Inappropriate Comparisons: The LGB Population's Missing Reference Group

ABSTRACT

Given that many professional organizations emphasize the need for comparing assessment results to appropriate reference groups in their codes of ethics, we consider this practice through an ecological perspective as it applies to the lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) population. The purpose of norming and types of assessment bias is discussed with respect to LGB population, which frequently lack specific norming data. The authors discuss whether the LGB population has characteristics similar to other commonly normed for groups and explore how group-shared constructs such as minority stress and internalized homophobia may introduce bias and affect the validity of assessments. A social anxiety assessment as well as a personality disorder inventory are examined for bias as case examples explaining how these assessments may exhibit bias when used with the LGB population. Increases in validity and effects on treatment planning are discussed as benefits of providing LGB-specific norms. Risks of providing these norms, such as minimizing subgroup differences and possibly increasing the risk of discrimination are also addressed before providing clinicians with recommendations as to how they may minimize the risk of bias in their assessment process.