Developing and Validating the Spanish Version of the Large Language Models Dependency Scale (LLM-D12-SP)
Authors: Tran Gia Bao, Mo El-Haj, Sameha Al-Shakhsi, Antonio Garcia-Cabot, Raian Ali, Ala Yankouskaya
Organizations: VinUniversity · Lancaster University · Hamad Bin Khalifa University · Universidad de Alcalá · Bournemouth University
Abstract
There is a growing need for reliable and culturally validated instruments to assess psychological dependency on large language models (LLMs), particularly as LLMs are increasingly used for task execution, decision-making, and communication in organizational and work-related settings. This need is especially relevant for Spanish-speaking populations, where LLM adoption is rapidly expanding, yet validated psychometric tools remain scarce. The present study reports the first validation of the Spanish version of the Large Language Model Dependency Scale (LLM-D12-SP), extending prior validations conducted in English- and Arabic-speaking samples. The LLM-D12 is a two-dimensional instrument assessing Instrumental Dependency (reliance on LLMs for performing tasks and supporting decisions) and Relationship Dependency (psychological reliance on LLMs for companionship and social interaction). A total of 386 Spanish-speaking participants (M = 28.0 years, SD = 6.1; 55% male) completed the LLM-D12-SP. Confirmatory factor analysis supported the original two-factor structure. The scale demonstrated good internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = 0.89 total; 0.86 Instrumental; 0.85 Relationship). Discriminant validity analyses indicated that the two subscales represent related but distinct constructs. External validation showed that both dependency dimensions were positively associated with internet addiction and perceived trustworthiness of LLMs, while showing weak or no association with need for cognition. Together with prior English and Arabic validations, these findings establish cross-linguistic support for the scale's structure and provide a psychometrically sound tool for investigating psychological aspects of LLM use in organizational contexts.
Psychological instruments designed for humans are increasingly used to assign large language models (LLMs) stable psychological profiles that affect their usability, safety assessment, and use as proxies for human participants in research. Using a formal psychometric framework, we show that these profiles are largely a measurement artifact. Administering a battery of personality and risk-preference instruments spanning self-reports and behavioral tasks to 56 instruction-tuned LLMs alongside large human reference samples, we report four findings. First, differences between models are driven not by the traits an instrument targets but by a directional response bias, a tendency to respond toward one end of the scale, or one labeled option, regardless of item content; a variance decomposition attributes 81-90% of between-model variation to this bias, against 9-16% in humans. Second, the bias declines with model capability but is not eliminated by it. Third, because bias rather than trait drives responding, an instrument's apparent reliability is almost entirely predicted by its response orthogonality, a term we coin for the proportion of items for which trait and bias point in opposite directions. Fourth, the profile a model appears to have shifts with the items used and can be manufactured through item selection. These results demonstrate that the apparent psychological profiles of LLMs are artifacts of the instrument used to measure them, not properties of the models themselves. As instruments borrowed from human psychology are rarely fully orthogonal and may inherently lack validity for LLMs, we call for dedicated assessments centered on response orthogonality.
Large language models (LLMs) act as digital twins for human respondents, yet their psychometric comparability remains uncertain. We propose a construct validity framework spanning construct representation and the nomothetic span, benchmarking models against human gold standards. Across studies, digital twins achieved high aggregate-level accuracy and profile correlations, but showed attenuated item-level correlations. In word association tests, LLM networks exhibited humanlike small-world structure and theory-consistent communities, yet diverged lexically and in local structure. In decision-making and contextualized tasks, they under-reproduced heuristic biases, demonstrating normative rationality, compressed variance, and limited temporal sensitivity. Feature-rich and trait relevant conditioning improved Big Five personality prediction and nomothetic-span alignment, but network invariance remained limited, with partial configural solutions and persistent loading differences. In cross-language free-text tasks in English and Chinese, feature-rich digital twins better approximated construct-level narrative content, but linguistic and idiographic differences persisted. These findings clarify that digital twins are most useful within validated boundaries, where the construct, task and level of inference align with evidence from human data.
Large Language Model (LLM) studies that use language responses elicited from depression assessments to predict scores on those same assessments often report near-perfect prediction of depression. We refer to these as "Mirror" evaluations and demonstrate an applied case of criterion contamination. N = 110 participants completed both structured diagnostic depression interviews (Mirror condition) and life history interviews ("Non-Mirror" condition). LLMs were prompted to predict depression scores in each condition. As expected, Mirror evaluations were near-perfect. However, Non-Mirror evaluations also displayed prediction sizes considered outstanding in psychology. Further, both Mirror and Non-Mirror predictions correlated with Patient Health Questionnaire-9 scores at similar sizes, suggesting the Mirror condition's advantage collapses when predicting an independent depression measurement. Topic modeling revealed differing depression-related themes across interview types. Mirror evaluations are better considered as reliability evaluations than as validity evaluations. Incorporating Non-Mirror approaches in LLM depression assessment may support more valid and clinically-relevant applications. Keywords: large language models, psychological assessment, psychopathology, depression, reliability, validity, criterion contamination