ArticleAssessment2026
Natural Language Response Formats for Assessing Depression and Worry With Large Language Models: A Sequential Evaluation With Model Pre-Registration.
Article in Assessment, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Assessing the Need for Mental Health Support From Free-Text Responses: Development and Validation of Language-Based Assessments in Adults With Internalizing Symptoms.JMIR mental health · 2026Article
- Scalable, context-sensitive psychiatric assessment with large language models and brief diaries.Psychological medicine · 2026Article
- Assessing large language model responses to pediatric depression FAQs: a cross-sectional study on readability, accuracy, and sentiment.Frontiers in psychiatry · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Large language models can transform individuals' mental health descriptions into scores that correlate with rating scales approaching theoretical upper limits. However, such analyses have combined word- and text responses with little known about their differences. We develop response formats ranging from closed-ended to open-ended: (a) select words from lists, write (b) descriptive words, (c) phrases, or (d) texts. Participants answered questions about their depression/worry using the response formats and related rating scales. Language responses were transformed into word embeddings and trained to rating scales. We compare the validity (concurrent, incremental, face, discriminant, and external validity) and reliability (prospective sample and test-retest reliability) of the response formats. Using the
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.