Search results

User diversity has been discussed in many fields of study for decades. Nevertheless, some cohorts are rarely included in mainstream research. According to the concept of universal design of research (UDR), people with disabilities should be more often included in participant pools. There is, however, a need for certain methodological considerations to achieve UDR.

The suggested guidelines are based upon existing guidelines and research in addition to key takeaways from studies conducted by the authors over the past 15 years. Six studies are used to show how the guidelines can be applied in research involving three example cohorts, namely people with dyslexia, aphasia and intellectual disability.

Extensive guidelines are needed to increase user inclusion in mainstream studies and support researchers in conducting purposeful and ethical research. The suggested guidelines should be examined for other cohorts to ensure that all types of user needs are accommodated.

This study contributes with methodological approaches to enhance inclusion of all types of participants in mainstream research.

The main contribution is The seven principles of UDR, a further development of the original principles for UDR.

Gender identity assessments (GIAs) have been criticized by practitioners and trans and gender non-conforming (TGNC) individuals alike. With the practice of exploring individuals’ gender identity for treatment pathway purposes being potentially invasive and inappropriate, the current study aims to explore explicit standards.

The current study used the Delphi methodology to survey practitioners familiar with GIA. Over three rounds, 14 international participants rated their agreement about six areas relating to the assessment: purpose; content; approach; forensic application; psychometric instruments; and wider issues. Statements that reached an 80% cut-off among participants were viewed as a sufficient level of agreement, while the remaining items were fed back for repeated ratings. Furthermore, participants had the opportunity to suggest additional items that the group could rate.

Overall, a consensus across 23 items was achieved. The findings indicate a practice emphasizing collaboration between clinician and client to facilitate an informed decision. Furthermore, participants advocated for a non-pathologizing version of the GIA. This is a departure from diagnoses like gender dysphoria toward an approach which encapsulates also positive aspects of the trans experience, for example, resilience and future plans.

Limitations include sampling biases due to participants’ high specialization and challenges in recruiting TGNC individuals. Furthermore, findings appear restricted to adult services.

To the best of the author’s knowledge, this pilot is a first step to making current practice transparent and comparable, with the hopes to improve trans care. Furthermore, it is contextualized with the previously suggested application of the power threat meaning framework to GIA.