(PS13-C63) Assessing a Novel and Inclusive Demographic Questionnaire for Use in Clinical Research

Accurate assessment and categorization of intersectional minority populations are critical for conducting best-practice research and intervention. Yet, the importance of inclusivity in research has long been overlooked in academia. Indeed, demographic questionnaires often offer limited and unrepresentative options for minorities or mistakenly categorize groups using inaccurate socially constructed labels. Development of representative questionnaires, particularly ones designed to collect socio-demographic information, are paramount to advancing inclusion of individuals from diverse backgrounds. Additionally, this can help to limit frustration and attrition of participants who do not feel they belong to the response sets provided by traditional demographic questionnaires. In this study, we created a novel demographic questionnaire to advance both inclusivity and accuracy in psychological research. Questionnaire development was based on an extensive literature search and through meetings with experts from the University of British Columbia (UBC) Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Lab EDI Committee, UBC Intersectional Perspectives in Psychology Journal Club, and faculty at UBC and the University of Calgary. Participants reported demographic information (e.g., gender, sex, race, ethnicity, and immigration status) and provided feedback on the survey via Likert-scale and open-response questions. The questionnaire was completed by 837 undergraduates from diverse socio-demographic backgrounds (represented by more than 13 racial and 15 gender identity categories). On average, our diverse sample had positive feedback towards the suggested questions (i.e., more than 50% strongly agreed that the majority of questions were accurate, representative, and appropriate).  A series of one-way ANOVAs indicated that the only group difference was for accuracy ratings of gender categories, in which some gender minorities (Agender, Transgender, and Two-Spirit) rated accuracy lower than did other individuals (F_{12, 816} = 4.85, p <.001). However, no other significant racial or gender group difference were found for accuracy (race: F_{12, 814} = 1.07, p =.38), representativeness (race: F_{12, 814} = 1.35, p =.19, gender: F_{12, 816} = 1.65, p =.07), and appropriateness (race: F_{12, 814} = 1.04, p =.41, gender: F_{12, 816}= 2.04, p =.02)_. Additionally, informal content analysis of open-ended questions also identified opportunities for further improvements (e.g., including more open-ended questions, definitions for categories, and a rationale for data collection). This mixed-methods research has the potential to increase minority population engagement with academic research and, as such, to improve the assessment of demographic information critical to effective research and intervention work.