Can LLMs identify and repair ruptures? Comparison between clinician practices and LLM behaviors

Key Findings

• — LLMs showed high agreement with predefined rupture labels in identification (Gemini 100%, Claude 95.2%, ChatGPT 90.5% of 21 scenarios) but experts rated their resolution strategies only moderately effective
• — LLM identification relied on explicit linguistic cues within single turns; experts integrated implicit and contextual signals across the conversation
• — LLM repairs were more directive and scripted; experts favoured validation, open-ended exploration and psychoeducation
• — Consistent LLM limitations in timing, depth and contextual sensitivity
• — Expert panel: 22 practitioners (5 psychologists, 4 social workers, 3 licensed counsellors, 5 clinical PhD students, 2 PsyD holders)

Methodology Notes

Theory-driven pre-constructed scenarios (21 conversations) rather than live interactions; text-only; three LLMs queried in 2026; 22 US-based mental-health experts evaluated identification and resolution. Authors note the small single-country expert sample and the absence of non-textual cues. v1 posted 2026-09-21.

Sources