This paper presents a study utilizing an Item Writing Flaws (IWF) rubric, which evaluates test items based on textual features, to replace the traditional, resource-intensive pilot-test-based item validation approach for item response theory (IRT)-based educational assessments. We applied an automated IWF rubric (19 criteria) to 7,126 multiple-choice questions (STEM) and analyzed their relationship with IRT parameters (difficulty, discrimination). The analysis revealed significant correlations between the number of IWFs and the IRT difficulty and discrimination parameters, particularly in the life/earth sciences and physical sciences, and revealed that specific IWF criteria (e.g., negative vocabulary, unrealistic incorrect answers) had varying degrees of impact on item quality. In conclusion, we suggest that automated IWF analysis can be an efficient complement to existing validation methods, particularly useful for screening low-difficulty multiple-choice questions.