Katie Aafjes-van Doorn

arXiv2026

MIS-Bench: Benchmarking Multimodal LLMs for Psychotherapeutic Interpersonal Skills Assessment

Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) are increasingly used as evaluators, yet their reliability in professional assessment tasks that require expert judgment remains unclear. We investigate this challenge in the context of assessing psychotherapeutic interpersonal skills and introduce MIS-Bench, a Multimodal Interpersonal Skills (MIS) benchmark comprising 996 psychotherapy response videos annotated across 8 dimensions of Facilitative Interpersonal Skills. Across 9 MLLMs with multiple modality and prompting settings, we find that current models show only modest agreement with human experts, inconsistent gains from multimodal input, and limited benefits from reasoning-based prompting. To mitigate this gap, we propose MIS-RAFT, a regression-aware fine-tuning method inspired by RAFT and tailored to fine-grained interpersonal skill scoring at one-decimal precision. MIS-RAFT addresses the mismatch between autoregressive token prediction and scalar-valued expert assessment, significantly improving agreement with human ratings. Overall, MIS-Bench reveals a clear gap between general multimodal capability and expert-level interpersonal judgment, while MIS-RAFT offers a promising path toward more reliable model-based assessment.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

ADAPTS: Agentic Decomposition for Automated Protocol-agnostic Tracking of Symptoms

Modeling latent clinical constructs from unconstrained clinical interactions is a unique challenge in affective computing. We present ADAPTS (Agentic Decomposition for Automated Protocol-agnostic Tracking of Symptoms), a framework for automated rating of depression and anxiety severity using a mixture-of-agents LLM architecture. This approach decomposes long-form clinical interviews into symptom-specific reasoning tasks, producing auditable justifications while preserving temporal and speaker alignment. Generalization was evaluated across two independent datasets ($N=204$) with distinct interview structures. On high-discrepancy interviews, automated ratings approximated expert benchmarks ($\text{absolute error}=22$) more closely than original human ratings ($\text{absolute error}=26$). Implementing an ``extended'' protocol that incorporates qualitative clinical conventions significantly stabilized ratings, with absolute agreement reaching $\text{ICC(2,1)} = 0.877$. These findings suggest that the ADAPTS framework enables promising evaluations of psychiatric severity. While the current implementation is purely text-based, the underlying architecture is readily extensible to multimodal inputs, including acoustic and visual features. By approximating expert-level precision in a protocol-agnostic manner, this framework provides a foundation for objective and scalable psychiatric assessment, especially in resource-limited settings.

cs.AI↗