Bauer Greta R, Braimoh Jessica, Scheim Ayden I, Dharma Christoffer
Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Schulich School of Medicine & Dentistry, The University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada.
PLoS One. 2017 May 25;12(5):e0178043. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0178043. eCollection 2017.
Given that an estimated 0.6% of the U.S. population is transgender (trans) and that large health disparities for this population have been documented, government and research organizations are increasingly expanding measures of sex/gender to be trans inclusive. Options suggested for trans community surveys, such as expansive check-all-that-apply gender identity lists and write-in options that offer maximum flexibility, are generally not appropriate for broad population surveys. These require limited questions and a small number of categories for analysis. Limited evaluation has been undertaken of trans-inclusive population survey measures for sex/gender, including those currently in use. Using an internet survey and follow-up of 311 participants, and cognitive interviews from a maximum-diversity sub-sample (n = 79), we conducted a mixed-methods evaluation of two existing measures: a two-step question developed in the United States and a multidimensional measure developed in Canada. We found very low levels of item missingness, and no indicators of confusion on the part of cisgender (non-trans) participants for both measures. However, a majority of interview participants indicated problems with each question item set. Agreement between the two measures in assessment of gender identity was very high (K = 0.9081), but gender identity was a poor proxy for other dimensions of sex or gender among trans participants. Issues to inform measure development or adaptation that emerged from analysis included dimensions of sex/gender measured, whether non-binary identities were trans, Indigenous and cultural identities, proxy reporting, temporality concerns, and the inability of a single item to provide a valid measure of sex/gender. Based on this evaluation, we recommend that population surveys meant for multi-purpose analysis consider a new Multidimensional Sex/Gender Measure for testing that includes three simple items (one asked only of a small sub-group) to assess gender identity and lived gender, with optional additions. We provide considerations for adaptation of this measure to different contexts.
鉴于估计有0.6%的美国人口是跨性别者,并且该群体存在巨大的健康差异,政府和研究组织越来越多地将性别衡量标准扩展为包含跨性别者。为跨性别群体调查建议的选项,如扩展性的多选性别认同列表和提供最大灵活性的填写选项,通常不适用于广泛的人口调查。这些调查需要有限的问题和少量的分析类别。对包括目前正在使用的那些在内的跨性别包容性人口调查的性别衡量标准进行的评估有限。我们通过对311名参与者进行网络调查和跟踪,并对一个最大多样性子样本(n = 79)进行认知访谈,对两项现有衡量标准进行了混合方法评估:一项在美国开发的两步式问题和一项在加拿大开发的多维度衡量标准。我们发现两项衡量标准的项目缺失率都非常低,并且顺性别(非跨性别)参与者没有混淆的迹象。然而,大多数访谈参与者指出了每个问题项目集都存在问题。两项衡量标准在性别认同评估上的一致性非常高(K = 0.9081),但在跨性别参与者中,性别认同对于性别或性别的其他维度来说是一个很差的替代指标。分析中出现的为衡量标准开发或调整提供信息的问题包括所测量的性别维度、非二元身份是否为跨性别、原住民和文化身份、代理报告、时间性问题,以及单个项目无法有效衡量性别或性别的情况。基于这项评估,我们建议用于多用途分析的人口调查考虑一项新的多维度性别/性衡量标准进行测试,该标准包括三个简单项目(其中一个仅针对一个小亚组提问)来评估性别认同和实际性别,并可选择增加其他项目。我们提供了将该衡量标准适用于不同背景的考虑因素。