Comparative Efficacy of AI LLMs in Clinical Social Work: ChatGPT-4, Gemini, Copilot

IF 1.7 4区 社会学 Q1 SOCIAL WORK
Hacer Taşkıran Tepe, Hüsnünur Aslantürk
{"title":"Comparative Efficacy of AI LLMs in Clinical Social Work: ChatGPT-4, Gemini, Copilot","authors":"Hacer Taşkıran Tepe, Hüsnünur Aslantürk","doi":"10.1177/10497315241313071","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"PurposeThis study examines the comparative efficacy of three AI large language models (LLMs)—ChatGPT-4, Gemini, and Microsoft Copilot—in clinical social work.MethodBy presenting scenarios of varying complexities, the study assessed their performance using the Ateşman Readability Index and a Likert-type accuracy scale.ResultsResults showed that Gemini had the highest accuracy, while Microsoft Copilot excelled in readability. Significant differences were found in accuracy scores ( p = .003), although readability differences were not statistically significant ( p = .054). No correlation was found between case complexity and either accuracy or readability.DiscussionDespite the differences, none of the models fully met all accuracy standards, indicating areas for further improvement. The findings suggest that while LLMs offer promise in social work, they require refinement to better meet the field's needs.","PeriodicalId":47993,"journal":{"name":"Research on Social Work Practice","volume":"144 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research on Social Work Practice","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10497315241313071","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SOCIAL WORK","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

PurposeThis study examines the comparative efficacy of three AI large language models (LLMs)—ChatGPT-4, Gemini, and Microsoft Copilot—in clinical social work.MethodBy presenting scenarios of varying complexities, the study assessed their performance using the Ateşman Readability Index and a Likert-type accuracy scale.ResultsResults showed that Gemini had the highest accuracy, while Microsoft Copilot excelled in readability. Significant differences were found in accuracy scores ( p = .003), although readability differences were not statistically significant ( p = .054). No correlation was found between case complexity and either accuracy or readability.DiscussionDespite the differences, none of the models fully met all accuracy standards, indicating areas for further improvement. The findings suggest that while LLMs offer promise in social work, they require refinement to better meet the field's needs.
AI llm在临床社会工作中的比较疗效:ChatGPT-4, Gemini, Copilot
目的 本研究探讨了三种人工智能大型语言模型(LLMs)--ChatGPT-4、Gemini 和 Microsoft Copilot 在临床社会工作中的功效比较。方法 本研究通过呈现不同复杂程度的情景,使用阿特斯曼可读性指数和李克特式准确性量表评估了它们的性能。结果 研究结果表明,Gemini 的准确性最高,而 Microsoft Copilot 的可读性更出色。虽然可读性差异没有统计学意义(p = .054),但准确性得分存在显著差异(p = .003)。讨论尽管存在差异,但没有一个模型完全符合所有准确性标准,这表明还有待进一步改进。研究结果表明,尽管 LLM 在社会工作领域大有可为,但仍需对其进行改进,以更好地满足该领域的需求。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
11.10%
发文量
105
期刊介绍: Research on Social Work Practice, sponsored by the Society for Social Work and Research, is a disciplinary journal devoted to the publication of empirical research concerning the methods and outcomes of social work practice. Social work practice is broadly interpreted to refer to the application of intentionally designed social work intervention programs to problems of societal and/or interpersonal importance, including behavior analysis or psychotherapy involving individuals; case management; practice involving couples, families, and small groups; community practice education; and the development, implementation, and evaluation of social policies.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信