"Crash Test Dummies" for AI-Enabled Clinical Assessment: Validating Virtual Patient Scenarios with Virtual Learners

TL;DR

This paper introduces an AI virtual patient platform and a Bayesian psychometric model to evaluate and validate AI-based clinical assessments, ensuring robustness and interpretability before deployment with human learners.

Contribution

It develops an open-source virtual assessment platform combined with a Bayesian model to reliably measure clinical competencies and validate AI assessment tools.

Findings

The model accurately recovered simulated learners' competencies.

Case difficulty was effectively estimated by competency.

Rater sensitivity and thresholds remained stable across AI raters.

Abstract

Background: In medical and health professions education (HPE), AI is increasingly used to assess clinical competencies, including via virtual standardized patients. However, most evaluations rely on AI-human interrater reliability and lack a measurement framework for how cases, learners, and raters jointly shape scores. This leaves robustness uncertain and can expose learners to misguidance from unvalidated systems. We address this by using AI "simulated learners" to stress-test and psychometrically characterize assessment pipelines before human use. Objective: Develop an open-source AI virtual patient platform and measurement model for robust competency evaluation across cases and rating conditions. Methods: We built a platform with virtual patients, virtual learners with tunable ACGME-aligned competency profiles, and multiple independent AI raters scoring encounters with structured Key-Features items. Transcripts were analyzed with a Bayesian HRM-SDT model that treats ratings as decisions under uncertainty and separates learner ability, case performance, and rater behavior; parameters were estimated with MCMC. Results: The model recovered simulated learners' competencies, with significant correlations to the generating competencies across all ACGME domains despite a non-deterministic pipeline. It estimated case difficulty by competency and showed stable rater detection (sensitivity) and criteria (severity/leniency thresholds) across AI raters using identical models/prompts but different seeds. We also propose a staged "safety blueprint" for deploying AI tools with learners, tied to entrustment-based validation milestones. Conclusions: Combining a purpose-built virtual patient platform with a principled psychometric model enables robust, interpretable, generalizable competency estimates and supports validation of AI-assisted assessment prior to use with human learners.