ArticleBehavioral sciences & the law
Large Language Model (LLM) and Human Performance in Child Investigative Interviewing Question Formulation Tasks.
Article in Behavioral sciences & the law. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Large Language Model (LLM) and Human Performance in Child Investigative Interviewing Question Formulation Tasks.Behavioral sciences & the lawArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
We compared the performance of large language models (LLMs) and humans with various levels of expertise in child investigative interviewing on tasks related to question formulation. Two tasks were employed: a static Interview Excerpt Task where participants (60 psychologists, 60 naive participants, GPT-4, and Llama-2) formulated follow-up questions to 100 interview excerpts, and a dynamic Avatar Interviewing Task where participants (32 professionals, 32 students, and GPT-4) conducted 10-min interviews with AI-driven child avatars. In the dynamic task, LLMs used fewer recommended questions (M = 8.69 vs. 18.75) and more non-recommended questions (M = 17.69 vs. 6.81) than professionals. Conversely, in the static task, GPT-4 outperformed psychologists, using more invitations (67.8% vs. 5.4%) and fewer option-posing questions (3.7% vs. 31.4%). While LLMs demonstrated strong question formulation skills in controlled environments, they struggled with adaptive dialogs.
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.