‘Readiness as opposed to eligibility’- preliminary consensus amongst professionals regarding gender identity assessments employing the DELPHI methodology

IF 0.6 Q4 CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY
Sören Henrich
{"title":"‘Readiness as opposed to eligibility’- preliminary consensus amongst professionals regarding gender identity assessments employing the DELPHI methodology","authors":"Sören Henrich","doi":"10.1108/sc-03-2023-0006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<h3>Purpose</h3>\n<p>Gender identity assessments (GIAs) have been criticized by practitioners and trans and gender non-conforming (TGNC) individuals alike. With the practice of exploring individuals’ gender identity for treatment pathway purposes being potentially invasive and inappropriate, the current study aims to explore explicit standards.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Design/methodology/approach</h3>\n<p>The current study used the Delphi methodology to survey practitioners familiar with GIA. Over three rounds, 14 international participants rated their agreement about six areas relating to the assessment: purpose; content; approach; forensic application; psychometric instruments; and wider issues. Statements that reached an 80% cut-off among participants were viewed as a sufficient level of agreement, while the remaining items were fed back for repeated ratings. Furthermore, participants had the opportunity to suggest additional items that the group could rate.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Findings</h3>\n<p>Overall, a consensus across 23 items was achieved. The findings indicate a practice emphasizing collaboration between clinician and client to facilitate an informed decision. Furthermore, participants advocated for a non-pathologizing version of the GIA. This is a departure from diagnoses like gender dysphoria toward an approach which encapsulates also positive aspects of the trans experience, for example, resilience and future plans.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Research limitations/implications</h3>\n<p>Limitations include sampling biases due to participants’ high specialization and challenges in recruiting TGNC individuals. Furthermore, findings appear restricted to adult services.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Originality/value</h3>\n<p>To the best of the author’s knowledge, this pilot is a first step to making current practice transparent and comparable, with the hopes to improve trans care. Furthermore, it is contextualized with the previously suggested application of the power threat meaning framework to GIA.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->","PeriodicalId":43879,"journal":{"name":"Safer Communities","volume":"39 ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Safer Communities","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/sc-03-2023-0006","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose

Gender identity assessments (GIAs) have been criticized by practitioners and trans and gender non-conforming (TGNC) individuals alike. With the practice of exploring individuals’ gender identity for treatment pathway purposes being potentially invasive and inappropriate, the current study aims to explore explicit standards.

Design/methodology/approach

The current study used the Delphi methodology to survey practitioners familiar with GIA. Over three rounds, 14 international participants rated their agreement about six areas relating to the assessment: purpose; content; approach; forensic application; psychometric instruments; and wider issues. Statements that reached an 80% cut-off among participants were viewed as a sufficient level of agreement, while the remaining items were fed back for repeated ratings. Furthermore, participants had the opportunity to suggest additional items that the group could rate.

Findings

Overall, a consensus across 23 items was achieved. The findings indicate a practice emphasizing collaboration between clinician and client to facilitate an informed decision. Furthermore, participants advocated for a non-pathologizing version of the GIA. This is a departure from diagnoses like gender dysphoria toward an approach which encapsulates also positive aspects of the trans experience, for example, resilience and future plans.

Research limitations/implications

Limitations include sampling biases due to participants’ high specialization and challenges in recruiting TGNC individuals. Furthermore, findings appear restricted to adult services.

Originality/value

To the best of the author’s knowledge, this pilot is a first step to making current practice transparent and comparable, with the hopes to improve trans care. Furthermore, it is contextualized with the previously suggested application of the power threat meaning framework to GIA.

“准备而非资格”——专业人士对采用德尔菲方法进行性别认同评估的初步共识
性别认同评估(GIAs)一直受到实践者、跨性别者和性别不符合者(TGNC)的批评。由于以探索个体性别认同作为治疗途径的做法具有潜在的侵入性和不恰当性,因此本研究旨在探索明确的标准。设计/方法/方法当前的研究使用德尔菲方法调查熟悉GIA的从业人员。在三轮中,14名国际参与者对与评估有关的六个方面的协议进行了评级:目的;内容;方法;法医学应用;心理测量工具;还有更广泛的问题。在参与者中达到80%临界值的陈述被视为足够程度的一致,而其余项目则被反馈以重复评级。此外,参与者有机会提出额外的项目,小组可以评估。总体而言,会议就23个议题达成共识。研究结果表明,实践强调临床医生和客户之间的合作,以促进知情的决定。此外,与会者主张GIA的非病理版本。这是一种与性别焦虑等诊断不同的方法,它也包含了跨性别经历的积极方面,例如,复原力和未来计划。研究局限性/启示局限性包括由于参与者的高度专业化和招募TGNC个体的挑战而导致的抽样偏差。此外,调查结果似乎仅限于成人服务。原创性/价值据作者所知,这一试点是使现行做法透明和可比较的第一步,希望能改善变性人的护理。此外,它与先前建议的权力威胁意义框架在GIA中的应用相结合。
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
Safer Communities
Safer Communities CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY-
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
18
×
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