Performance of ChatGPT on Nursing Licensure Examinations in the United States and China: Cross-Sectional Study

被引:1
|
作者
Wu, Zelin [1 ,2 ]
Gan, Wenyi [3 ]
Xue, Zhaowen [1 ,2 ]
Ni, Zhengxin [4 ]
Zheng, Xiaofei [1 ,2 ]
Zhang, Yiyi [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] First Affiliated Hosp, Dept Bone & Joint Surg, 613 Huangpu Ave West, Guangzhou 510630, Peoples R China
[2] First Affiliated Hosp, Sports Med Ctr, 613 Huangpu Ave West, Guangzhou 510630, Peoples R China
[3] Zhuhai Peoples Hosp, Dept Joint Surg & Sports Med, Zhuhai, Peoples R China
[4] Yangzhou Univ, Sch Nursing, Yangzhou, Peoples R China
来源
JMIR MEDICAL EDUCATION | 2024年 / 10卷
关键词
artificial intelligence; ChatGPT; nursing licensure examination; nursing; LLMs; large language models; nursing education; AI; nursing student; large language model; licensing; observation; observational study; China; USA; United States of America; auxiliary tool; accuracy rate; theoretical; EDUCATION;
D O I
10.2196/52746
中图分类号
G40 [教育学];
学科分类号
040101 ; 120403 ;
摘要
Background: The creation of large language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT is an important step in the development of artificial intelligence, which shows great potential in medical education due to its powerful language understanding and generative capabilities. The purpose of this study was to quantitatively evaluate and comprehensively analyze ChatGPT's performance in handling questions for the National Nursing Licensure Examination (NNLE) in China and the United States, including the National Council Licensure Examination for Registered Nurses (NCLEX-RN) and the NNLE. Objective: This study aims to examine how well LLMs respond to the NCLEX-RN and the NNLE multiple-choice questions (MCQs) in various language inputs. To evaluate whether LLMs can be used as multilingual learning assistance for nursing, and to assess whether they possess a repository of professional knowledge applicable to clinical nursing practice. Methods: First, we compiled 150 NCLEX-RN Practical MCQs, 240 NNLE Theoretical MCQs, and 240 NNLE Practical MCQs. Then, the translation function of ChatGPT 3.5 was used to translate NCLEX-RN questions from English to Chinese and NNLE questions from Chinese to English. Finally, the original version and the translated version of the MCQs were inputted into ChatGPT 4.0, ChatGPT 3.5, and Google Bard. Different LLMs were compared according to the accuracy rate, and the differences between different language inputs were compared. Results: The accuracy rates of ChatGPT 4.0 for NCLEX-RN practical questions and Chinese-translated NCLEX-RN practical questions were 88.7% (133/150) and 79.3% (119/150), respectively. Despite the statistical significance of the difference (P=.03), the correct rate was generally satisfactory. Around 71.9% (169/235) of NNLE Theoretical MCQs and 69.1% (161/233) of NNLE Practical MCQs were correctly answered by ChatGPT 4.0. The accuracy of ChatGPT 4.0 in processing NNLE Theoretical MCQs and NNLE Practical MCQs translated into English was 71.5% (168/235; P=.92) and 67.8% (158/233; P=.77), respectively, and there was no statistically significant difference between the results of text input in different languages. ChatGPT 3.5 (NCLEX-RN P=.003, NNLE Theoretical P<.001, NNLE Practical P=.12) and Google Bard (NCLEX-RN P<.001, NNLE Theoretical P<.001, NNLE Practical P<.001) had lower accuracy rates for nursing-related MCQs than ChatGPT 4.0 in English input. English accuracy was higher when compared with ChatGPT 3.5's Chinese input, and the difference was statistically significant (NCLEX-RN P=.02, NNLE Practical P=.02). Whether submitted in Chinese or English, the MCQs from the NCLEX-RN and NNLE demonstrated that ChatGPT 4.0 had the highest number of unique correct responses and the lowest number of unique incorrect responses among the 3 LLMs. Conclusions: This study, focusing on 618 nursing MCQs including NCLEX-RN and NNLE exams, found that ChatGPT 4.0 outperformed ChatGPT 3.5 and Google Bard in accuracy. It excelled in processing English and Chinese inputs, underscoring its potential as a valuable tool in nursing education and clinical decision-making.
引用
收藏
页数:12
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] The use of annual physical examinations among the elderly in rural China: a cross-sectional study
    Xi Sun
    Yingchun Chen
    Xuetao Tong
    Zhanchun Feng
    Li Wei
    Donghua Zhou
    Miaomiao Tian
    Benyan Lv
    Da Feng
    BMC Health Services Research, 14
  • [22] The use of annual physical examinations among the elderly in rural China: a cross-sectional study
    Sun, Xi
    Chen, Yingchun
    Tong, Xuetao
    Feng, Zhanchun
    Wei, Li
    Zhou, Donghua
    Tian, Miaomiao
    Lv, Benyan
    Feng, Da
    BMC HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH, 2014, 14
  • [23] The performance of ChatGPT-4.0o in medical imaging evaluation: a cross-sectional study
    Arruzza, Elio Stefan
    Evangelista, Carla Marie
    Chau, Minh
    JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL EVALUATION FOR HEALTH PROFESSIONS, 2024, 21
  • [24] Dementia care preference among nursing students in China: A cross-sectional study
    Liu, Jiarui
    Wang, Xin
    Wang, Jing
    Meng, Hongyan
    Zhang, Juxia
    NURSE EDUCATION IN PRACTICE, 2025, 84
  • [25] Current Status of Nursing Home Distribution in China: A National Cross-Sectional Study
    Ge, Meng-Wei
    Liu, Peng
    Shi, Hai-Yan
    Li, Xiao-Min
    Hu, Fei-Hong
    Jia, Yi-Jie
    Shen, Lu-Ting
    Xia, Xiao-Peng
    Chen, Hong-Lin
    JOURNAL OF ADVANCED NURSING, 2024,
  • [26] Emotional states and coping methods in nursing and non-nursing students responding to COVID-19: a cross-sectional study in China
    Miao, Qunfang
    Xie, Lin
    Xing, Bingyu
    Wang, Xiaolei
    Tang, Shiming
    Luo, Hong
    BMJ OPEN, 2021, 11 (08):
  • [27] A cross-sectional analysis of the demand for coffee in the United States
    Capps, Oral
    Cheng, Muxi
    Kee, Jennifer
    Priestley, Samuel L.
    AGRIBUSINESS, 2023, 39 (02) : 494 - 514
  • [28] Colleague violence in nursing: A cross-sectional study
    Ayakdas, Dilek
    Arslantas, Hulya
    JOURNAL OF PSYCHIATRIC NURSING, 2018, 9 (01): : 36 - 44
  • [29] Breast Cancer in the United States: A Cross-Sectional Overview
    Bilani, Nadeem
    Zabor, Emily C.
    Elson, Leah
    Elimimian, Elizabeth B.
    Nahleh, Zeina
    JOURNAL OF CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2020, 2020
  • [30] A cross-sectional study of self-rated health among older adults: a comparison of China and the United States
    Xu, Dongjuan
    Arling, Greg
    Wang, Kefang
    BMJ OPEN, 2019, 9 (07):