ArticleScientific reports2025
Development and validation of large language model rating scales for automatically transcribed psychological therapy sessions.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- AI Agents Are Coming: 5-Stage Taxonomy of Language-Based AI Systems for Psychiatry, Psychotherapy, and Counseling.JMIR mental health · 2026Article
- Exploring the application of large language models in coding the experiencing scale (EXP).Cogent mental health · 2026Article
- [Therapist augmentation by generative AI: concept and implementation of the GAINED feedback system at Osnabrück University].Psychotherapie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2026Article
- The association of transformer-based sentiment analysis with symptom distress and deterioration in routine psychotherapy care.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Rating scales have shaped psychological research, but are resource-intensive and can burden participants. Large Language Models (LLMs) offer a tool to assess latent constructs in text. This study introduces LLM rating scales, which use LLM responses instead of human ratings. We demonstrate this approach with an LLM rating scale measuring patient engagement in therapy transcripts. Automatically transcribed videos of 1,131 sessions from 155 patients were analyzed using DISCOVER, a software framework for local multimodal human behavior analysis. Llama 3.1 8B LLM rated 120 engagement items, averaging the top eight into a total score. Psychometric evaluation showed a normal distribution, strong reliability (ω = 0.953), and acceptable fit (CFI = 0.968, SRMR = 0.022), except RMSEA = 0.108. Validity was supported by significant correlations with engagement determinants (e.g., motivation, r = .413), processes (e.g., between-session efforts, r = .390), and outcomes (e.g., symptoms, r = - .304). Results remained robust across bootstrap resampling and cross-validation, accounting for nested data. The LLM rating scale exhibited strong psychometric properties, demonstrating the potential of the approach as an assessment tool. Importantly, this automated approach uses interpretable items, ensuring clear understanding of measured constructs, while supporting local implementation and protecting confidential data.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.