Utrecht Gender Dysphoria Scale-Gender Spectrum adaptation (Chen et al., 2023)
- Populations: Adolescents, Adults
- Age ranges: 15-28
- Languages: Chinese
- Countries: China
Items
Subscales
- Dyisphoria: 14 Items
- Gender Affirmation: 4 Items
Items
- I feel hopeless if I have to stay in my assigned sex
- I feel uncomfortable behaving like my assigned sex
- I feel unhappy because I have the phyisical characteristics of my assigned sex
- My life would be meaninglgess if I would have to live as my assigned sex
- It would be better not to live, than to live as my assigned sex
- I hate my birth assigned sex
- Puberty felt like a betrayal
- I feel unhappy when I have to behave like my assigned sex
- Physical sexual development was stressful
- The bodily functions of my assigned sex are distressing for me (i.e. erection, menstruation)
- Every time someone treats me like m;y assigned sex, I feel hurt
- It feels good to live as my affirmed gender
- I prefer to behave like my affirmed gender
- A life in my affi;rmed gender is more attractive for me than a life in my assigned sex
- I wish I had been born as my affirmed gender
- I feel unhappy when someone misgenders me
Responses
Responses used a five-point Likert-type scale, 1 = “Disagree completely” to 5 = “Agree completely”
Scoring
“The total score ranged from 18 to 90. The results showed that 2.6% scored 18 and 0.3% scored 90 (both <15%), indicating that the Chinese version of the UGDS-GS did not demonstrate ceiling or floor effects, which indicated good sensitivity of this instrument” (Chen et al., 2023)
Citations
Chen, R., Feng, Y., Su, D., Wilson, A., Han, M., & Wang, Y. (2023). Utrecht Gender Dysphoria Scale – Gender Spectrum in a Chinese population: Scale validation and associations with mental health, self-harm and suicidality. BJPsych Open, 9(1), e17. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjo.2022.617
Original scale:
Cohen-Kettenis, P. T., & Van Goozen, S. H. M. (1997). Sex Reassignment of Adolescent Transsexuals: A Follow-up Study. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 36(2), 263–271. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004583-199702000-00017
Team comments
Please note that this scale is an adaptation of an existing scale, see citations for the original scale publication. All reported data are for the adapted scale (Chen et al., 2023).
Scoring breakdown
Measure development
- Significant design input from young people
- Cognitive interviews with young people
- Expert input
Validity
- Unknown: Face validity
- Green: Convergent validity
- Red: Construct validity
Reliability
- Green: Internal consistency
- Unknown: Test-retest
Ease of use
- Unknown: Readability
Definitions
Face validity: How well a measure appears to represent the construct it is supposed to be measuring.
Convergent validity: How well a measure correlates with other hypothetically-related measures.
Construct validity: The extent to which a measure reflects the construct it was designed to evaluate.
Internal consistency: The extent to which items in a scale capture aspects of the same construct.
Test-retest: The degree to which measurement scores are consistent over a short period of time (usually 2 weeks).
Readability: The ease with which a reader can understand the questionnaire items.
Key
- Green: Meets validation criteria
- Red: Does not meet validation criteria
- Unknown: Evidence not available
