This study provides the first comprehensive evaluation of large language model (LLM) performance across three counseling roles in Japanese-language therapeutic contexts. We simultaneously assessed counselor artificial intelligence (AI) systems (GPT-4-turbo with zeroshot prompting or Structured Multi-step Dialogue Prompts (SMDP), Claude-3-Opus-SMDP), client AI simulations, and evaluation AI systems (o3, Claude-3.7-Sonnet, Gemini-2.5-pro). Human experts (n = 15) with extensive counseling experience evaluated AI-generated dialogues using the Motivational Interviewing Treatment Integrity (MITI) Coding Manual 4.2.1. Notably, SMDP implementation significantly enhanced counselor AI performance across all MITI global ratings compared with zeroshot prompting, with no significant differences between GPT-SMDP and Opus-SMDP. Evaluation AIs showed comparable performance to human raters for Cultivating Change Talk but systematically overestimated Softening Sustain Talk and the overall quality metrics. Model-specific biases emerged: Gemini emphasized power-sharing, o3 focused on technical proficiency, and Sonnet prioritized emotional expression. Client AI simulations exhibited a limited emotional range and unnaturally high compliance, indicating the need for enhanced realism. These findings establish benchmarks for AI-assisted counseling in non-English contexts and identify critical areas for improvement through advanced prompt engineering, retrieval-augmented generation, and targeted fine-tuning, with important implications for developing culturally sensitive AI mental health tools.

Human evaluation has been widely accepted as the standard for evaluating chat-oriented dialogue systems. However, there is a significant variation in previous work regarding who gets recruited as evaluators. Evaluator groups such as domain experts, university students, and professional annotators have been used to assess and compare dialogue systems, although it is unclear to what extent the choice of an evaluator group can affect results. This paper analyzes the evaluator group impact on dialogue system evaluation by testing 4 state-of-the-art dialogue systems using 4 distinct evaluator groups. Our analysis reveals a robustness towards evaluator groups for Likert evaluations that is not seen for Pairwise, with only minor differences observed when changing evaluator groups. Furthermore, two notable limitations to this robustness are observed, which reveal discrepancies between evaluators with different levels of chatbot expertise and indicate that evaluator objectivity is beneficial for certain dialogue metrics.