## 2 Materials and Methods
### Validation of the Evaluation Instrument  
The content validity of the evaluation instrument was established through a two-phase expert validation process. In the first phase, three experts--a linguistics specialist, an Artificial Intelligence expert, and a technology-focused evaluation specialist--developed an evaluation matrix comprising theoretical categories, theoretical subcategories, and prompt evaluation questions. In the second phase, four additional experts evaluated the judgment matrix. These evaluators met specific inclusion criteria: they were university academics, held a degree, and worked in the fields of linguistics or speech therapy. The expert judgment process was conducted independently and in a blinded manner. Each expert assessed the AI-generated responses without knowledge of the evaluations made by other experts. This approach minimized potential response bias and ensured that the assessments remained objective and unbiased. The evaluation criteria established by the judges are threefold: sufficiency, relevance, and clarity of each evaluation question. To determine the degree of consensus among the judges, Aiken's V [25; 26] is employed to evaluate the representativeness of the questions concerning the construct under examination. Aiken's V values range from 0.5 to 1, with a validity threshold of 0.7 or above. This indicates a high degree of agreement among judges regarding the adequacy, relevance, and clarity of the items (see Table 1). Criteria A1, A2, and B correspond to the dependent variables to be measured (see Table 1). The dependent variables were scored according to the criteria ranging from 1 to 6, as used in previous studies [27; 28]. Criteria C, D, and E define the independent variables (see Table 2). The subjective judgment of the prompt, written according to the instructions for the activity proposed by the evaluators, was considered. These ratings were 1 not achieved, 2 more non-achieved than achieved, 3 Approximately equal achieved and non-achieved, 4 more achieved than non-achieved, 5 nearly all achieved, and 6 achieved. The \"achieved\" ratings indicated that a prompt was considered complete in terms of content, coherence, and \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{p{113.8 pt} p{113.8 pt} p{113.8 pt}} \hline \hline
**Dependent Variable Measured** & **Indicator** & **Scale** \\ \hline A1. The subjective judgment of the written prompt according to the instruction by the evaluators (mean prompt) & The prompt written by the participant is evidence that they were able to follow the instructions given in the activity. & 1 not achieved 2 more non achieved than achieved 3 Approximately equal achieved and non-achieved 4 more achieved than non-achieved 5 nearly all achieved 6 achieved \\ \hline A2. The subjective judgment of the quality of the response given by the LLM & The answer given by the AI is satisfactory according to the prompt written by participant. & 2 more non achieved than achieved 3 Approximately equal achieved and non-achieved 4 more achieved than non-achieved 5 nearly all achieved 6 achieved \\ \hline B. Length of the utterances & Number of words used in the wording of the prompt posed to the AI. & Index: Number of words/Number of utterances \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Details of the dependent variables of the study. structure. This meant the prompt successfully adhered to the instructions provided by the evaluators (e.g., providing context or motivation) and fulfilled all the activity requirements (e.g., including keywords, specifying structure, etc.). The rating \"not achieved\" considered the responses unsatisfactory [27; 28; 29; 30]. The subjective assessment of the quality of the response provided by the LLM, based on the delivered prompt, was also considered. The rating used the same criteria from 1 to 6. The rating 1 \"achieved\" considered a response to be complete in content (e.g., it included possible questions and possible answers to address the hypothetical problem posed).