New Exam Security Questions in the AI Era: Comparing AI-Generated Item Similarity Between Naive and Detail-Guided Prompting Approaches

TL;DR

This study compares AI-generated exam questions created with naive prompts versus those using proprietary guidance, revealing that publicly prompted LLMs can produce items similar to guided ones, raising security concerns.

Contribution

It demonstrates that LLMs with only public prompts can generate exam items closely resembling proprietary-guided items, highlighting security risks in AI-assisted exam development.

Findings

High internal consistency within each prompting strategy

Lower cross-strategy similarity overall

Some domain pairs exceeded similarity threshold, indicating convergence

Abstract

Large language models (LLMs) have emerged as powerful tools for generating domain-specific multiple-choice questions (MCQs), offering efficiency gains for certification boards but raising new concerns about examination security. This study investigated whether LLM-generated items created with proprietary guidance differ meaningfully from those generated using only publicly available resources. Four representative clinical activities from the American Board of Family Medicine (ABFM) blueprint were mapped to corresponding Entrustable Professional Activities (EPAs), and three LLMs (GPT-4o, Claude 4 Sonnet, Gemini 2.5 Flash) produced items under a naive strategy using only public EPA descriptors, while GPT-4o additionally produced items under a guided strategy that incorporated proprietary blueprints, item-writing guidelines, and exemplar items, yielding 160 total items. Question stems and options were encoded using PubMedBERT and BioBERT, and intra- and inter-strategy cosine similarity coefficients were calculated. Results showed high internal consistency within each prompting strategy, while cross-strategy similarity was lower overall. However, several domain model pairs, particularly in narrowly defined areas such as viral pneumonia and hypertension, exceeded the 0.65 threshold, indicating convergence between naive and guided pipelines. These findings suggest that while proprietary resources impart distinctiveness, LLMs prompted only with public information can still generate items closely resembling guided outputs in constrained clinical domains, thereby heightening risks of item exposure. Safeguarding the integrity of high stakes examinations will require human-first, AI-assisted item development, strict separation of formative and summative item pools, and systematic similarity surveillance to balance innovation with security.