跨性别青少年的心理健康评估——是否应该以出生登记性别为标准进行标准化的心理测量评分?

IF 3.6 2区 医学 Q1 PSYCHIATRY Journal of psychiatric research Pub Date : 2025-02-01 Epub Date: 2025-01-23 DOI:10.1016/j.jpsychires.2025.01.019
Liz A Saunders , Blake S Cavve , Cati S Thomas , Penelope Strauss , Simone Mahfouda , Hans-Willem van Hall , Georgia Chaplyn , Julia K Moore , Ashleigh Lin
{"title":"跨性别青少年的心理健康评估——是否应该以出生登记性别为标准进行标准化的心理测量评分?","authors":"Liz A Saunders ,&nbsp;Blake S Cavve ,&nbsp;Cati S Thomas ,&nbsp;Penelope Strauss ,&nbsp;Simone Mahfouda ,&nbsp;Hans-Willem van Hall ,&nbsp;Georgia Chaplyn ,&nbsp;Julia K Moore ,&nbsp;Ashleigh Lin","doi":"10.1016/j.jpsychires.2025.01.019","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Standardised psychometric measures are used in mental health care and research settings to identify risk, assist diagnosis, and assess symptom severity. Standardised scoring of these measures involves transforming respondents’ raw scores using binary sex norms. However, scoring manuals offer no guidance as to appropriate scoring methods for trans and non-binary respondents. The Child and Adolescent Health Service - Gender Diversity Service (GDS) implemented a practice to score psychometric measures twice, according to both birth-registered sex (BRS) and the other sex (OS) norms (i.e., “double-scoring”). As it was unclear which choice of norm was the most clinically useful for the identification of risk, this study investigated whether there was any clinically meaningful difference in levels of psychopathology when scoring measures by OS versus BRS norms.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>We analysed clinical-range classification of scores (clinically significant versus sub-clinical) on four sex-normed psychometric assessment measures (Child Behavior Check List, Youth Self Report, Social Responsiveness Scale 2, and Beck Youth Inventory) completed by GENder identiTy Longitudinal Experience (GENTLE) participants, as part of standard initial assessment at the GDS (<em>N</em> = 233).</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Sub-domains within all four measures resulted in inconsistent classifications of between 0 and 15% of participants into clinical versus sub-clinical ranges when scored using OS versus BRS norm.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Scoring sex-normed standardised psychometric measures by BRS or OS results in different scores, in varying domains, and not in a uniform way. For clinical use, we suggest it is preferable to err on the side of sensitivity. For research purposes, we recommend standardised use of birth-registered sex norms for current measures. We suggest developing universal non-gendered psychometric measures which rate psychological symptoms according to distress and functional impairment, resulting in a more inclusive, equitable framework for evaluating mental health in gender diverse populations.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":16868,"journal":{"name":"Journal of psychiatric research","volume":"182 ","pages":"Pages 513-521"},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Mental health assessment of transgender youth - Should standardised psychological measures be scored by norms of birth-registered sex?\",\"authors\":\"Liz A Saunders ,&nbsp;Blake S Cavve ,&nbsp;Cati S Thomas ,&nbsp;Penelope Strauss ,&nbsp;Simone Mahfouda ,&nbsp;Hans-Willem van Hall ,&nbsp;Georgia Chaplyn ,&nbsp;Julia K Moore ,&nbsp;Ashleigh Lin\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jpsychires.2025.01.019\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Standardised psychometric measures are used in mental health care and research settings to identify risk, assist diagnosis, and assess symptom severity. Standardised scoring of these measures involves transforming respondents’ raw scores using binary sex norms. However, scoring manuals offer no guidance as to appropriate scoring methods for trans and non-binary respondents. The Child and Adolescent Health Service - Gender Diversity Service (GDS) implemented a practice to score psychometric measures twice, according to both birth-registered sex (BRS) and the other sex (OS) norms (i.e., “double-scoring”). As it was unclear which choice of norm was the most clinically useful for the identification of risk, this study investigated whether there was any clinically meaningful difference in levels of psychopathology when scoring measures by OS versus BRS norms.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>We analysed clinical-range classification of scores (clinically significant versus sub-clinical) on four sex-normed psychometric assessment measures (Child Behavior Check List, Youth Self Report, Social Responsiveness Scale 2, and Beck Youth Inventory) completed by GENder identiTy Longitudinal Experience (GENTLE) participants, as part of standard initial assessment at the GDS (<em>N</em> = 233).</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Sub-domains within all four measures resulted in inconsistent classifications of between 0 and 15% of participants into clinical versus sub-clinical ranges when scored using OS versus BRS norm.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Scoring sex-normed standardised psychometric measures by BRS or OS results in different scores, in varying domains, and not in a uniform way. For clinical use, we suggest it is preferable to err on the side of sensitivity. For research purposes, we recommend standardised use of birth-registered sex norms for current measures. We suggest developing universal non-gendered psychometric measures which rate psychological symptoms according to distress and functional impairment, resulting in a more inclusive, equitable framework for evaluating mental health in gender diverse populations.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16868,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of psychiatric research\",\"volume\":\"182 \",\"pages\":\"Pages 513-521\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of psychiatric research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022395625000275\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/23 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHIATRY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of psychiatric research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022395625000275","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/23 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

标准化的心理测量方法在精神卫生保健和研究环境中用于识别风险,辅助诊断和评估症状严重程度。这些措施的标准化评分包括使用二元性别规范转换受访者的原始分数。然而,评分手册没有提供关于跨性别和非二元受访者的适当评分方法的指导。儿童和青少年健康服务-性别多样性服务(GDS)实施了一项根据出生登记性别(BRS)和其他性别(OS)规范(即“双重评分”)对心理测量测量进行两次评分的做法。由于尚不清楚哪种标准的选择在临床上对风险识别最有用,因此本研究调查了在使用OS和BRS标准进行评分时,精神病理学水平是否存在任何临床有意义的差异。方法:我们分析了性别认同纵向经验(GENTLE)参与者完成的四项性别规范心理评估措施(儿童行为检查表、青少年自我报告、社会反应量表2和贝克青年量表)的临床范围分类(临床显著与亚临床显著),作为GDS标准初始评估的一部分(N = 233)。结果当使用OS和BRS标准评分时,所有四种测量方法中的子域导致0 - 15%的参与者不一致地分为临床和亚临床范围。结论用BRS或OS对性别标准化心理测量进行评分,在不同领域得分不同,评分方式不统一。对于临床使用,我们建议最好在敏感性方面犯错。出于研究目的,我们建议在现行措施中标准化使用出生登记性别规范。我们建议制定通用的非性别心理测量方法,根据痛苦和功能障碍对心理症状进行评分,从而形成一个更包容、更公平的框架,用于评估不同性别人群的心理健康状况。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Mental health assessment of transgender youth - Should standardised psychological measures be scored by norms of birth-registered sex?

Background

Standardised psychometric measures are used in mental health care and research settings to identify risk, assist diagnosis, and assess symptom severity. Standardised scoring of these measures involves transforming respondents’ raw scores using binary sex norms. However, scoring manuals offer no guidance as to appropriate scoring methods for trans and non-binary respondents. The Child and Adolescent Health Service - Gender Diversity Service (GDS) implemented a practice to score psychometric measures twice, according to both birth-registered sex (BRS) and the other sex (OS) norms (i.e., “double-scoring”). As it was unclear which choice of norm was the most clinically useful for the identification of risk, this study investigated whether there was any clinically meaningful difference in levels of psychopathology when scoring measures by OS versus BRS norms.

Methods

We analysed clinical-range classification of scores (clinically significant versus sub-clinical) on four sex-normed psychometric assessment measures (Child Behavior Check List, Youth Self Report, Social Responsiveness Scale 2, and Beck Youth Inventory) completed by GENder identiTy Longitudinal Experience (GENTLE) participants, as part of standard initial assessment at the GDS (N = 233).

Results

Sub-domains within all four measures resulted in inconsistent classifications of between 0 and 15% of participants into clinical versus sub-clinical ranges when scored using OS versus BRS norm.

Conclusion

Scoring sex-normed standardised psychometric measures by BRS or OS results in different scores, in varying domains, and not in a uniform way. For clinical use, we suggest it is preferable to err on the side of sensitivity. For research purposes, we recommend standardised use of birth-registered sex norms for current measures. We suggest developing universal non-gendered psychometric measures which rate psychological symptoms according to distress and functional impairment, resulting in a more inclusive, equitable framework for evaluating mental health in gender diverse populations.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of psychiatric research
Journal of psychiatric research 医学-精神病学
CiteScore
7.30
自引率
2.10%
发文量
622
审稿时长
130 days
期刊介绍: Founded in 1961 to report on the latest work in psychiatry and cognate disciplines, the Journal of Psychiatric Research is dedicated to innovative and timely studies of four important areas of research: (1) clinical studies of all disciplines relating to psychiatric illness, as well as normal human behaviour, including biochemical, physiological, genetic, environmental, social, psychological and epidemiological factors; (2) basic studies pertaining to psychiatry in such fields as neuropsychopharmacology, neuroendocrinology, electrophysiology, genetics, experimental psychology and epidemiology; (3) the growing application of clinical laboratory techniques in psychiatry, including imagery and spectroscopy of the brain, molecular biology and computer sciences;
期刊最新文献
Priorities for psychedelic research among people who use psychedelics Symptom profiles at baseline are associated with remission in major depression: a confirmatory analysis of the PANDORA trial Associations between brain and blood metabolites with gastrointestinal discomfort in schizophrenia and healthy controls Do suicide attempts increase in severity or frequency across repeat attempts? Network analysis of negative posttraumatic cognitions and disordered eating in trauma-exposed United States military veterans
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1