Effects of Patient Gender on Clinicians' Diagnostic Assessment of Youth Disruptive Mood and Behavior.
Saved in:
| Title: | Effects of Patient Gender on Clinicians' Diagnostic Assessment of Youth Disruptive Mood and Behavior. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Shaughnessy, Shannon (AUTHOR), Keeley, Jared W. (AUTHOR), Roberts, Michael C. (AUTHOR), Burke, Jeffrey D. (AUTHOR), Reed, Geoffrey M. (AUTHOR), Evans, Spencer C. (AUTHOR) |
| Source: | Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology. Jul/Aug2026, Vol. 55 Issue 4, p601-608. 8p. |
| Subjects: | Oppositional defiant disorder in children, Clinical decision making, Conduct disorders in children, Diagnostic examinations, Behavior disorders in children, Sex discrimination, International Statistical Classification of Diseases & Related Health Problems, Impulse control disorders |
| Abstract: | Objective: Youth disruptive behavior disorders (DBDs) have a male preponderance, but the extent to which gender biases in clinical assessment influence this imbalance remains unclear. The present study investigates whether a child patient's gender affects clinicians' diagnostic decision-making regarding Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD), Conduct Dissocial Disorder (CDD), and Intermittent Explosive Disorder (IED). Method: Clinicians (N = 403; 57.1% male; Mage = 48.96 years, SD = 11.09) participated in a global ICD-11 field study. Following an experimental design, participants were asked to use ICD-10 or ICD-11 diagnostic guidelines to evaluate two clinical case vignettes, randomly manipulating the patients' gender (boy, girl) and symptom presentation (ODD-Defiant, ODD-Irritable, CDD, IED). Analyses tested whether clinicians' diagnostic accuracy and perceptions of impairment and severity were affected by the patient's gender. Results: Overall, clinicians identified the correct diagnosis 64.7% of the time. Patient gender was not associated with clinicians' diagnostic accuracy (ps=.090–.895, |φs| = 0.01–0.18) or severity or impairment ratings (ps =.079–.404, |ds| = 0.04–0.19). This pattern of nonsignificant differences and negligible/small effect sizes was consistent across all clinical presentations and analyses. Conclusions: We found no evidence of an association between patient gender, diagnostic accuracy, or perceived severity or impairment when assessing youth DBDs in the present study. Results suggest that diagnostic judgments may be driven by clinical presentation rather than gender and that the male DBD preponderance may not be due to gender diagnostic biases. Further research is needed to replicate these findings among youths in clinical settings, with diverse gender identities, and with other mental health conditions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| Abstract: | Objective: Youth disruptive behavior disorders (DBDs) have a male preponderance, but the extent to which gender biases in clinical assessment influence this imbalance remains unclear. The present study investigates whether a child patient's gender affects clinicians' diagnostic decision-making regarding Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD), Conduct Dissocial Disorder (CDD), and Intermittent Explosive Disorder (IED). Method: Clinicians (N = 403; 57.1% male; Mage = 48.96 years, SD = 11.09) participated in a global ICD-11 field study. Following an experimental design, participants were asked to use ICD-10 or ICD-11 diagnostic guidelines to evaluate two clinical case vignettes, randomly manipulating the patients' gender (boy, girl) and symptom presentation (ODD-Defiant, ODD-Irritable, CDD, IED). Analyses tested whether clinicians' diagnostic accuracy and perceptions of impairment and severity were affected by the patient's gender. Results: Overall, clinicians identified the correct diagnosis 64.7% of the time. Patient gender was not associated with clinicians' diagnostic accuracy (ps=.090–.895, |φs| = 0.01–0.18) or severity or impairment ratings (ps =.079–.404, |ds| = 0.04–0.19). This pattern of nonsignificant differences and negligible/small effect sizes was consistent across all clinical presentations and analyses. Conclusions: We found no evidence of an association between patient gender, diagnostic accuracy, or perceived severity or impairment when assessing youth DBDs in the present study. Results suggest that diagnostic judgments may be driven by clinical presentation rather than gender and that the male DBD preponderance may not be due to gender diagnostic biases. Further research is needed to replicate these findings among youths in clinical settings, with diverse gender identities, and with other mental health conditions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 15374416 |
| DOI: | 10.1080/15374416.2024.2432319 |
