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.

中文翻译：

---

不恰当的比较：LGB 人群缺失的参考组

摘要 鉴于许多专业组织强调需要在其道德准则中将评估结果与适当的参考群体进行比较，我们从生态角度考虑这种做法，因为它适用于女同性恋、男同性恋和双性恋 (LGB) 人群。规范的目的和评估偏差的类型针对 LGB 人群进行了讨论，这些人群通常缺乏具体的规范数据。作者讨论了 LGB 人群是否具有与其他群体普遍规范的特征相似的特征，并探讨了群体共享的结构（例如少数群体压力和内化的恐同症）如何可能引入偏见并影响评估的有效性。检查社交焦虑评估和人格障碍清单的偏见作为案例示例，解释这些评估在与 LGB 人群一起使用时如何表现出偏见。有效性的增加和对治疗计划的影响被讨论为提供 LGB 特定规范的好处。提供这些规范的风险，例如最小化亚组差异和可能增加歧视的风险，在向临床医生提供有关他们如何在评估过程中最小化偏倚风险的建议之前，也已解决。