Skip to content
← Back to explorer

CARE: An Explainable Computational Framework for Assessing Client-Perceived Therapeutic Alliance Using Large Language Models

Anqi Li, Chenxiao Wang, Yu Lu, Renjun Xu, Lizhi Ma, Zhenzhong Lan · Feb 24, 2026 · Citations: 0

Data freshness

Extraction: Fresh

Check recency before relying on this page for active eval decisions. Use stale pages as context and verify against current hub results.

Metadata refreshed

Feb 24, 2026, 7:52 AM

Stale

Extraction refreshed

Apr 13, 2026, 6:32 AM

Fresh

Extraction source

Persisted extraction

Confidence 0.45

Abstract

Client perceptions of the therapeutic alliance are critical for counseling effectiveness. Accurately capturing these perceptions remains challenging, as traditional post-session questionnaires are burdensome and often delayed, while existing computational approaches produce coarse scores, lack interpretable rationales, and fail to model holistic session context. We present CARE, an LLM-based framework to automatically predict multi-dimensional alliance scores and generate interpretable rationales from counseling transcripts. Built on the CounselingWAI dataset and enriched with 9,516 expert-curated rationales, CARE is fine-tuned using rationale-augmented supervision with the LLaMA-3.1-8B-Instruct backbone. Experiments show that CARE outperforms leading LLMs and substantially reduces the gap between counselor evaluations and client-perceived alliance, achieving over 70% higher Pearson correlation with client ratings. Rationale-augmented supervision further improves predictive accuracy. CARE also produces high-quality, contextually grounded rationales, validated by both automatic and human evaluations. Applied to real-world Chinese online counseling sessions, CARE uncovers common alliance-building challenges, illustrates how interaction patterns shape alliance development, and provides actionable insights, demonstrating its potential as an AI-assisted tool for supporting mental health care.

Low-signal caution for protocol decisions

Use this page for context, then validate protocol choices against stronger HFEPX references before implementation decisions.

  • Extraction confidence is 0.45 (below strong-reference threshold).

HFEPX Relevance Assessment

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

A secondary eval reference to pair with stronger protocol papers.

Main weakness

Extraction confidence is 0.45 (below strong-reference threshold).

Trust level

Low

Eval-Fit Score

37/100 • Low

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Detected

HFEPX Fit

Adjacent candidate

Extraction confidence: Low

Field Provenance & Confidence

Each key protocol field shows extraction state, confidence band, and data source so you can decide whether to trust it directly or validate from full text.

Human Feedback Types

missing

None explicit

Confidence: Low Source: Persisted extraction missing

No explicit feedback protocol extracted.

Evidence snippet: Client perceptions of the therapeutic alliance are critical for counseling effectiveness.

Evaluation Modes

partial

Human Eval, Automatic Metrics

Confidence: Low Source: Persisted extraction evidenced

Includes extracted eval setup.

Evidence snippet: Client perceptions of the therapeutic alliance are critical for counseling effectiveness.

Quality Controls

missing

Not reported

Confidence: Low Source: Persisted extraction missing

No explicit QC controls found.

Evidence snippet: Client perceptions of the therapeutic alliance are critical for counseling effectiveness.

Benchmarks / Datasets

missing

Not extracted

Confidence: Low Source: Persisted extraction missing

No benchmark anchors detected.

Evidence snippet: Client perceptions of the therapeutic alliance are critical for counseling effectiveness.

Reported Metrics

partial

Accuracy

Confidence: Low Source: Persisted extraction evidenced

Useful for evaluation criteria comparison.

Evidence snippet: Rationale-augmented supervision further improves predictive accuracy.

Rater Population

partial

Domain Experts

Confidence: Low Source: Persisted extraction evidenced

Helpful for staffing comparability.

Evidence snippet: Built on the CounselingWAI dataset and enriched with 9,516 expert-curated rationales, CARE is fine-tuned using rationale-augmented supervision with the LLaMA-3.1-8B-Instruct backbone.

Human Data Lens

  • Uses human feedback: No
  • Feedback types: None
  • Rater population: Domain Experts
  • Unit of annotation: Unknown
  • Expertise required: General
  • Extraction source: Persisted extraction

Evaluation Lens

  • Evaluation modes: Human Eval, Automatic Metrics
  • Agentic eval: None
  • Quality controls: Not reported
  • Confidence: 0.45
  • Flags: ambiguous

Protocol And Measurement Signals

Benchmarks / Datasets

No benchmark or dataset names were extracted from the available abstract.

Reported Metrics

accuracy

Research Brief

Deterministic synthesis

We present CARE, an LLM-based framework to automatically predict multi-dimensional alliance scores and generate interpretable rationales from counseling transcripts. HFEPX signals include Human Eval, Automatic Metrics with confidence 0.45. Updated from current HFEPX corpus.

Generated Apr 13, 2026, 6:32 AM · Grounded in abstract + metadata only

Key Takeaways

  • We present CARE, an LLM-based framework to automatically predict multi-dimensional alliance scores and generate interpretable rationales from counseling transcripts.
  • Experiments show that CARE outperforms leading LLMs and substantially reduces the gap between counselor evaluations and client-perceived alliance, achieving over 70% higher Pearson…

Researcher Actions

  • Treat this as method context, then pivot to protocol-specific HFEPX hubs.
  • Identify benchmark choices from full text before operationalizing conclusions.
  • Validate metric comparability (accuracy).

Caveats

  • Generated from title, abstract, and extracted metadata only; full-paper implementation details are not parsed.
  • Extraction confidence is probabilistic and should be validated for critical decisions.

Research Summary

Contribution Summary

  • We present CARE, an LLM-based framework to automatically predict multi-dimensional alliance scores and generate interpretable rationales from counseling transcripts.
  • Experiments show that CARE outperforms leading LLMs and substantially reduces the gap between counselor evaluations and client-perceived alliance, achieving over 70% higher Pearson correlation with client ratings.
  • CARE also produces high-quality, contextually grounded rationales, validated by both automatic and human evaluations.

Why It Matters For Eval

  • Experiments show that CARE outperforms leading LLMs and substantially reduces the gap between counselor evaluations and client-perceived alliance, achieving over 70% higher Pearson correlation with client ratings.
  • CARE also produces high-quality, contextually grounded rationales, validated by both automatic and human evaluations.

Researcher Checklist

  • Gap: Human feedback protocol is explicit

    No explicit human feedback protocol detected.

  • Pass: Evaluation mode is explicit

    Detected: Human Eval, Automatic Metrics

  • Gap: Quality control reporting appears

    No calibration/adjudication/IAA control explicitly detected.

  • Gap: Benchmark or dataset anchors are present

    No benchmark/dataset anchor extracted from abstract.

  • Pass: Metric reporting is present

    Detected: accuracy

Related Papers

Papers are ranked by protocol overlap, extraction signal alignment, and semantic proximity.

Need human evaluators for your AI research? Scale annotation with expert AI Trainers.