Students rated the usability of the AIvaluate assessment in the SUS 'good' range¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causalr2·q2
Currency · newest study 2026 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person · recheck by 2029: tool and model accuracy changes quickly
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q2 i? Post-assessment System Usability Scale ratings for the AIvaluate assessment fell in the 'good' adjective range of the SUS acceptability scales. → Habeeb Yusuf 2026
Evidence¶
Habeeb Yusuf 2026¶
Habeeb Yusuf, Arthur Money, Damon Daylamani-Zad. (2026). Exploring student anxiety and experience in performance-based assessments using AIvaluate: an LLM-augmented emotionally intelligent pedagogical AI conversational agent. Educational technology research and development. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-026-10634-x
q2 · i? · causal · r2
SUS questionnaires with four bespoke experience items were completed immediately after each assessment format by the same 35 students; scores were mapped to adjective, acceptability and school grading scales. The article reports usability scores "rated in the “good” range". No effect size is printed in the provided text.
"usability scores for the tool were rated in the “good” range."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Students rated AISSA's usability as excellent, with an average SUS score of 83.38 from 30 of 46 pilot students — related
- Students reported significantly lower anxiety during AIvaluate-mediated viva sessions than during equivalent face-to-face viva assessments — related
- The Bloom classification UI shows low perceived workload and high usability in a 50-participant user study — related
- The FACTRIA-aware chatbot received good usability ratings (SUS 70.84) and high usefulness ratings from most of the 11 stakeholders — related
- Adults rated the LLM-powered iCub storytelling system as usable, with a total SUS score of 76.70 indicating good product usability — related
- System usability was rated low in both conditions, with no significant difference between them — related
- The system receives a good average usability rating (SUS 69.7, grade B) but with wide individual variation, which the authors take to suggest UI consistency issues — related
- Learner acceptance of AI simulations is generally high, with System Usability Scale scores of 61.6 to 78.56 and 72%-93% willingness to recommend — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
aivaluate-sus-usability-good-range |
title |
Students rated the usability of the AIvaluate assessment in the SUS 'good' range |
description |
Students rated the usability of the AIvaluate assessment in the SUS 'good' range |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2026 |
recheck_by |
2029 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-10 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — habeeb-yusuf-2026 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.