Comparative Content Analysis of Self-Report Scales for Level of Personality Functioning.

Content validity analyses of eight self-report instruments for assessing severity of personality disorder (PD), also known as Level of Personality Functioning (LPF), were conducted using the conceptual scheme of the Alternative Model for Personality Disorders (AMPD; APA, 2013). The item contents of these eight inventories were characterized for the LPF constructs of Identity (ID), Self-Direction (SD), Empathy (EM), and Intimacy (IN) along with the pathological personality trait domains of Negative Affectivity, Detachment, Antagonism, Disinhibition, and Psychoticism. Severity of pathology (SV) reflected in item content was also rated. Raters demonstrated robust agreement for AMPD and SV constructs across instruments. Similarity between instrument AMPD construct profiles was quantified by intraclass correlations (ICC). Results showed the instruments were generally similar in AMPD-construct coverage, but some important differences emerged. The subscales of the instruments also were characterized for the degree to which they reflect the four LPF (ID, SD, EM, IN) domain constructs. Collectively, these content validity comparisons clarify the equivalence of instruments for AMPD constructs and the relative proportions of construct coverage within instrument subscales. These results can inform future research with LPF self-report instruments and guide clinicians in selecting an LPF-related instrument for use in practice.

Is Essentialism Essential? Reducing Homonegative Prejudice by Targeting Diverse Sexual Orientation Beliefs.

We conducted an experiment to assess whether targeting multiple beliefs about sexual orientation (SO) may be more effective in reducing homonegativity than focusing only on beliefs about its biogenetic origins. Participants (116 women, 85 men) were randomly assigned to one of three treatment conditions or a control condition. Those in the treatment conditions read essays summarizing: (1) research suggesting SO has biogenetic origins, (2) research suggesting SO is socially constructed and refuting beliefs about the discreteness, homogeneity, and informativeness of SO categories; or (3) research suggesting SO is biogenetic and research suggesting SO categories are socially constructed and not necessarily discrete, homogenous, or informative. We predicted participants in the conditions that targeted multiple beliefs related to the social construction of SO, not just its biogenetic origins, would exhibit the strongest reductions in beliefs about the discreteness, homogeneity, and informativeness of SO categories, and in homonegativity. We also predicted these participants would exhibit the greatest increases in support for gay and lesbian civil rights. We observed hypothesized shifts in SO beliefs across all experimental conditions. While there was a small main effect of time on homonegative prejudice, there was no main effect of condition and no changes in support for gay and lesbian civil rights. However, post hoc analyses suggested the two conditions addressing social constructionist beliefs accounted for most of the observed prejudice reduction. Implications for more comprehensive educational and social interventions designed to promote social justice for sexual minorities are discussed.

What Does "Couple" Mean in Couple Therapy Outcome Research? A Systematic Review of the Implicit and Explicit, Inclusion and Exclusion of Gender and Sexual Minority Individuals and Identities.

This study systematically reviewed extant couple therapy outcome studies (k = 111) through December 2018 to evaluate for implicit or explicit, inclusion or exclusion of gender and/or sexual minority individuals and identities. We evaluated sampling, participant demographic reporting, and language used in each manuscript for any reference or consideration given to participants' sexual and/or gender identity. Results indicate that couples have been historically presumed to be heterosexual and cisgender male or female without reported assessment. More recent inclusion and consideration of sexual minority individuals is limited and absent for nonmonosexual and gender minority individuals. These findings are contextualized in supplementary analyses of other sociocultural characteristics (e.g., race, age, length together). Suggestions are provided for affirmative consideration of the plurality of individuals' sexual and gender identities. Implications are discussed for research, training and practice of couple therapy with sexual and/or gender minority couples.

Conscience clauses and sexual and gender minority mental health care: A case study.

Tennessee is one of the first states in the United States to have a law that enables counselors and therapists in independent practice to deny services to any client based on the practitioner's "sincerely held principles." This so-called "conscience clause" represents a critical moment in professional psychology, in which mental health care providers are on the frontlines of cultural and legal debates about religious freedom. Though the law's language is ambiguous, it was widely perceived to target sexual and gender minority (SGM) individuals. We interviewed 20 SGM people living in Tennessee to understand their experiences with mental health care in the state and their perceptions of the law. Our participants perceive the law as fundamentally discriminatory, though they overwhelmingly conceptualize the conscience clause as legalizing discrimination toward members of all stigmatized groups-not just SGM individuals. They described individual and societal consequences for the law, including an understanding of the conscience clause as harmful above and beyond any individual discrimination event it may engender. We situate these findings amid the research on structural stigma and suggest that counseling psychologists become actively engaged in combatting conscience clauses, which appear to have profound consequences on mental health care engagement, particularly for populations vulnerable to discrimination. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).