ArticleEuropean addiction research2026
Benchmarking Motivational Interviewing Competence of Large Language Models.
Article in European addiction research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionMotivational 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.
methodsWe shortlisted 3 proprietary and 7 open-source LLMs from LMArena, evaluated performance using MITI 4.2 framework on two datasets (96 handcrafted model transcripts and 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-versus-LLM responses.
resultsAll 10 tested LLMs had fair (MITI global scores of >3.5) to good (MITI global scores of >4) competence across MITI measures, and the three best-performing models (gemma-3-27b-it, gemini-2.5-pro, and 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 of 0.17 and 0.25 for gemini-2.5-pro and gemma-3-27b-it, respectively.
conclusionLLMs can achieve good MI proficiency in real-world clinical transcripts using the MITI framework. However, a high complex reflection percentage may result in a technically correct but unnatural conversation style. These findings suggest that even open-source LLMs are viable candidates for expanding MI counselling sessions in low-resource settings, warranting further rigorous clinical validation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.