Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40796797›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

Development and validation of large language model rating scales for automatically transcribed psychological therapy sessions.

Steffen T Eberhardt, Antonia Vehlen, Jana Schaffrath, Brian Schwartz, Tobias Baur, Dominik Schiller, Tobias Hallmen, Elisabeth André, Wolfgang Lutz

Abstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Steffen T EberhardtDepartment of Psychology, Trier University, Trier, Germany. eberhardt@uni-trier.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9900-4671
Antonia VehlenDepartment of Psychology, Trier University, Trier, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6019-3161
Jana SchaffrathDepartment of Psychology, Trier University, Trier, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0106-0243
Brian SchwartzDepartment of Psychology, Trier University, Trier, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4695-4953
Tobias BaurChair for Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence, Augsburg University, Wissenschaftspark 25+27, 54296, Trier, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2797-605X
Dominik SchillerChair for Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence, Augsburg University, Wissenschaftspark 25+27, 54296, Trier, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7364-5772
Tobias HallmenChair for Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence, Augsburg University, Wissenschaftspark 25+27, 54296, Trier, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0005-6450-5694
Elisabeth AndréChair for Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence, Augsburg University, Wissenschaftspark 25+27, 54296, Trier, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2367-162X
Wolfgang LutzDepartment of Psychology, Trier University, Trier, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5141-3847

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

LanguagePsychotherapyAdultAgedFemaleHumansLarge Language ModelsMaleMiddle AgedPsychometricsReproducibility of ResultsAutomatized transcriptionMeasurement-based care (MBC)Natural language processing (NLP)Patient engagement

Identifiers

PMID40796797
PMCPMC12343941

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.