ArticleBMC psychiatry2025
Evaluating motivational interview quality using large language models and hidden Markov models.
Article in BMC psychiatry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Multiagent Large Language Model Framework for Psychotherapy Fidelity Assessment in Motivational Interviewing and Cognitive Behavioral Therapy Training: Cross-Sectional, Simulation-Based Evaluation Study.JMIR medical education · 2026Article
- Editorial: Motivational interviewing in forensic settings.Frontiers in psychology · 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMotivational Interviewing (MI) is a counseling approach that promotes behavior change by eliciting "change talk" and minimizing "sustain talk." Traditional methods for assessing MI quality, such as manual coding, are labor-intensive, subjective, and difficult to scale. This study introduces an automated framework integrating large language models (LLMs) and Hidden Markov Models (HMMs) for evaluation of MI session quality.
aimsThis study evaluates the effectiveness of an LLM-HMM framework in predicting MI session quality and examines motivational state transitions in high- and low-quality sessions.
methodA dataset of 40 MI sessions was analyzed. Client utterances were classified and numerically scored by an LLM based on their intention toward or away from change. With HMMs, we used these scores to examine the motivational state transitions across each session. Differences between high- and low-quality sessions were quantified by comparing transition matrices using Frobenius norms. Statistical significance was assessed via a permutation test. Predictive performance was evaluated using logistic regression with leave-one-out cross-validation (LOOCV), where transition matrix elements served as independent variables and interview quality as the dependent variable.
resultsHigh-quality MI sessions exhibited fluid transitions between motivational states, whereas low-quality sessions showed persistence in resistance-oriented states. A statistically significant difference in transition matrices was observed between session groups (p < 0.001). The framework achieved a mean LOOCV accuracy of 0.80, demonstrating strong predictive performance in identifying MI session quality.
conclusionsThis study presents a scalable, objective alternative to manual MI evaluation. Future applications may include real-time therapist support, training, and prognosis prediction, pending further validation on field-collected 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.