrument used to measure them, not properties of the models themselves. As instruments borrowed from human psychology are rarely fully orthogonal and may inherently lack validity for LLMs, we call for dedicated assessments centered on response orthogonality.

The GenAI Skill Bypass: Mapping Divergent Pathways of University Students and Staff AI Literacy

Higher education institutions are increasingly expected to ensure that both students and staff develop Generative AI (GenAI) literacies. In response, they are introducing professional development programs and embedding GenAI skills within student curricula. However, current educational frameworks typically assume a linear progression of GenAI literacy, implying that foundational technical understanding must precede creative application. This paper challenges such an assumption through a psychometric analysis of a taxonomy-based self-assessment instrument (n = 158). We applied Rasch measurement theory and Guttman ordering to map the latent perceived order of difficulty of GenAI skills across students, academics, and professional staff. Results reveal a fundamental divergence in perceived competence profiles: while academics follow a more traditional linear path, students exhibit an "inverted" profile, frequently mastering high-level creation tasks before acquiring foundational conceptual understanding. Furthermore, the correlation of skill difficulty between students and academics was weak (r = 0.188). We argue that this "skill bypass" creates a fragile sense of fluency, where high self-efficacy in prompting masks low literacy in AI mechanics. These findings challenge the "one-size-fits-all" curricula and provide the empirical basis for diagnostic-driven, modular interventions that foster genuine human-AI synergy.