The Gender Identity/Gender Dysphoria Questionnaire for Adolescents and Adults: Further Validity Evidence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to provide further validity evidence for the dimensional measurement of gender identity and gender dysphoria in both adolescents and adults. Adolescents and adults with gender identity disorder (GID) were compared to clinical control (CC) adolescents and adults on the Gender Identity/Gender Dysphoria Questionnaire for Adolescents and Adults (GIDYQ-AA), a 27-item scale originally developed by Deogracias et al. (2007). In Study 1, adolescents with GID (n = 44) were compared to CC adolescents (n = 98); and in Study 2, adults with GID (n = 41) were compared to CC adults (n = 94). In both studies, clients with GID self-reported significantly more gender dysphoria than did the CCs, with excellent sensitivity and specificity rates. In both studies, degree of self-reported gender dysphoria was significantly correlated with recall of cross-gender behavior in childhood-a test of convergent validity. The research and clinical utility of the GIDYQ-AA is discussed, including directions for further research in distinct clinical populations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.019 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".