Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper benchmarks the motivational interviewing (MI) competence of 10 LLMs (both proprietary and open-source) against human therapists using the Motivational Interviewing Treatment Integrity (MITI) framework on both handcrafted and real-world clinical transcripts. The study iteratively generated parallel LLM-therapist utterances and ranked performance using a composite ranking system with MITI components and verbosity. Results showed that LLMs achieved fair to good MI competence, even outperforming human experts in some MITI measures, and were difficult for psychiatrists to distinguish from human responses.
LLMs aren't just chatbots; they're surprisingly good motivational interviewers, even outperforming human therapists on key metrics and fooling psychiatrists in distinguishability tests.
Motivational interviewing (MI) promotes behavioural change in substance use disorders. Its fidelity is measured using the Motivational Interviewing Treatment Integrity (MITI) framework. While large language models (LLMs) can potentially generate MI-consistent therapist responses, their competence using MITI is not well-researched, especially in real world clinical transcripts. We aim to benchmark MI competence of proprietary and open-source models compared to human therapists in real-world transcripts and assess distinguishability from human therapists. Methods: We shortlisted 3 proprietary and 7 open-source LLMs from LMArena, evaluated performance using MITI 4.2 framework on two datasets (96 handcrafted model transcripts, 34 real-world clinical transcripts). We generated parallel LLM-therapist utterances iteratively for each transcript while keeping client responses static, and ranked performance using a composite ranking system with MITI components and verbosity. We conducted a distinguishability experiment with two independent psychiatrists to identify human-vs-LLM responses. Results: All 10 tested LLMs had fair (MITI global scores >3.5) to good (MITI global scores >4) competence across MITI measures, and three best-performing models (gemma-3-27b-it, gemini-2.5-pro, grok-3) were tested on real-world transcripts. All showed good competence, with LLMs outperforming human-expert in Complex Reflection percentage (39% vs 96%) and Reflection-Question ratio (1.2 vs >2.8). In the distinguishability experiment, psychiatrists identified LLM responses with only 56% accuracy, with d-prime: 0.17 and 0.25 for gemini-2.5-pro and gemma-3-27b-it respectively. Conclusion: LLMs can achieve good MI proficiency in real-world clinical transcripts using MITI framework. These findings suggest that even open-source LLMs are viable candidates for expanding MI counselling sessions in low-resource settings.
