Assessing gender dysphoria: A systematic review of patient-reported outcome measures.

Bowman, SJ; Casey, LJ; McAloon, J; Wootton, BM

Assessing gender dysphoria: A systematic review of patient-reported outcome measures.

Bowman, SJ Casey, LJ McAloon, J Wootton, BM

Permalink

Publisher:: American Psychological Association (APA)
Publication Type:: Journal Article
Citation:: Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 2021
Issue Date:: 2021-07-01

In Progress

	Filename	Description	Size
	Manuscript_Revised_Final.pdf	Accepted version	388.14 kB	Adobe PDF	View/Open

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Open Access

This item is being processed and is not currently available.

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Bowman, SJ
dc.contributor.author	Casey, LJ
dc.contributor.author	McAloon, J
dc.contributor.author	Wootton, BM
dc.date.accessioned	2022-01-27T02:15:30Z
dc.date.available	2022-01-27T02:15:30Z
dc.date.issued	2021-07-01
dc.identifier.citation	Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 2021
dc.identifier.issn	2329-0382
dc.identifier.issn	2329-0390
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/153621
dc.description.abstract	Over the last decade the manner in which gender dysphoria is defined has changed significantly, as have the presentations of transgender clients to specialist gender services. While the use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) to assess gender dysphoria is widespread, there is a lack of literature that assesses the methodological quality of these measures. To address the limits of the existing literature, the aim of the current study was to conduct a systematic review of PROMs that assess gender dysphoria. The systematic review was performed in accordance with the PRISMA and COSMIN methodologies. Five measurement studies met inclusion criteria. Results suggested that none of the measures could be recommended for use without further development. Poor content validity was evident across all measures and internal validity and construct validity were mixed, ranging from ‘inadequate’ to ‘very good’. Measures that show promise for the future include the Gender Congruence and Life Satisfaction Scale, Gender Identity Reflection and Rumination Scale, Gender Pre-occupation and Stability Questionnaire, and Transgender Adaptation and Integration Measure. A need to develop reliable and valid measures that are appropriate for use with adolescent samples experiencing gender dysphoria was also identified.
dc.language	en
dc.publisher	American Psychological Association (APA)
dc.relation.ispartof	Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity
dc.relation.isbasedon	10.1037/sgd0000486
dc.rights	info:eu-repo/semantics/restrictedAccess
dc.subject	1701 Psychology
dc.title	Assessing gender dysphoria: A systematic review of patient-reported outcome measures.
dc.type	Journal Article
utslib.for	1701 Psychology
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Health
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Health/Graduate School of Health
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Health/Graduate School of Health/GSH.Clinical Psychology
utslib.copyright.status	in_progress	*
pubs.consider-herdc	false
dc.date.updated	2022-01-27T02:15:29Z
pubs.publication-status	Published online

Abstract:

Over the last decade the manner in which gender dysphoria is defined has changed significantly, as have the presentations of transgender clients to specialist gender services. While the use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) to assess gender dysphoria is widespread, there is a lack of literature that assesses the methodological quality of these measures. To address the limits of the existing literature, the aim of the current study was to conduct a systematic review of PROMs that assess gender dysphoria. The systematic review was performed in accordance with the PRISMA and COSMIN methodologies. Five measurement studies met inclusion criteria. Results suggested that none of the measures could be recommended for use without further development. Poor content validity was evident across all measures and internal validity and construct validity were mixed, ranging from ‘inadequate’ to ‘very good’. Measures that show promise for the future include the Gender Congruence and Life Satisfaction Scale, Gender Identity Reflection and Rumination Scale, Gender Pre-occupation and Stability Questionnaire, and Transgender Adaptation and Integration Measure. A need to develop reliable and valid measures that are appropriate for use with adolescent samples experiencing gender dysphoria was also identified.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/153621