Gender-inclusive clinical screeners: Using CBCLs and YSRs in a clinic-based sample of transgender/gender-diverse youth.

IF 3.3 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL
Psychological Assessment Pub Date : 2024-02-01 Epub Date: 2023-11-02 DOI:10.1037/pas0001290
Mary O'Brien McAdaragh, Benjamin Parchem, Jeremy Duval, Zoe G Baccam, Taymy J Caso, Katherine Arenella, Dianne R Berg, G Nic Rider
{"title":"Gender-inclusive clinical screeners: Using CBCLs and YSRs in a clinic-based sample of transgender/gender-diverse youth.","authors":"Mary O'Brien McAdaragh, Benjamin Parchem, Jeremy Duval, Zoe G Baccam, Taymy J Caso, Katherine Arenella, Dianne R Berg, G Nic Rider","doi":"10.1037/pas0001290","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This study examines differences in score profiles on the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) and Youth Self-Report (YSR) for transgender and gender-diverse (TGD) youth in a clinical setting. Data were collected from youth receiving services at a gender care clinic in the Midwestern United States. Inclusion criteria were youth that identify as transgender, nonbinary, or another gender-diverse identity label between the ages of 6 and 18 and received services between October 2017 and November 2021. The analytic sample (<i>N</i> = 177) included 51.4% transmasculine, 17.5% transfeminine, 22.6% nonbinary/gender-expansive, and 8.5% questioning youth. 88.1% of youth were White. Wilcoxon signed-rank tests compared differences in mean T scores when using male versus female scoring templates for YSR and CBCL separately. Statistically significant differences were found on the majority of scales, particularly for TGD adolescents. For example, significant differences were found on the YSR for 10 of 11 scales for transmasculine and transfeminine youth ages 11-18 and 9 of 11 scales for nonbinary/gender-expansive youth. McNemar's test revealed significant differences in the number of clinical range scores for transmasculine YSR respondents on Anxious/Depressed, Somatic Complaints, Thought Problems, and Internalizing scales. For CBCL comparison of clinical significance, significant differences were found for Anxious/Depressed, Attention Problems, and Total Problems scales for transmasculine youth ages 12-18. Selecting a scoring template is contextually relevant; however, template selection appears to matter less when examining clinical relevance. Results suggest that clinicians using the CBCL and YSR with TGD youth have flexibility in scoring template selection. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":20770,"journal":{"name":"Psychological Assessment","volume":" ","pages":"89-101"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychological Assessment","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0001290","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/11/2 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study examines differences in score profiles on the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) and Youth Self-Report (YSR) for transgender and gender-diverse (TGD) youth in a clinical setting. Data were collected from youth receiving services at a gender care clinic in the Midwestern United States. Inclusion criteria were youth that identify as transgender, nonbinary, or another gender-diverse identity label between the ages of 6 and 18 and received services between October 2017 and November 2021. The analytic sample (N = 177) included 51.4% transmasculine, 17.5% transfeminine, 22.6% nonbinary/gender-expansive, and 8.5% questioning youth. 88.1% of youth were White. Wilcoxon signed-rank tests compared differences in mean T scores when using male versus female scoring templates for YSR and CBCL separately. Statistically significant differences were found on the majority of scales, particularly for TGD adolescents. For example, significant differences were found on the YSR for 10 of 11 scales for transmasculine and transfeminine youth ages 11-18 and 9 of 11 scales for nonbinary/gender-expansive youth. McNemar's test revealed significant differences in the number of clinical range scores for transmasculine YSR respondents on Anxious/Depressed, Somatic Complaints, Thought Problems, and Internalizing scales. For CBCL comparison of clinical significance, significant differences were found for Anxious/Depressed, Attention Problems, and Total Problems scales for transmasculine youth ages 12-18. Selecting a scoring template is contextually relevant; however, template selection appears to matter less when examining clinical relevance. Results suggest that clinicians using the CBCL and YSR with TGD youth have flexibility in scoring template selection. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

性别包容性临床筛查者:在跨性别/性别多样化青年的临床样本中使用CBCL和YSR。
本研究调查了临床环境中跨性别和性别多样化(TGD)青年的儿童行为检查表(CBCL)和青年自我报告(YSR)得分情况的差异。数据是从美国中西部一家性别护理诊所接受服务的年轻人那里收集的。纳入标准是在2017年10月至2021年11月期间接受服务的6岁至18岁的跨性别、非二元或其他性别多样化身份标签的青年。分析样本(N=177)包括51.4%的跨男性,17.5%的跨女性,22.6%的非二元/性别膨胀,8.5%的质疑青年。88.1%的青年是白人。Wilcoxon符号秩检验比较了分别使用男性和女性YSR和CBCL评分模板时平均T得分的差异。在大多数量表上都发现了统计学上的显著差异,尤其是TGD青少年。例如,11-18岁的跨男性和跨女性青年的11个量表中有10个在YSR上发现了显著差异,而非二元/性别膨胀青年的11个子表中有9个存在显著差异。McNemar的测试显示,变性YSR受访者在焦虑/抑郁、躯体抱怨、思维问题和内化量表上的临床范围得分数量存在显著差异。对于CBCL临床意义的比较,12-18岁变性青年的焦虑/抑郁、注意力问题和总体问题量表存在显著差异。选择评分模板与上下文相关;然而,在检查临床相关性时,模板选择似乎无关紧要。结果表明,对TGD青年使用CBCL和YSR的临床医生在评分模板选择方面具有灵活性。(PsycInfo数据库记录(c)2023 APA,保留所有权利)。
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
Psychological Assessment
Psychological Assessment PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL-
CiteScore
5.70
自引率
5.60%
发文量
167
期刊介绍: Psychological Assessment is concerned mainly with empirical research on measurement and evaluation relevant to the broad field of clinical psychology. Submissions are welcome in the areas of assessment processes and methods. Included are - clinical judgment and the application of decision-making models - paradigms derived from basic psychological research in cognition, personality–social psychology, and biological psychology - development, validation, and application of assessment instruments, observational methods, and interviews
×
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