What Makes a Good Response? An Empirical Analysis of Quality in Qualitative Interviews

Qualitative interviews provide essential insights into human experiences when they elicit high-quality responses. While qualitative and NLP researchers have proposed various measures of interview quality, these measures lack validation that high-scoring responses actually contribute to the study's goals. In this work, we identify, implement, and evaluate 10 proposed measures of interview response quality to determine which are actually predictive of a response's contribution to the study findings. To conduct our analysis, we introduce the Qualitative Interview Corpus, a newly constructed dataset of 343 interview transcripts with 16,940 participant responses from 14 real research projects. We find that direct relevance to a key research question is the strongest predictor of response quality. We additionally find that two measures commonly used to evaluate NLP interview systems, clarity and surprisal-based informativeness, are not predictive of response quality. Our work provides analytic insights and grounded, scalable metrics to inform the design of qualitative studies and the evaluation of automated interview systems.

Real or Robotic? Assessing Whether LLMs Accurately Simulate Qualities of Human Responses in Dialogue

Studying and building datasets for dialogue tasks is both expensive and time-consuming due to the need to recruit, train, and collect data from study participants. In response, much recent work has sought to use large language models (LLMs) to simulate both human-human and human-LLM interactions, as they have been shown to generate convincingly human-like text in many settings. However, to what extent do LLM-based simulations \textit{actually} reflect human dialogues? In this work, we answer this question by generating a large-scale dataset of 100,000 paired LLM-LLM and human-LLM dialogues from the WildChat dataset and quantifying how well the LLM simulations align with their human counterparts. Overall, we find relatively low alignment between simulations and human interactions, demonstrating a systematic divergence along the multiple textual properties, including style and content. Further, in comparisons of English, Chinese, and Russian dialogues, we find that models perform similarly. Our results suggest that LLMs generally perform better when the human themself writes in a way that is more similar to the LLM's own style.

Improving Minority Stress Detection with Emotions

Psychological stress detection is an important task for mental healthcare research, but there has been little prior work investigating the effectiveness of psychological stress models on minority individuals, who are especially vulnerable to poor mental health outcomes. In this work, we use the related task of minority stress detection to evaluate the ability of psychological stress models to understand the language of sexual and gender minorities. We find that traditional psychological stress models underperform on minority stress detection, and we propose using emotion-infused models to reduce that performance disparity. We further demonstrate that multi-task psychological stress models outperform the current state-of-the-art for minority stress detection without directly training on minority stress data. We provide explanatory analysis showing that minority communities have different distributions of emotions than the general population and that emotion-infused models improve the performance of stress models on underrepresented groups because of their effectiveness in low-data environments, and we propose that integrating emotions may benefit underrepresented groups in other mental health detection tasks.