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
  • [31] The Impact of Performance Expectancy, Workload, Risk, and Satisfaction on Trust in ChatGPT: Cross-Sectional Survey Analysis
    Choudhury, Avishek
    Shamszare, Hamid
    JMIR HUMAN FACTORS, 2024, 11
  • [32] Importance-Performance Analysis of Patient-Safety Nursing in the Operating Room: A Cross-Sectional Study
    Shin, Jieun
    Kim, Nam-Yi
    RISK MANAGEMENT AND HEALTHCARE POLICY, 2024, 17 : 715 - 725
  • [33] Gender violence against woman nursing students: a cross-sectional study
    Peixinho da Silva, Luiza Csordas
    Hino, Paula
    Guedes de Oliveira, Rebeca Nunes
    Fernandes, Hugo
    REVISTA BRASILEIRA DE ENFERMAGEM, 2021, 74 (05)
  • [35] Knowledge and attitudes toward artificial intelligence in nursing among various categories of professionals in China: a cross-sectional study
    Wang, Xiaoyan
    Fei, Fangqin
    Wei, Jiawen
    Huang, Mingxue
    Xiang, Fengling
    Tu, Jing
    Wang, Yaping
    Gan, Jinhua
    FRONTIERS IN PUBLIC HEALTH, 2024, 12
  • [36] Nursing students' perceptions of unfinished nursing care: A cross-sectional study
    Kohanova, Dominika
    Gurkova, Elena
    Kirwan, Marcia
    Ziakova, Katarina
    Kurucova, Radka
    NURSE EDUCATION IN PRACTICE, 2024, 76
  • [37] Smartphone addiction in Nursing students: a cross-sectional study
    Garcia, Pamela Garzon
    Sampedro, Marta Solares
    Lopez, Lucas Soto
    Lopez, Beatriz Busto
    Martinez, Jose Antonio Cernuda
    RQR ENFERMERIA COMUNITARIA, 2022, 10 (04): : 36 - 43
  • [38] Genetic counselors' utilization of ChatGPT in professional practice: A cross-sectional study
    Ahimaz, Priyanka
    Bergner, Amanda L.
    Florido, Michelle E.
    Harkavy, Nina
    Bhattacharyya, Sriya
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF MEDICAL GENETICS PART A, 2024, 194 (04)
  • [39] Nursing education in the pandemic: A cross-sectional international study
    Kalanlar, Bilge
    NURSE EDUCATION TODAY, 2022, 108
  • [40] Attitude and utilization of ChatGPT among registered nurses: A cross-sectional study
    Lin, Hui-Ling
    Liao, Li-Ling
    Wang, Ya-Ni
    Chang, Li-Chun
    INTERNATIONAL NURSING REVIEW, 2025, 72 (02)