Journal of Counseling Psychology

2012, Vol. 59, No. 1, 60 70

2011 American Psychological Association

0022-0167/11/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0025206

Transgender Individuals Workplace Experiences:

The Applicability of Sexual Minority Measures and Models
Melanie E. Brewster and Brandon Velez

Cirleen DeBlaere

University of Florida

Lehigh University

Bonnie Moradi
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

University of Florida
The present study explored whether 3 existing measures of workplace constructs germane to the
experiences of sexual minority people could be modified to improve their applicability with transgender
individuals. To this end, the Workplace Heterosexist Experiences Questionnaire (WHEQ; C. R. Waldo,
1999); the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgendered Climate Inventory (LGBTCI; B. J. Liddle, D. A.
Luzzo, A. L. Hauenstein, & K. Schuck, 2004); and the Workplace Sexual Identity Management Measure
(WSIMM; M. Z. Anderson, J. M. Croteau, Y. B. Chung, & T. M. DiStefano, 2001) were modified to
explicitly address the experiences of transgender individuals. Data from a sample of 263 transgender
individuals were used to evaluate the psychometric properties of the modified measures. Analyses of the
structures of the modified measures (Transgender Forms [TF]) suggested an alternative 2-factor structure
for the WHEQ-TF, but provided support for the previously observed unidimensional structure for the
LGBTCI-TF, and a slightly modified 3-factor structure for the WSIMM-TF. Cronbachs alpha reliability
coefficients for scale or subscale items across the 3 measures were acceptable. Criterion-related validity
was evident in theoretically consistent patterns of correlations between scores on the 3 modified measures
and scores on indicators of job satisfaction and outness. These data provide preliminary support for
transgender-specific versions of measures of 3 key constructs in the sexual minority vocational behavior
research.
Keywords: transgender, workplace harassment, workplace climate, heterosexism, gender identity management

We aimed to address this gap in the present study by examining whether existing measures of the three key constructs
germane to the workplace experiences of sexual minority populationsperceived discrimination, perceived workplace climate, and workplace sexual identity management could be
modified to improve their applicability with transgender individuals. Consistent with Worthington and Whittakers (2006)
suggestion to build on existing measures when appropriate, in
this study, the Workplace Heterosexist Experiences Questionnaire (WHEQ; Waldo, 1999); the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and
Transgendered Climate Inventory (LGBTCI; Liddle, Luzzo,
Hauenstein, & Schuck, 2004); and the Workplace Sexual Identity Management Measure (WSIMM; Anderson, Croteau,
Chung, & DiStefano, 2001) were used as a basis for modification to explicitly address the experiences of transgender individuals. These measures were selected due to their prior use and
psychometric evaluation as operationalizations of the underlying constructs of interest with sexual minority populations. The
WHEQ and WSIMM have been used extensively with LGB
samples, and the LGBTCI has been used with sexual minority
samples that included a few transgender people. In the present
study, factor structure, reliability, and validity evidence for the
modified measures are evaluated with a sample of transgender
individuals to test and extend the applicability of these measures to this understudied sexual minority population.

Within the literature on the workplace experiences of sexual

minority individuals, research points to perceived experiences of
discrimination, perceived workplace climate, and sexual identity
management as important correlates of job- and mental healthrelated variables for these populations (e.g., Griffith & Hebl, 2002;
Huebner & Davis, 2005; Lyons, Brenner, & Fassinger, 2005; N. G.
Smith & Ingram, 2004; Waldo, 1999). However, despite the fact
that lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender individuals are frequently discussed as a single group of sexual minority individuals
(i.e., LGBT), little is known about whether these work experience
constructs, their measures, and their links with criterion variables
are applicable to transgender people (Chung, 2003). In fact, there
is a dearth of instrumentation to assess transgender individuals
workplace experiences.

This article was published Online First August 29, 2011.

Melanie E. Brewster, Brandon Velez, and Bonnie Moradi, Department
of Counseling Psychology, University of Florida; Cirleen DeBlaere, Department of Psychology, Lehigh University.
We thank Danielle Rosenkratz for her assistance with participant recruitment.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Melanie
E. Brewster, who is now at the Department of Counseling Psychology,
Teachers College, Columbia University, Box 109, 525 West 120th Street,
New York, NY 10027-6696. E-mail: melanie.brewster@gmail.com
60

TRANSGENDER WORKPLACE

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Workplace Heterosexist Discrimination, Workplace

Climate, and Identity Management
Perceptions of workplace heterosexist discrimination and workplace climate have been examined as important aspects of sexual
minority populations workplace experiences. For instance, perceived workplace discrimination, assessed typically with the
WHEQ, has been linked moderately to lower job satisfaction and
to greater psychological distress, depressive symptoms, and
health-related problems (Lyons et al., 2005; Smith & Ingram,
2004; Waldo, 1999). Furthermore, perceptions of sexual minoritynonsupportive workplace climates have been linked moderately
with lower job satisfaction and higher anxiety, whereas perceptions of supportive workplace climates have been linked moderately with greater job and life satisfaction (Griffith & Hebl, 2002;
Huffman, Watrous-Rodriguez, & King, 2008; Liddle et al., 2004).
In these studies, supportive workplace climate is typically assessed
with the LGBTCI. Although the name of the LGBTCI suggests
that it assesses LGBT individuals experiences, this measure was
developed with a focus on sexual orientation-related experiences.
Thus, although the WHEQ and LGBTCI are frequently used
measures of sexual minority peoples workplace experiences, their
specific applicability to transgender individuals has not been examined.
An additional important theme in the literature is that chilly
work environments may dissuade LGB people from being out
(i.e., public about their sexual identity) on the job (Anderson et al.,
2001; Chung, 2001; Croteau, Anderson, & VanderWal, 2008;
Griffith & Hebl, 2002). In turn, workplace sexual orientation
concealment has been linked moderately with lower job satisfaction and with greater work-related stress, whereas sexual orientation disclosure has been linked weakly to moderately with higher
job satisfaction (e.g., Boatwright, Gilbert, Forrest, & Ketzenberger, 1996; Button, 2001; Day & Schoenrade, 1997; Griffith &
Hebl, 2002). But, there is also evidence that those who disclose
their sexual orientation on the job may experience more stress and
negative affect than those who conceal (Huebner & Davis, 2005).
Thus, workplace sexual identity management may be more complex than a dichotomous view of disclosure versus concealment
suggests.
Indeed, Button (2001) suggested that disclosure or concealment
may reflect more complex identity management strategies, and
Anderson and colleagues (2001) developed the WSIMM to operationalize such strategies. Accordingly, some individuals may be
explicitly out at work by displaying affirming symbols (e.g., rainbow flag) or talking openly about same-gender romantic partners.
Others may take a less direct approach of being implicitly out (e.g.,
open about relationships, but not identifying as lesbian or gay). In
less affirming environments, individuals may use covering strategies to censor or omit information that would reveal their sexual
orientation or use passing strategies that involve fabricating information about ones sexual identity and altering characteristics
stereotyped as gay or lesbian in order to be perceived as heterosexual (Anderson et al., 2001; Button, 2001; Chrobot-Mason,
Button, DiClementi, 2001). Factor analyses of WSIMM data have
offered support for an Explicitly Out factor, a Covering factor, and
an Implicitly Out factor that primarily reflects sexual minorityaffirming strategies (e.g., challenging heterosexist jokes); however, a distinct Passing factor has not been supported (Anderson et

61

al., 2001; Moradi, DeBlaere, & Sarkees, 2008). As with the

WHEQ and the LGBTCI, items on the WSIMM focus primarily on
sexual orientation identity management, and very few transgender
individuals have been included in studies using the WSIMM.

Transgender Individuals Experiences

Research using the WHEQ, LGBTCI, and the WSIMM has
addressed important gaps in vocational scholarship. But, such
research (and the broader LGB literature) is sometimes discussed
as applicable to transgender individuals despite the lack of specific
attention to the use of these measures and associated findings with
transgender people. Indeed, Chung (2003) lamented that there is
virtually nothing (p. 81) available in the vocational literature
about transgender people. Transgender is used here as an umbrella
term to describe individuals whose gender identity and expressions
are generally not aligned with gender norms socially prescribed to
their biological sex; this broad category may include groups such
as transmen, transwomen, androgynes, bigendered people, transsexuals (pre-, post-, and nonoperational), transvestites, and drag
kings and queens (Fassinger & Arseneau, 2007). Although there is
substantial within-group variability in gender expressions among
transgender people, they share in common the adoption of gender
expressions that are (perceived to be) discordant with their biological sex. Also, transgender individuals gender expressions may
be independent of their sexual orientation identities (e.g., they may
identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual, heterosexual, asexual).
Scholars have made a case for notable parallels between the
experiences of LGB and transgender individuals. Importantly,
Fassinger and Arseneau (2007) contended that LGB and transgender individuals are gender transgressive sexual minorities in that
they together compose a subpopulation of individuals who challenge prevailing social conventions regarding the expression of
gender and sexuality (p. 28). Similarly, the American Psychological Association Task Force on Gender Identity and Gender Variance (2009) proposed that the stigmatization experienced by
LGBT people is attributable to their gender variance by virtue of
their social presentation and identity and/or their sexual attraction
(p. 30). This shared experience of being perceived as gender
transgressive may give rise to similar experiences, such as comingout processes that follow broadly similar trajectories (Gagne,
Tewksbury, & McGaughey, 1997; Lev, 2004). Thus, many of the
issues discussed in LGB vocational scholarship may be pertinent
to transgender people, but the unique manifestations of these issues
for transgender people may not be captured in the LGB literature
(Chung, 2003; ONeil, McWhirter, & Cerezo, 2008). Indeed, qualitative studies suggest that experiences of workplace harassment
and discrimination, workplace climate, and identity management
are salient for transgender people but that these experiences are
shaped specifically by gender identity and presentation. For example, about half the participants in Budge, Tebbe, and Howards
(2010) study reported being physically threatened, emotionally
abused, or fired because of their gender identity, and nearly all
participants reported that coworkers treated them differently after
coming out as transgender. Transgender employees also perceived
pressure to conform to normative gender presentations (Schilt,
2006; Schilt & Connell, 2007) and reported using various gender
identity management techniquessome presenting openly as
transgender, others remaining stealth (choosing to be known only

BREWSTER, VELEZ, DEBLAERE, AND MORADI

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

62

as their current gender presentation), and others being deep stealth

(severing all ties with the transgender community) (Budge et al.,
2010; Schilt, 2006). These identity management strategies correspond roughly with explicitly out and covering strategies described
in the LGB literature.
Taken together, these qualitative studies suggest that just as
workplace discrimination, workplace climate, and identity management may be relevant for LGB individuals, so too may they be
salient issues for transgender individuals; however, the specific
content of these experiences may focus on gender identity and
expression rather than on sexual orientation. However, we are
unaware of any quantitative research that examines these experiences with transgender people. One reason for the lack of quantitative research may be that there are no measures of these key
workplace constructs for use with transgender people.

The Present Study

This study modifies the WHEQ (Waldo, 1999), LGBTCI
(Liddle et al., 2004), and WSIMM (Anderson et al., 2001) to assess
transgender individuals perceived experiences of workplace discrimination, workplace climate, and workplace identity management strategies, respectively. Specifically, on the basis of conceptual literature (e.g., Colvin, 2007; ONeil et al., 2008) and
qualitative studies (e.g., Budge et al., 2010; Schilt, 2006; Schilt &
Connell, 2007) about transgender peoples workplace experiences,
sexual orientation-focused item content of each measure is modified to address experiences related to gender expression and transgender identity specifically. Using these Transgender Forms of
the measures (i.e., WHEQ-TF, LGBTCI-TF, WSIMM-TF), factor
structure, internal consistency reliability, and criterion-related validity are examined with data from a sample of transgender individuals.
The underlying dimensionality of data from the original three
measures has been assessed with exploratory factor analyses
(EFAs) in previous research. Specifically, Waldo (1999) reported
that the WHEQ was composed of two factors capturing direct (e.g.,
physically hurt you because of your identity) and indirect (e.g.,
hinted that you should conceal your identity) workplace discrimination. With regard to the LGBTCI, Liddle et al. (2004) found a
one-factor structure. Prior analyses of WSIMM data suggest a
three-factor structure composed of outness strategies, covering
strategies, and implicitly out strategies, the latter of which primarily reflect discrimination confrontation behaviors (Anderson et al.,
2001; Moradi et al., 2008). Given the existence of these a priori
models and because the models, measures, and constructs under
consideration have been posited, either explicitly (e.g., as indicated
in the name of the LGBTCI) or implicitly to be applicable to
transgender individuals, CFA is used to evaluate the replicability
of the previously garnered factor structures with a sample of
transgender individuals. We hypothesize that WHEQ-TF data will
yield two factors reflecting direct and indirect antitransgender
discrimination (Hypothesis 1a); LGBTCI-TF data will yield one
factor reflecting transgender supportive workplace climate (Hypothesis 1b); and WSIMM-TF data will yield three factors reflecting covering, implicitly out, and explicitly out strategies (Hypothesis 1c). CFA findings are also used to identify areas of potential
model misspecification and revision.

To assess internal consistency reliability, Cronbachs alpha coefficients are computed for scale or subscale items. We expect that
values will be in the good or excellent range according to Ponterotto and Ruckdeschels (2007) matrix for interpreting Cronbachs alphas for items on the WHEQ-TF (Hypothesis 2a),
LGBTCI-TF (Hypothesis 2b), and WSIMM-TF (Hypothesis 2c).
Finally, to assess criterion-related validity, correlations of
WHEQ-TF, LGBTCI-TF, and WSIMM-TF scores with job satisfaction and level of outness are evaluated. We focus on work,
coworker, and supervisor job satisfaction following prior research
and to allow for the possibility of nuances in interpersonal versus
work-related aspects of job satisfaction (e.g., Badgett et al., 2007;
Waldo, 1999). On the basis of previous research with LGB populations, we hypothesize that job satisfaction correlates negatively
with perceived workplace discrimination (i.e., WHEQ-TF; Hypothesis 3a) and concealment of transgender identity (i.e.,
WSIMM-TF Covering; Hypothesis 3b) and correlates positively
with perceptions of supportive workplace climate (i.e., LGBTCITF; Hypothesis 3c) and disclosure of transgender identity (i.e.,
WSIMM-TF Explicitly Out and Implicitly Out; Hypothesis 3d and
3e). Similarly, we hypothesize that outness correlates negatively
with perceived workplace discrimination (i.e., WHEQ-TF; 4a) and
concealment of transgender identity (i.e., WSIMM-TF Covering;
Hypothesis 4b) and correlates positively with perceptions of supportive workplace climate (i.e., LGBTCI-TF; Hypothesis 4c) and
disclosure of transgender identity (i.e., WSIMM-TF Explicitly Out
and Implicitly Out; Hypothesis 4d and 4e). In addition to considering statistical significance, we use Cohens (1992) benchmarks
for small (r .10), medium (r .30), and large (r .50) effect
sizes to interpret validity coefficients.

Method
Participants. Data from 263 transgender participants were
analyzed in this study. Participants ranged in age from 18 to 68
years old (M 38.28, SD 13.54, Mdn 36.50). Approximately
86% of the sample identified as White, 7% as multiracial, 2% as
Asian American/Pacific Islander, 1% as Hispanic/Latina/o, 1% as
Native American, less than 1% as African American/Black, and
3% as other races or ethnicities. About 7% of the sample identified
as exclusively lesbian or gay, 16% as mostly lesbian or gay, 26%
as bisexual, 14% as mostly heterosexual, 11% as exclusively
heterosexual, 2% as asexual, and 24% as another self-specified
sexual orientation (e.g., queer, pansexual). Approximately 37% of
participants had some college education, 35% had a college degree, 19% had a professional degree, 9% had a high school
diploma, and less than 1% had some high school education. About
41% of participants identified as working class, 39% as middle
class, 13% as upper-middle class, 7% as lower class, and less than
1% as upper class. Participants were also asked to report their
employment status (full time, part time, or not employed) and to
report their job title. About 68% reported full-time and 25%
reported part-time employment; 7% checked the not employed
option but were retained because they provided current job titles
(e.g., laborer, writer, kitchen designer) that suggested that they
were self-employed. Participants reported residing in 37 of the 50
United States; most resided in California (8%), Washington (8%),
Florida (7%), and Michigan (6%); some (7%) resided in Canada.

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

TRANSGENDER WORKPLACE

In terms of gender identity, approximately 44% of the sample

self-identified as women, 25% as men, 5% as androgynous, and
26% as other genders (e.g., genderqueer, female-to-male [FTM],
male-to-female [MTF], transman, transwoman). With regard to
gender expression (i.e., which gender[s] participants present to
other people, either full time or part time), approximately 33%
were women full time, 29% were men full time, 8% were androgynous full time, 5% were other gender expressions (e.g., genderqueer) full time, 14% were women part time, 4% were men part
time, 3% were androgynous part time, and 4% were other gender
expressions part time.
Procedure.
Participants were recruited via online venues
such as electronic listservs, discussion boards, and virtual communities that cater to transgender individuals. The study was advertised as an examination of the workplace experiences of transgender individuals. Participants were directed to an online survey that
began with an informed consent page. To participate in the study,
respondents had to first affirm that they (a) self-identified as
somewhere on the transgender spectrum (e.g., genderqueer, MTF,
androgynous); (b) were 18 years of age or older; (c) were employed at the time of the survey (given the studys focus on current
workplace experiences); and (d) resided in North America. If
respondents affirmed that they met the inclusion criteria and
agreed to participate, then they were prompted to complete the
survey.
A total of 507 individuals responded to at least one survey item,
but 244 entries were not usable because they were missing more
than 20% of the items on the survey (excluding demographic
questions and the Outness Inventory, which instructs participants
to skip nonapplicable items). A vast majority of these unusable
entries resulted from individuals who clicked the informed consent
link (some responding to a few survey items) and then left the
survey. The proportion of these individuals who may have returned
to complete the survey at a later time cannot be determined due to
the anonymity of the survey. The remaining data were screened to
identify participants who did not meet inclusion criteria or missed
more than one validity check item (items requesting a particular
reply [e.g., agree] to check for attentive responding). Four respondents were removed because they indicated that they were
unemployed or retired. Twenty five respondents missed one validity item but were retained because their correct responses to the
remaining three validity items suggested that the single validity
miss may have been accidental; one respondent missed two validity check items and was removed. These screening procedures
resulted in a data set of 263 participants. Following Schlomer,
Bauman, and Cards (2010) recommendations for handling missing data, prior to computing scale or subscale scores, NORM
Version 2.02 (Schafer, 1997) was used to impute item-level missing data based on expectation maximization parameters in this
final data set.
Instruments.
Workplace discrimination experiences. The WHEQ (Waldo,
1999) is a 22-item measure that assesses the frequency of perceived direct and indirect sexual orientation-related harassment or
discrimination experiences in the workplace. The response stem is
DURING THE PAST 24 MONTHS in your workplace, have you
been in a situation where any one of your SUPERVISORS OR
CO-WORKERS . . . In the present study, items were reworded to
be more germane to transgender individuals (e.g., . . . . . ignored

63

you in the office or in a meeting because you are gay/lesbian/

bisexual? was changed to . . . because you are transgender?).
The resultant Transgender Form (WHEQ-TF) items were rated on
the original WHEQ 5-point response continuum (from 0 Never
to 4 Most of the time). Item responses were averaged to derive
an overall score, with higher scores indicating a higher frequency
of perceived antitransgender workplace experiences. In their samples of LGB individuals, Waldo (1999) and Smith and Ingram
(2004) found Cronbachs alphas of .93 and .92 for WHEQ items,
respectively. With regard to validity, WHEQ scores correlated
positively with perceived organizational tolerance for workplace
heterosexism (Waldo, 1999).
Supportive workplace climate. The LGBTCI (Liddle et al.,
2004) is a 20-item measure that assesses LGBT individuals evaluations of the supportiveness of their workplaces policies or
atmospheres. The response stem is At my workplace . . ., and in
the present study, LGBTCI items were reworded to focus on the
experiences of transgender individuals (e.g., LGBT employees
feel accepted by coworkers was changed to Transgender people
feel accepted by coworkers). The resultant Transgender Form
(LGBTCI-TF) items were rated on the original LGBTCI 4-point
response scale (from 1 Doesnt describe at all to 4 Describes
extremely well). Appropriate items were reverse coded, and item
responses were averaged, with higher scores indicating more supportive climates. In their LGBT sample, Liddle and colleagues
found a Cronbachs alpha of .96 for LGBTCI items. In terms of
validity, LGBTCI scores were correlated negatively with LGBrelated workplace discrimination (Huffman et al., 2008; Liddle et
al., 2004).
Workplace identity management. The WSIMM (Anderson et
al., 2001) is a 29-item measure designed to assess Passing, Covering, Implicitly Out, and Explicitly Out strategies. But, as noted
previously, Anderson et al.s (2001) findings did not support
retention of the eight Passing items, and a review of these items
indicated that they were not specifically applicable to transgender
individuals (e.g., make up stories about romantic partners of the
opposite gender); thus, these items were not included in the
present study. The response stem for WSIMM items is Thinking
about your most recent job, how often did you do each of the
following behaviors when you are at work or work social events?
In the present study, items were reworded to address more explicitly the experiences of transgender individuals (e.g., Told most or
all of my coworkers that I am gay/lesbian/bisexual was changed
to . . . my coworkers that I am transgender), and items that
attended only to sexual orientation (e.g., Am explicit that I am
referring to someone of the same gender when I talk about romantic relationships or dating at work) were dropped resulting in a
total of 12 items (four items per subscale). The resultant Transgender Form (WSIMM-TF) items were rated along the original
WSIMM 4-point response scale (from 1 Never to 4 Always).
Each subscales item ratings were averaged, with higher scores
indicating greater levels of the specific identity management strategy. In Anderson and colleagues (2001) sample of lesbian and gay
individuals, Cronbachs alphas for Covering, Implicitly Out, and
Explicitly Out items were .73, .53, and .91, respectively. In terms
of validity, Covering yielded large negative correlations, whereas
Explicitly Out yielded large positive correlations with level of and
satisfaction with identity disclosure; Implicitly Out yielded small

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

64

BREWSTER, VELEZ, DEBLAERE, AND MORADI

negative (but nonsignificant) correlations with level of and satisfaction with identity disclosure (Anderson et al., 2001).
Outness as transgender. The 10-item Outness Inventory (OI;
Mohr & Fassinger, 2000) assesses the degree to which respondents sexual orientation is known or talked about with different
people in their lives (e.g., parents, siblings, friends, coworkers).
For the present study, the measure was modified to assess transgender identity outness on a 7-point continuum (from 1 person
definitely does not know about you being transgender to 7
person definitely knows about you being transgender, and it is
openly talked about). Item ratings are averaged to yield an overall
score, with higher scores indicating greater levels of outness. OI
items yielded Cronbachs alphas of .87 in samples of LGB people
(Balsam & Mohr, 2007) and bisexual people, including 2% who
identified as transgender (Brewster & Moradi, 2010). In terms of
validity, LGB peoples OI scores were found to correlate positively with involvement in LGB communities (Balsam & Mohr,
2007; Mohr & Fassinger, 2000).
Job satisfaction. Job satisfaction was measured using the
Work, Coworker, and Supervisor subscales of the Job Descriptive
Index (JDI; P. C. Smith, Kendal, & Hulin, 1969; as modified by
Roznoski, 1989). The JDI presents respondents with 18 adjectives
(e.g., boring, fascinating) and the options yes, I dont know (?),
and no to rate the relevance of these adjectives to their work,
coworkers, and supervisors. Following Hanischs (1992) recommendations, negative responses (yes to a negatively valenced
item, no to a positively valenced item) are coded as 0, positive
responses (yes to a positive item, no to a negative item) are
coded as 3, and I dont know responses are coded as 1. Ratings
for the Work, Coworker, and Supervisor items are averaged, with
higher scores indicating higher satisfaction in that domain. In a
sample of LGB individuals, Waldo (1999) found Cronbachs alphas of .90, .91, and .92 for the Work, Coworker, and Supervisor
items, respectively. In that same study, JDI Work, Coworker, and
Supervisor scores correlated negatively with job withdrawal (i.e.,
desire and intention to quit).

Results
Factor structure: Hypotheses 1a1c. We used AMOS 18.0
with maximum likelihood estimation to conduct confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs) to evaluate the fit of the hypothesized models
with the present data. The sample size of 263 exceeded guidelines
for deriving meaningful and interpretable models and fit indices
(e.g., minimum sample size of 200, 510 cases per parameter;
Quintana & Maxwell, 1999). In terms of multivariate normality,
Mardias normalized estimate of multivariate kurtosis values were
95.80, 18.311, and 12.57 for the WHEQ-TF, LGBTCI-TF, and
WSIMM-TF data, respectively, though, it has been noted that
statistically significant multivariate nonnormality may be too conservative a criterion to rely on (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001).
Maximum likelihood estimation procedures are robust to moderate
multivariate nonnormality, particularly when the data approximate
univariate normality (e.g., Muthen & Kaplan, 1985; Weston &
Gore, 2006). Indeed, we inspected the largest multivariate outliers
(indicated by Mahalanobis distances) and found that removal of
these cases had minimal impact on fit index values and parameter
estimates; thus, all participants were retained. Furthermore, item
distributions across measures met guidelines for univariate nor-

mality (skewness index 3, kurtosis index 10; Weston & Gore,

2006), with the exception of two items that yielded slightly elevated skewness (WHEQ-TF Item 10 3.26; WSIMM-TF Item
3 3.30). Thus, we considered univariate normality to be adequate. We evaluated model fit with root-mean-square error of
approximation (RMSEA), standardized root-mean-square residual
(SRMR), and comparative fit index (CFI). Criteria for acceptable
fit have ranged from CFI greater than or equal to .90 and RMSEA
and SRMR less than or equal to .10 to more stringent criteria of
CFI above .95, RMSEA below .06, and SRMR below to .08 (e.g.,
Quintana & Maxwell, 1999; Weston & Gore, 2006).
The WHEQ-TF. To test Hypothesis 1a, following Waldos
(1999) model for the WHEQ, items were set to load onto two
correlated latent factors of (a) Direct and (b) Indirect discrimination. This model provided a poor fit to the data, 2(208, N
263) 1241.79, p .001, CFI .74, SRMR .12, RMSEA
.14, 90% CI [.13, .15]); loadings ranged from .43 to .81 for the
Direct factor and from .16 to .90 for the Indirect factor. The
standardized residual matrix and modification indices suggested
multiple areas of misspecification in the model (e.g., items with
correlated residuals, cross-loadings). Thus, we considered that the
workplace discrimination constructs may be comprised differently
for transgender persons and proceeded with an EFA to explore an
alternative factor structure.
The data were suitable for EFA as indicated by a significant
Bartletts Test of Sphericity (p .001) and .91 Kaiser-MeyerOlkin measure of sampling adequacy, and the sample size was
appropriate for obtaining stable factor solutions (Tabachnick &
Fidell, 2001). As Worthington and Whittaker (2006) recommended, we used principle axis factoring (PAF) and parallel analysis (PA; Hayton, Allen, & Scarpello, 2004) to determine the
number of factors. PA is recommended as a more accurate method
of factor retention than traditional approaches (e.g., scree plot;
Hayton et al., 2004). The underlying reasoning of PA is that
eigenvalues for valid factors should be larger than those of factors
derived from random data sets with identical sample sizes and
items; thus, factors with eigenvalues greater than their corresponding random factors are retained (Hayton et al., 2004). PA (with 100
random data sets) indicated that two factors should be retained. We
evaluated the magnitude of factor loadings by using a minimum
loading standard of .30 and maximum cross-loading standard of
.30 (Bryant & Yarnold, 2001). We extracted factors by using the
common factors model with promax rotation in SPSS 18. We used
an oblique rotation because we anticipated that the factors would
be correlated. The two-factor solution accounted for 52.34% of the
total extracted variance. However, Item 2 (made transphobic remarks in general [e.g., saying that transgender people are sick or
unfit to be parents]?) had a substantial cross-loading suggesting
that the item was not clearly defined by a single factor. Thus, we
reexamined the two-factor model with Item 2 dropped. This model
provided a parsimonious simple structure and accounted for
53.17% of the total extracted variance. The first factor accounted
for 43.21% of variance and was composed of 15 items related to
Direct antitransgender discrimination (factor loadings of .36 .86).
As is recommended with obliquely rotated data, the factor loadings
are reported from the pattern matrix (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001).
The second factor accounted for 9.96% of the additional variance
and was composed of six items that reflected Indirect antitransgender discrimination (factor loadings of .51.98). The correlation

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

TRANSGENDER WORKPLACE

between the two factors was .60 (p .001). Details for this
structure, along with item rearrangements relative to the hypothesized model, are presented in Table 1.
The LGBTCI-TF. To test Hypothesis 1b regarding the unidimensional structure of LGBTCI-TF data, items were constrained
to load onto one Supportive Climate factor as found by Liddle and
colleagues (2004). The initial CFA suggested that this model
provided adequate fit to the data, 2(120, N 263) 574.91, p
.001, CFI .90, SRMR .05, RMSEA .10, 90% CI [.09, .10]);
loadings ranged from .42 to .90. Although the fit of this model was
adequate according to less stringent criteria (e.g., Weston & Gore,
2006), we considered that there may be systematic variance associated with the reverse-coded items that could be modeled and
improve model fit. Thus, following approaches for modeling
method variance (e.g., Wei, Russell, Mallinckrot, & Vogel, 2007),
we included two orthogonal factors representing the variance associated with direction of item coding (i.e., positively coded items
loaded onto one factor, and reverse-coded items loaded onto a
separate factor). The resultant model of a single Supportive Climate factor accounting for method variance provided excellent fit
to the data, 2(150, N 263) 291.31, p .001, CFI .96,
SRMR .03, RMSEA .06, 90% CI [.05, .07]). Standardized
regression weights for items onto the climate factor ranged from
.37 to .91 (see Table 2).
The WSIMM-TF. To evaluate Hypothesis 1c, following the
three-factor model outlined by Anderson et al. (2001), items were

65

set to load on three latent and correlated factors reflecting Covering, Explicitly Out, and Implicitly Out. This initial model provided
a poor fit to the data, 2(51, N 263) 226.90, p .001, CFI
.84, SRMR .13, RMSEA .12, 90% CI [.10, .13]); loadings for
Covering, Explicitly Out, and Implicitly Out subscales ranged
from .52 to .67, from .54 to .88, and from .37 to .80, respectively.
We examined the modification indices to determine areas of misspecification. The largest modification index (i.e., 90.15) suggested that Item 8 (i.e., Openly associate with coworkers known
to be transgender and let others think that I am transgender too, if
they want to), which was constrained to load onto the Implicitly
Out factor, should be allowed to load on the Explicitly Out factor
as well. This modification resulted in good model fit, 2(50, N
263) 105.73, p .001, CFI .95, SRMR .06, RMSEA
.07, 90% CI [.05, .08]), and Item 8 loaded significantly on both
Explicitly Out (loading .68) and Implicitly Out (loading .21)
factors. Indeed, inspection of the item indicates that it is a doublebarreled item tapping both Explicitly Out (i.e., openly associate
with transgender coworkers) and Implicitly Out (i.e., let others
think I was transgender). Given the relative magnitude of these
loadings and to provide a parsimonious solution, we conducted
another CFA with Item 8 loading only on the Explicitly Out factor.
This model resulted in minimal changes to the fit indices and good
fit to the data, 2(51, N 263) 119.51, p .001, CFI .94,
SRMR .06, RMSEA .07, 90% CI [.06, .09]). As indicated in
Table 3, loadings for Covering, Explicitly Out, and Implicitly Out

Table 1
Items and Principle Axis Factor Loadings for the Transgender Form of the Workplace
Heterosexist Experiences Questionnaire
Factor loading
Abbreviated item
3.
4.
7.
5.
9.
6.
13.
8.
10.
20.
14.
15.
11.
1.
12.
18.
19.
21.
16.
17.
22.

...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...

ignored you in the office or in a meeting . . . ?

made crude or offensive sexual remarks about you . . . ?
avoided touching you . . . ?
made transphobic remarks about you personally . . . ?
made negative remarks about you to other co-workers . . . ?
called you a dyke, faggot, or some similar slur?
left you out of social events . . . ?
denied you a promotion, raise, or other career advancement . . . ?
tampered with your materials. . .?
discouraged your supervisors from promoting you . . .?
asked you questions about your personal or love life. . .?
displayed or distributed transphobic literature. . .?
physically hurt . . . you . . . ?
told offensive jokes about transgender people. . .?
set you up on a date with someone. . .?
made you feel it was necessary. . . to pretend to be traditionally gendered. . .?
made you feel it was necessary for you to lie. . .?
made it necessary for you to act traditionally gendered. . .?
made you afraid that you would be treated poorly. . .?
implied faster promotions. . .if you kept quiet . . . ?
made you feel . . . you had to alter discussions about your . . . love life. . .?

.86
.84
.83
.82
.82
.70
.69
.64
.59
.58
.54
.53
.48
.37
.36
.12
.20
.02
.16
.29
.23

.13
.09
.06
.08
.02
.00
.03
.12
.15
.25
.15
.11
.04
.24
.01
.98
.98
.89
.71
.56
.51

Note. Factor loadings from the pattern matrix are reported (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001). Factor loadings .30
are in bold. Factor 1 Direct Discrimination; Factor 2 Indirect Discrimination. The correlation between the
two factors was r .60 (p .001). Item numbers reflect the order in which the items appeared in the survey.
As described in the Results section, Item 2 (. . . made transphobic remarks in general) was removed in this
analysis. This structure broadly parallels Waldos (1999) two factors of Direct and Indirect discrimination, with
somewhat different item composition for the two factors: Items 12 and 14 loaded on the Indirect factor in
Waldos structure but loaded on the Direct factor in the present sample, and Item 17 loaded on the Direct factor
in Waldos structure but loaded on the Indirect factor in the present sample.

BREWSTER, VELEZ, DEBLAERE, AND MORADI

66

Table 2
Items and Factor Loadings for the Transgender Form of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgendered Climate Inventory

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Item
17.
1.
4.
7.
11.
16.
20.
12.
2.
6.
13.
14.
19.
10.
3.
9.
5.
15.
8.
18.

Transgender employees are free to be themselves.

Transgender employees are treated with respect.
Transgender people consider it a comfortable place to work.
Transgender employees feel accepted by coworkers.
My immediate work group is supportive of transgender coworkers.
The company or institution as a whole provides a supportive environment for transgender people.
The atmosphere for transgender employees is improving.
Transgender employees are comfortable talking about their personal lives with coworkers.
Transgender employees must be secretive. (R)
The atmosphere for transgender employees is oppressive. (R)
There is pressure for transgender employees to stay closeted (to conceal their gender identity/expression). (R)
Employee transgender identity does not seem to be an issue.
Transgender employees feel free to display pictures of their romantic partners.
Transgender employees fear job loss because of gender expression or identity. (R)
Coworkers are as likely to ask nice, interested questions about my sexual relationships as they are to a person
who is not transgender.
Employees are expected to not act too gender nontraditional. (R)
Non-Transgender employees are comfortable engaging in trans-friendly humor with transgender employees.
Transgender employees are met with thinly veiled hostility (for example, scornful looks or icy tone of voice). (R)
Coworkers make comments that seem to indicate a lack of awareness of transgender issues. (R)
Transgender people are less likely to be mentored. (R)

Note.

Factor
loading

Uniqueness

.91
.88
.88
.81
.81
.80
.80
.74
.74
.73
.73
.70
.70
.67

.17
.23
.23
.34
.34
.36
.36
.45
.45
.47
.47
.51
.51
.55

.62
.62
.62
.61
.43
.37

.62
.62
.62
.63
.82
.86

Item numbers reflect the order in which the items appeared in the survey. (R) Item is reverse scored.

subscales ranged from .51 to .68, from .56 to .87, and from .69 to
.79, respectively. Correlations between Covering and Explicitly
Out, Covering and Implicitly Out, and Implicitly Out and Explicitly Out were .60 (p .001), .19 (p .05), and .23 (p .01),
respectively.
Reliability: Hypotheses 2a2c. We calculated Cronbachs
alphas for WHEQ-TF, LGBTCI-TF, and WSIMM-TF scale or
subscale items (based on the present factor analysis results). As
indicated in Table 4, for the WHEQ-TF, Cronbachs alphas were
.92 for Direct and .91 for Indirect items. Cronbachs alpha was .96
for LGBTCI-TF items. For the WSIMM-TF, Cronbachs alphas
were .66 for Covering, .80 for Implicitly Out, and .86 for Explicitly

Out items. According to Ponterotto and Ruckdeschels (2007)

matrix for interpreting Cronbachs alphas, all of these coefficients
were in the excellent range, with the exception of the Covering
alpha, which met the criterion for fair reliability.
Criterion-related validity: Hypotheses 3a3e (job satisfaction) and 4a 4e (outness). We computed bivariate correlations
among scores on the three transgender workplace experience measures (i.e., WHEQ-TF, LGBTCI-TF, WSIMM-TF), outness as
transgender (OI), and job satisfaction (JDI Work, Coworker, and
Supervisor). As indicated in Table 4, correlations were generally
consistent with hypotheses involving job satisfaction (Hypotheses
3a3e) and outness (Hypotheses 4a 4e). WHEQ-TF Direct and

Table 3
Items, Factor Loadings, and Uniquenesses for the Transgender Form of the Workplace Sexual Identity Management Measure
Factor loading
Abbreviated item
12.
5.
9.
3.
4.
2.
11.
6.
7.
1.
8.
10.

Avoided associating myself with issues pertaining to gender identity . . .

Avoided local transgender identified social events or places . . .
Avoided socializing with coworkers . . .
Avoided contact with people known by others to be transgender . . .
Raised objections to trans jokes or slurs . . .
Spoke out against anti-transgender discrimination . . .
Reacted in positive ways when discussing television shows or movies with transgender themes . . .
Told most or all of my coworker that I am transgender.
Corrected others when they made comments . . .
Told coworkers when I was going to a trans identified location . . .
Openly associated with coworkers known to be transgender . . .
Was active in trying to obtain equal access and treatment . . .

Uniqueness

.87
.82
.79
.68
.56

.54
.66
.69
.74
.38
.41
.52
.24
.33
.38
.54
.69

.68
.58
.56
.51
.79
.77
.69

Note. Factor 1 Covering; Factor 2 Implicitly Out; Factor 3 Explicitly Out. The correlation between Factors 1 and 2 was r .19 (p .05),
between Factors 1 and 3 was r .60 (p .001), and between Factors 2 and 3 was r .23 (p .01). Item numbers reflect the order in which the items
appeared in the survey.

TRANSGENDER WORKPLACE

67

Table 4
Intercorrelations, Descriptive Statistics, and Internal Consistency Reliabilities

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Construct (and measure)

Perceived discrimination (WHEQ-TF)
1. Direct
2. Indirect
Workplace climate (LGBTCI-TF)
3. Supportive climate
Identity management (WSIMM-TF)
4. Covering
5. Implicitly Out
6. Explicitly Out
Job satisfaction (JDI)
7. Coworker
8. Supervisor
9. Work
10. Outness (OI)
Possible range
M
SD

.60

10

.12
.14
.21
.58
14
2.21
0.96
.86

.44
.58
.13
03
2.07
0.74
.92

.45
.20
03
2.17
0.79
.92

.19
03
1.76
0.64
.84

17
4.27
1.39
.84

.64

.17
.16
.11

.32
.10
.21

.39
.08
.48

.13
.45

.44
.46
.31
.03
04
0.49
0.67
.92

.30
.40
.25
.30
04
0.89
1.11
.91

.38
.43
.36
.54
14
2.69
0.81
.96

.18
.17
.17
.31
14
1.36
0.52
.66

.44

.25
.03
.13
.01
.02
14
2.42
0.95
.80

Note. WHEQ-TF Transgender Form of the Workplace Heterosexist Experiences Questionnaire; LGBTCI-TF Transgender Form of the Lesbian, Gay,
Bisexual, and Transgendered Climate Inventory; WSIMM-TF Transgender Form of the Workplace Sexual Identity Management Measure; JDI Job
Descriptive Index; OI Outness Inventory.

p .05. p .01. p .001.

Indirect scores were correlated negatively with job satisfaction in

all three domains; WHEQ-TF Indirect scores were also correlated
negatively with level of outness. Effect sizes for these relations
were small to medium (r .25 to .46). LGBTCI-TF scores
had medium to large positive correlations with the three domains
of job satisfaction and with outness (r .36 to .54). WSIMM-TF
Covering scores were correlated negatively, whereas WSIMM-TF
Explicitly Out scores were correlated positively with job satisfaction in all domains as well as with outness. The magnitude of effect
sizes for the relations of Covering and Explicitly Out scores with
job satisfaction were small (r .17 to .21), whereas the relations
of Covering (r .31) and Explicitly Out (r .58) with outness
were medium to large. WSIMM-TF Implicitly Out scores had a
small negative correlation with satisfaction with supervisors (r
.13), but were not correlated significantly with work or coworker
satisfaction or with level of outness. Thus, most validity correlations were consistent with hypotheses, with the exceptions of the
nonsignificant correlations of WSIMM-TF Implicitly Out scores
with work and coworker satisfaction (Hypotheses 3e) and with
level of outness (Hypothesis 4e) as well as the nonsignificant
correlation between WHEQ-TF Direct scores and outness (Hypothesis 4a).

Discussion
In the present study, measures that assess sexual minority peoples perceived experiences of workplace discrimination (WHEQ;
Waldo, 1999), perceptions of supportive workplace climates
(LGBTCI; Liddle et al., 2004), and use of identity management
strategies (WSIMM; Anderson et al., 2001) were modified to
address the experiences of transgender individuals, resulting in the
transgender forms of each of these measures: WHEQ-TF,
LGBTCI-TF, WSIMM-TF. The present analyses of factor struc-

ture, reliability, and validity offer initially promising evidence for

the use of these modified measures with transgender individuals.
Factor analyses suggested an alternative structure for the
WHEQ-TF but provided support for the previously observed structure for the LGBTCI-TF, and a slightly modified structure for the
WSIMM-TF. Specifically, the CFA and subsequent EFA of
WHEQ-TF data suggested a modified two-factor structure representing constructs parallel to those obtained in Waldos (1999)
LGB sample, but with different item compositions. Despite item
rearrangements (see Table 1), the generally parallel structures
observed with LGB and transgender samples supports the indirect
and direct dimensions of workplace discrimination experiences,
although replication of the present EFA solution with other samples of transgender people is important.
In contrast to the altered structure for the WHEQ-TF, the CFA
of LGBTCI-TF data supported the single-factor structure that
Liddle et al. (2004) obtained with the original measure. Although
the original LGBTCI was intended for use with transgender individuals, its item construction did not focus specifically on transgender individuals experiences, and the EFA and CFA subsamples of transgender participants were too small to examine
group-specific structural stability. Thus, the present CFA provides
needed support for the posited unidimensional structure of the
LGBTCI-TF with transgender individuals. Similarly, the CFA of
WSIMM-TF data largely reproduced the three-factor solution obtained with Anderson et al.s (2001) LG sample. With the exception of one item that tapped both implicitly out and explicitly out
behaviors (Item 8), WSIMM-TF items loaded as posited on Covering, Implicitly Out, and Explicitly Out factors. One noteworthy
issue is that Implicitly Out items (TF and original form) tap
speaking out against discrimination; thus, a more appropriate name
for this subscale may be Out as Advocate.

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

68

BREWSTER, VELEZ, DEBLAERE, AND MORADI

Analyses of internal consistency reliability and criterion-related

validity also supported the utility of the measures with transgender
populations. All Cronbachs alphas obtained with the present sample were in the excellent range, with the exception of the Cronbachs alpha for WTIMM-TF Covering items, which fell just
above the benchmark for fair (Ponterotto & Ruckdeschel, 2007).
With regard to validity, consistent with hypotheses and with research with LGB samples (e.g., Huffman et al., 2008; Liddle,
2004; Lyons et al., 2005; Smith & Ingram, 2004; Waldo, 1999),
the present sample of transgender individuals perceptions of direct and indirect workplace discrimination (i.e., WHEQ-TF scores)
were correlated negatively, whereas perceptions of supportive
workplace climates (i.e., LGBTCI-TF scores) were correlated positively with coworker, supervisor, and work satisfaction; the magnitude of these correlations were generally in the medium range. In
addition, correlations between WSIMM-TF scores and job satisfaction indicated that covering strategies were related negatively,
whereas explicitly out strategies were related positively with all
three job satisfaction indices; these correlations fell between small
and medium effect sizes. Notably, implicitly out strategies had a
small negative correlation with satisfaction with supervisors, but
were not correlated significantly with the other job satisfaction
indices. Perhaps employees who feel that they have to speak out
against discrimination also feel that they have less effective and
satisfactory supervisors. Taken together, correlations between the
measures of interest and job satisfaction suggest that, as with LGB
individuals, exposure to direct and indirect workplace antitransgender discrimination and exposure to less supportive workplace
climates are associated with lower job satisfaction for transgender
individuals. Furthermore, identity management strategies that involve concealment appear to be related to lower job satisfaction,
whereas strategies that involve explicit openness appear to be
related to greater job satisfaction for transgender individuals.
Also consistent with expectation and with research with LG
populations (Anderson et al., 2001), correlations between outness
and workplace identity management strategies indicated that covering strategies were related negatively (medium effect) and explicitly out strategies were related positively (large effect) with
level of outness. But, outness was not correlated with discrimination confrontation strategies (i.e., WTIMM Implicitly Out scores).
This finding underscores the point that implicitly out behaviors, as
presently operationalized, may be better conceptualized as discrimination confrontation and advocacy strategies.
An additional notable pattern is that level of outness or explicitly out strategies were not associated significantly with direct
experiences of workplace antitransgender discrimination. This
may reflect potential countervailing processes whereby (a) explicit
outness can elicit more direct discrimination and (b) direct discrimination may reduce outness, resulting in nonsignificant links
between direct discrimination and level of outness. This possibility
underscores the complexity in potential costs and benefits of
workplace outness for transgender people.
Implications for practice. Given the cross-sectional nature
of the present data, their implications must be interpreted in light
of the need for further longitudinal and experimental research to
evaluate directions of causality. Nevertheless, the present results
offer some provisional implications for practice.
Consistent with qualitative findings (Budge et al., 2010; Schilt,
2006; Schilt & Connell, 2007), the present results suggest that

more supportive and less discriminatory workplace environments

are associated with greater job satisfaction for transgender individuals. Thus, therapists and career counselors may benefit from
attending to transgender clients perceptions of workplace environments when exploring clients levels of job satisfaction.
Furthermore, the results indicate that explicit identity disclosure
is associated with greater job satisfaction and that identity covering
is associated with lower job satisfaction. One interpretation of
these findings is that being open about ones transgender identity
relieves one of the stresses of having to constantly hide who one is,
and this may promote genuine and satisfactory relationships with
coworkers and supervisors. However, it is important to interpret
the relations of outness and identity management behaviors with
job satisfaction in light of the former set of variables links with
antitransgender discrimination and perceptions of supportive climates. Specifically, outness and explicitly out identity management strategies were associated with perceptions of lower indirect
workplace antitransgender discrimination and more supportive
workplace climates. Conversely, covering identity management
strategies were associated with greater perceived direct and indirect workplace antitransgender discrimination and less supportive
workplace climate. Thus, people were the most open and explicit
about their transgender identities in contexts with less discrimination and more support.
One possibility raised by these findings is that only those
transgender individuals who perceive low organizational or interpersonal discrimination against transgender people in their workplaces feel safe to be open about their transgender identities.
Conversely, transgender individuals who do not work in supportive, nondiscriminatory environments may not choose to be so open
about their transgender identities. Although being open about
ones stigmatized identity is thought to be associated with positive
psychosocial outcomes (e.g., Morris, Waldo, & Rothblum, 2001;
Selvidge, Matthews, & Bridges, 2008), being open may also have
very real, negative consequences, including (but not limited to) the
loss of ones job; rejection by ones friends, family, and coworkers; and even harm to ones physical person (Battle & Lemelle,
2002; Greene, 2000). Indeed, there are few legal workplace protections for transgender individuals (e.g., Human Rights Campaign, 2010). Given the very real plausibility of negative consequences, practitioners must be careful not to push their transgender
clients to disclose their identities without careful consideration of
clients particular circumstances and the potential costs and benefit
of disclosure. Thus, in using the present results to inform their
work with clients, practitioners should take into consideration the
environmental (e.g., workplace support or discrimination) and
individual (e.g., social support, psychological and economic resources) factors that may influence transgender clients identity
management.
Limitations and future directions. The findings of the present study must be viewed in light of the limitations of the studys
methodology. First, data were collected via the Internet. Although
Internet recruitment provides numerous methodological advantages (e.g., access to large numbers of participants from small and
difficult to reach populations), by definition it limits participation
to those individuals with access to computers and the Internet,
familiarity with accessing Web-based communities, and the willingness or capability to devote time to completion of the survey.
These factors may have limited the studys sample to transgender

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

TRANSGENDER WORKPLACE

individuals who are familiar with the Internet and eager to participate in transgender-related research. Another consideration with
Internet surveys is the issue of individuals who respond to a few
items and then drop out. Indeed, as described previously, this
occurred in the present study, but it is possible that some of these
submissions were from individuals who checked the survey to
assess their interest and then returned to participate at a later date.
Due to the anonymity of data collection, we could not determine
the proportion of such cases or whether there were demographic
(or other) differences between survey completers and noncompleters. Moreover, in the present study, the majority of participants
reported having had some college education or beyond (91%),
identified as either working class or middle class (80%), and
identified as White (86%). Given the paucity of nationally representative data on the transgender population, it is unknown
whether the demographics of our sample parallel or diverge from
characteristics of the broader transgender population. Future studies are needed to test the generalizability of our findings with
transgender individuals from more diverse socioeconomic, racial,
and ethnic backgrounds.
Another consideration is the broadness and fluidity of the term
transgender. In describing our inclusion criteria to participants, we
provided a description of this term that we hoped would not only
communicate a shared understanding but also be inclusive enough
to respect participants self-determination with regard to identifying as transgender (i.e., be somewhere on the transgender spectrum, for example, genderqueer, M-to-F, F-to-M, androgynous).
Although all participants affirmed that they identified within this
transgender umbrella, it is possible that individuals with other
understandings of transgender, or those who fall within this umbrella but disidentify with the terms we used, may not have
participated. This underscores the importance (and challenge) of
balancing clarity and inclusiveness in sampling transgender individuals.
An additional direction for future research is to examine the
replicability of the present psychometric findings, particularly
because a few content and structural modifications were made to
the measures assessed in this study. Future evaluations of criterionrelated validity could also include dimensions of job satisfaction
beyond those included in the present study (e.g., satisfaction with
pay and promotion). We hope that the present study provides
useful groundwork for such efforts and for further research and
practice to address the workplace experiences, functioning, and
needs of transgender populations.

References
American Psychological Association, Task Force on Gender Identity and
Gender Variance. (2009). Report of the Task Force on Gender Identity
and Gender Variance. Washington, DC: Author.
Anderson, M. Z., Croteau, J. M., Chung, Y. B., & DiStefano, T. M. (2001).
Developing an assessment of sexual identity management for lesbian
and gay workers. Journal of Career Assessment, 9, 243260. doi:
10.1177/106907270100900303
Badgett, M. V. L., Lau, H., Sears, B., & Ho, D. (2007). Bias in the workplace:
Consistent evidence of sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination. Retrieved from http://www.law.ucla.edu/williamsinstitute
Balsam, K. F., & Mohr, J. J. (2007). Adaptation to sexual orientation
stigma: A comparison of bisexual and lesbian/gay adults. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 54, 306 319. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.54.3.306

69

Battle, J., & Lemelle, A. J. (2002). Gender differences in African American

attitudes toward gay males. The Western Journal of Black Studies, 26,
134 139.
Boatwright, K. J., Gilbert, M. S., Forrest, L., & Ketzenberger, K. (1996).
Impact of identity development upon career trajectory: Listening to the
voices of lesbian women. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 48, 210 228.
doi:10.1006/jvbe.1996.0019
Brewster, M. E., & Moradi, B. (2010). Perceived anti-bisexual prejudice
experiences: Scale development and evaluation. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 57, 451 468. doi:10.1037/a0021116
Bryant, F. B., & Yarnold, P. R. (2001). Principle-components analysis and
exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. In L. G. Grimm & P. R.
Yarnold (Eds.), Reading and understanding multivariate statistics (pp.
99 136). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Budge, S. L., Tebbe, E. N., & Howard, K. A. S. (2010). The work
experiences of transgender individuals: Negotiating the transition and
career decision-making processes. Journal of Counseling Psychology,
57, 377393. doi:10.1037/a0020472
Button, S. B. (2001). Organizational efforts to affirm sexual diversity:
Across-level examination. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 1728.
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.86.1.17
Chrobot-Mason, D., Button, S. B., & DiClementi, J. D. (2001). Sexual
identity management strategies: An exploration of antecedents and consequences. Sex Roles, 45, 321336. doi:10.1023/A:1014357514405
Chung, Y. B. (2001). Work discrimination and coping strategies: Conceptual frameworks for counseling lesbian, gay, and bisexual clients. The
Career Development Quarterly, 50, 33 44.
Chung, Y. B. (2003). Career counseling with lesbian, gay, bisexual, and
transgendered persons: The next decade. The Career Development
Quarterly, 52, 78 86.
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155159.
doi:10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155
Colvin, R. A. (2007). The rise of transgender-inclusive laws: How well are
municipalities implementing supportive nondiscrimination public employment policies? Review of Public Personnel Administration, 27,
336 360. doi:10.1177/1077800407301777
Croteau, J. M., Anderson, M. Z., & VanderWal, B. L. (2008). Models of
workplace sexual identity disclosure and management: Reviewing and
extending concepts. Group & Organization Management, 33, 532565.
doi:10.1177/1059601108321828
Day, N. E., & Schoenrade, P. (1997). Staying in the closet versus coming
out: Relationships between communication about sexual orientation and
work attitudes. Personnel Psychology, 50, 147163. doi:10.1111/j.17446570.1997.tb00904.x
Fassinger, R. E., & Arseneau, J. R. (2007). Id rather get wet than be
under that umbrella: Differentiating the experiences and identities of
lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people. In K. J. Bieschke, R. M.
Perez, & K. A. DeBord (Eds.), Handbook of counseling and psychotherapy with lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender clients (pp. 19
49). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. doi:
10.1037/11482-001
Gagne, P., Tewksbury, R., & McGaughey, D. (1997). Coming out and
crossing over: Identity formation and proclamation in a transgender
community. Gender and Society, 11, 478 508. doi:10.1177/
089124397011004006
Greene, B. (2000). African American lesbian and bisexual women. Journal
of Social Issues, 56, 239 249. doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00163
Griffith, K. H., & Hebl, M. R. (2002). The disclosure dilemma for gay men
and lesbians: Coming out at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87,
11911199. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.87.6.1191
Hanisch, K. A. (1992). The Job Descriptive Index revisited: Questions
about the question mark. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 377382.
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.77.3.377
Hayton, J. C., Allen, D. G., & Scarpello, V. (2004). Factor retention

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

70

BREWSTER, VELEZ, DEBLAERE, AND MORADI

decisions in exploratory factor analysis: A tutorial on parallel analysis.

Organizational Research Methods, 7, 191205. doi:10.1177/
1094428104263675
Huebner, D., & Davis, M. (2005). Gay and bisexual men who disclose their
sexual orientations in the workplace have higher workday levels of
salivary cortisol and negative affect. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 30,
260 267. doi:10.1207/s15324796abm3003_10
Huffman, A. H., Watrous-Rodriguez, K. M., & King, B. E. (2008). Supporting a diverse workforce: What type of support is most meaningful
for lesbian and gay employees? Human Resource Management, 47,
237253. doi:10.1002/hrm.20210
Human Rights Campaign. (2010). Statewide employment laws and policies. Retrieved from http://www.hrc.org/documents/Employment_
Laws_and_Policies.pdf
Lev, A. I. (2004). Transgender emergence: Counseling gender-variant
people and their families. Binghamton, NY: Haworth Press.
Liddle, B. J., Luzzo, D. A., Hauenstein, A. L., & Schuck, K. (2004).
Construction and validation of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgendered Climate Inventory. Journal of Career Assessment, 12, 3350.
doi:10.1177/1069072703257722
Lyons, H. Z., Brenner, B. R., & Fassinger, R. E. (2005). A multicultural
test of the theory of work adjustment: Investigating the role of heterosexism and fit perceptions in the job satisfaction of lesbian, gay, and
bisexual employees. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52, 537548.
doi:10.1037/0022-0167.52.4.537
Mohr, J. J., & Fassinger, R. (2000). Measuring dimensions of lesbian and
gay male experience. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and
Development, 33, 66 90.
Moradi, B., DeBlaere, C., & Sarkees, A. (2008, August). Workplace sexual
identity management strategies of LGBT former military personnel.
Poster presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological
Association, Boston, MA.
Morris, J. F., Waldo, C. R., & Rothblum, E. D. (2001). A model of
predictors and outcomes of outness among lesbian and bisexual women.
American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 71, 6171. doi:10.1037/00029432.71.1.61
Muthen, B., & Kaplan, D. (1985). A comparison of some methodologies
for factor analysis of non-normal Likert variables. British Journal of
Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 38, 171189.
ONeil, M. E., McWhirter, E. W., & Cerezo, A. (2008). Transgender
identities and gender variance in vocational psychology: Recommendations for practice, social advocacy and research. Journal of Career
Development, 34, 286 308. doi:10.1177/0894845307311251
Ponterotto, J. G., & Ruckdeschel, D. E. (2007). An overview of coefficient
alpha and a reliability matrix for estimating adequacy of internal consistency coefficients with psychological research measures. Perceptual
and Motor Skills, 105, 9971014. doi:10.2466/PMS.105.7.997-1014

Quintana, S. M., & Maxwell, S. E. (1999). Implications of recent developments in structural equation modeling for counseling psychology. The
Counseling Psychologist, 27, 485527. doi:10.1177/0011000099274002
Roznowski, M. (1989). Examination of the measurement properties of the
Job Descriptive Index with experimental items. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 74, 805 814. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.74.5.805
Schafer, J. L. (1997). Analysis of incomplete multivariate data. London,
England: Chapman & Hall.
Schilt, K. (2006). Just one of the guys?: How transmen make gender visible
at work. Gender and Society, 20, 465 490. doi:10.1177/
0891243206288077
Schilt, K., & Connell, C. (2007). Do workplace gender transitions make
trouble? Gender, Work and Organization, 14, 596 618. doi:10.1111/
j.1468-0432.2007.00373.x
Schlomer, G. L., Bauman, S., & Card, N. A. (2010). Best practices for
missing data management in counseling psychology research. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 57, 110. doi:10.1037/a0018082
Selvidge, M. M., Matthews, C. R., & Bridges, S. K. (2008). The relationship of minority stress and flexible coping to psychological well being in
lesbian and bisexual women. Journal of Homosexuality, 55, 450 470.
doi:10.1080/00918360802345255
Smith, N. G., & Ingram, K. M. (2004). Workplace heterosexism and
adjustment among lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals: The role of
unsupportive social interactions. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51,
57 67. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.51.1.57
Smith, P. C., Kendall, L., & Hulin, C. L. (1969). The measurement of
satisfaction in work and retirement. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics.
Boston, MA: Pearson.
Waldo, C. R. (1999). Working in a majority context: A structural model of
heterosexism as minority stress in the workplace. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 46, 218 232. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.46.2.218
Wei, M., Russell, D. W., Mallinckrodt, B., & Vogel, D. L. (2007). The
experiences in close relationship scale (ECR)-short form: Reliability,
validity, and factor structure. Journal of Personality Assessment, 88,
187204. doi:10.1080/00223890701268041
Weston, R., & Gore, P. A. (2006). A brief guide to structural equation
modeling. The Counseling Psychologist, 34, 719 751. doi:10.1177/
0011000006286345
Worthington, R. L., & Whittaker, T. A. (2006). Scale development
research: A content analysis and recommendations for best practices.
The Counseling Psychologist, 34, 806 838. doi:10.1177/
0011000006288127

Received February 24, 2011

Revision received July 8, 2011
Accepted July 12, 2011