» Articles » PMID: 28542498

Transgender-inclusive Measures of Sex/gender for Population Surveys: Mixed-methods Evaluation and Recommendations

Overview
Journal PLoS One
Date 2017 May 26
PMID 28542498
Citations 115
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

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.

Citing Articles

Evaluation of the Power Up program: a health promotion program encouraging healthy lifestyle habits among youth in summer day camps-study protocol.

Larose D, Chih-Shing Chen M, Paracini T, Panahi S, Yessis J, Tremblay A Front Public Health. 2025; 13:1521438.

PMID: 40078763 PMC: 11897498. DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2025.1521438.


Structural stigma, gender-affirming interventions, and identity concealment as determinants of depression and life satisfaction among trans adults in 28 European countries.

Unsal B, Ar-Karci Y, Demetrovics Z, Reinhardt M Int J Transgend Health. 2025; 26(1):145-156.

PMID: 39981269 PMC: 11837923. DOI: 10.1080/26895269.2024.2310533.


Utilization of drug checking services in Austria: a cross-sectional online survey.

Karden A, Fragner T, Feichtinger C, Strizek J, McDermott D, Grabovac I Harm Reduct J. 2025; 22(1):17.

PMID: 39955527 PMC: 11829356. DOI: 10.1186/s12954-025-01168-1.


An expert perspective on diversity-oriented standards for assessing sex and gender in clinical research.

Hambruch H, Laskowski N, Juster R, Halbeisen G, Paslakis G Front Psychiatry. 2025; 15:1448487.

PMID: 39944133 PMC: 11814446. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyt.2024.1448487.


The impact of a coach-guided personalized depression risk communication program on the risk of major depressive episode: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

Wang J, Feng C, Hajizadeh M, Lesage A BMC Psychiatry. 2024; 24(1):916.

PMID: 39696180 PMC: 11654057. DOI: 10.1186/s12888-024-06393-9.


References
1.
Snider J, Beauvais J . Pap smear utilization in Canada: estimates after adjusting the eligible population for hysterectomy status. Chronic Dis Can. 1998; 19(1):19-24. View

2.
Lombardi E, Banik S . The Utility of the Two-Step Gender Measure Within Trans and Cis Populations. Sex Res Social Policy. 2021; 13(3):288-296. PMC: 8699571. DOI: 10.1007/s13178-016-0220-6. View

3.
Scheim A, Bauer G . Sex and gender diversity among transgender persons in Ontario, Canada: results from a respondent-driven sampling survey. J Sex Res. 2014; 52(1):1-14. PMC: 4299544. DOI: 10.1080/00224499.2014.893553. View

4.
Reisner S, Poteat T, Keatley J, Cabral M, Mothopeng T, Dunham E . Global health burden and needs of transgender populations: a review. Lancet. 2016; 388(10042):412-436. PMC: 7035595. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)00684-X. View

5.
Habarta N, Wang G, Mulatu M, Larish N . HIV Testing by Transgender Status at Centers for Disease Control and Prevention-Funded Sites in the United States, Puerto Rico, and US Virgin Islands, 2009-2011. Am J Public Health. 2015; 105(9):1917-25. PMC: 4539831. DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2015.302659. View