Lesbian Gay and Bisexual Identity Scale (LGBIS)

Abstract

The Lesbian Gay and Bisexual Identity Scale (LGBIS) is a multidimensional psychometric instrument developed to assess the complex, multifaceted nature of sexual minority identity formation, self-appraisal, and psychological negotiation within predominantly heteronormative societal contexts. Originating from the pioneering work of psychometrics and counseling psychology researchers Jonathan J. Mohr and Ruth E. Fassinger (2000), and subsequently refined and extended into revised iterations by Mohr and Kendra (2011), the instrument conceptualizes sexual orientation identity not as a singular, static milestone, but as an ongoing configuration of cognitive, affective, and behavioral dimensions. The scale addresses both adaptive identity processes and distressing dimensions associated with minority stress. Across its standard 27-item inventory, evaluated on a 7-point Likert-type response format ranging from 1 (Disagree Strongly) to 7 (Agree Strongly), the LGBIS captures core dimensions including internalized homonegativity/binegativity, concealment motivation and need for privacy, acceptance concerns and sensitivity to social stigma, identity uncertainty and confusion, difficult developmental process, identity superiority, identity affirmation, and identity centrality. Extensive exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses demonstrate robust structural validity, showing distinct latent constructs across diverse cohorts of lesbian women, gay men, and bisexual individuals. Reliability evaluations consistently report high internal consistency across subscales (Cronbach’s alpha coefficients commonly spanning .70 to .90) and stable test-retest reliability across multi-week assessment intervals. The LGBIS serves as a premier research and clinical instrument in counseling psychology, public health, psychiatric epidemiology, and social psychology, offering granular insight into how minority identity dimensions correlate with subjective well-being, psychiatric symptomatology, relational health, and community connectedness.

Keywords

Lesbian Gay and Bisexual Identity Scale, LGBIS, sexual minority identity, internalized homonegativity, concealment motivation, identity uncertainty, minority stress theory, counseling psychology, psychometrics, scale validation

Authors

The primary developers and investigators responsible for the theoretical framework, operationalization, and empirical validation of the Lesbian Gay and Bisexual Identity Scale are:

• Jonathan J. Mohr, Ph.D. — Professor and Director of Clinical Training in the Department of Psychology at the University of Maryland, College Park. Dr. Mohr’s research specializes in the mental health, close relationships, and identity development of sexual and gender minorities, with specific expertise in minority stress, microaggressions, and quantitative measurement in counseling psychology.
• Ruth E. Fassinger, Ph.D. — Professor Emerita in the Department of Counseling, Higher Education, and Special Education at the University of Maryland, College Park. Dr. Fassinger is an internationally recognized scholar in feminist theory, vocational psychology, and lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) identity development models.
• Mark S. Kendra, Ph.D. — Co-investigator on the 2011/2012 revised and extended versions of the scale (LGBIS-R), contributing extensively to latent structural modeling, factor invariance testing, and bisexual inclusion paradigms.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Lesbian Gay and Bisexual Identity Scale (LGBIS) is to provide an empirically rigorous, multidimensional assessment of sexual orientation identity among individuals who identify as lesbian, gay, or bisexual. Historically, psychological research on sexual orientation suffered from reductionist operationalizations, treating sexual minority status as a dichotomous demographic category (heterosexual vs. non-heterosexual) or relying solely on global behavioral indices (e.g., Kinsey-scale ratings of sexual behavior or erotic attraction). While behavioral and attraction metrics document certain facets of sexuality, they fail to capture the deep psychological meaning, cognitive appraisals, emotional distress, self-concept integration, and socio-behavioral strategies that individuals formulate in response to their marginalized sexual status.

In response to these historical limitations, the LGBIS was designed to fulfill multiple theoretical, empirical, and clinical objectives:

• Deconstruction of Global Stigma: Rather than viewing internalized stigma as a monolithic entity, the LGBIS delineates specific, actionable components of minority distress, such as active desires to be heterosexual, chronic fear of negative evaluation, persistent confusion regarding one's desires, and deliberate behavioral concealment.
• Validation of Positive Identity Dimensions: Recognizing that sexual minority experience is not defined solely by trauma or oppression, the scale incorporates dimensions of affirmative self-regard, community pride, and identity integration.
• Clinical Assessment and Treatment Planning: In therapeutic, counseling, and psychiatric contexts, the LGBIS enables mental health professionals to identify specific psychological blockages. For instance, a clinician can differentiate between a client grappling with high Identity Uncertainty versus one experiencing elevated Concealment Motivation due to real-world environmental risks, thereby tailoring affirmative psychological interventions accordingly.
• Epidemiological and Health Disparities Research: Public health researchers utilize the LGBIS to explore empirical pathways connecting specific identity configurations to health disparities, such as substance abuse, depression, suicidal ideation, sexual risk behaviors, and cardiovascular reactivity linked to chronic vigilance.
• Bisexual Inclusivity and Specificity: Early sexual identity instruments focused almost exclusively on gay male or lesbian populations, often assuming developmental trajectories that erased or pathologized bisexuality. The LGBIS explicitly accounts for bisexual phenomenology, assessing identity fluidity, uncertainty, and biphobic pressures without invalidating non-monosexual identities.

Psychological Construct

The psychological construct assessed by the LGBIS is multidimensional sexual minority identity. Rather than measuring sexual orientation per se (which relates to physiological arousal, erotic fantasies, and biological drives), the scale quantifies the cognitive schemas, emotional valuations, coping mechanisms, and self-regulatory strategies that constitute an individual’s subjective identity as an LGB person. In the foundational work by Mohr and Fassinger (2000) and its subsequent iterations (Mohr & Kendra, 2011), this broad construct is operationalized into several distinct psychological sub-dimensions:

1. Internalized Homonegativity / Binegativity

This dimension reflects the internal adoption and self-directed application of negative societal attitudes, prejudices, and stereotypes toward non-heterosexual orientations. Individuals scoring high on this dimension experience personal devaluation, self-blame, and conscious or subconscious desires to renounce their sexual orientation in favor of normative heterosexuality. Exemplified by statements such as “I would rather be straight if I could” and “I wish I were heterosexual,” elevated levels capture severe cognitive-affective conflict and ego-dystonic self-appraisals.

2. Concealment Motivation and Privacy

This subscale measures the conscious, strategic impulse to withhold information about one's romantic and sexual relationships from others. Rooted in self-protection, social discretion, or psychological compartmentalization, concealment motivation captures deliberate behavioral vigilance. Exemplified by items such as “I prefer to keep my same-sex romantic relationships rather private” and “I keep careful control over who knows about my same-sex romantic relationships,” this construct distinguishes between healthy personal discretion and maladaptive, fear-driven closetedness.

3. Acceptance Concerns and Stigma Sensitivity

This dimension operationalizes interpersonal rejection sensitivity, evaluative anxiety, and hypervigilance regarding societal prejudice. Individuals exhibiting high acceptance concerns chronically ruminate over whether straight peers, family members, colleagues, and society at large are judging, condemning, or rejecting them. Manifested in items such as “I often wonder whether others judge me for my sexual orientation” and “I can't feel comfortable knowing that others judge me negatively for my sexual orientation,” this construct captures the psychological burden of anticipated discrimination.

4. Identity Uncertainty and Confusion

Identity uncertainty encompasses cognitive ambiguity, instability, and exploratory ambivalence concerning one's sexual identity label, erotic desires, and romantic orientation. Reflected in items such as “I'm not totally sure what my sexual orientation is,” “I keep changing my mind about my sexual orientation,” and “I get very confused when I try to figure out my sexual orientation,” this construct assesses an ongoing, unsettled state of self-definition that can produce acute existential and relational anxiety.

5. Difficult Process

This developmental dimension quantifies the perceived emotional toll, distress, duration, and friction associated with recognizing, accepting, and consolidating one’s sexual minority identity. Items like “Admitting to myself that I'm an LGB person has been a very painful process” and “Admitting to myself that I'm an LGB person has been a very slow process” gauge retrospective and concurrent perceptions of developmental trauma, internal resistance, and social conflict encountered during the coming-out journey.

6. Identity Superiority

Reflecting a compensatory defensive or politicized orientation, identity superiority assesses attitudes positing that sexual minorities are culturally, morally, or cognitively superior to heterosexuals, or viewing heterosexual life as fundamentally uninspired. Captured by items such as “I look down on heterosexuals” and “Straight people have boring lives compared with LGB people,” this dimension can reflect both early-stage reactionary defenses against oppression and counter-cultural minority chauvinism.

7. Identity Affirmation and Pride

This dimension represents positive psychological adjustment, community belonging, and self-acceptance. Characterized by items such as “I am glad to be an LGB person” and “I’m proud to be part of the LGB community,” it measures the integration of sexual minority status as a source of self-worth, joy, collective solidarity, and psychological resilience.

8. Identity Centrality

Integrated prominently in extended structural revisions (Mohr & Kendra, 2011), identity centrality assesses the degree to which an individual's sexual orientation forms a foundational, core anchor of their overall self-concept and global identity matrix, contrasting individuals for whom sexual minority status is peripheral versus those for whom it defines their fundamental worldview and interpersonal existence.

Theoretical Framework

The construction and validation of the LGBIS are firmly grounded in several converging psychological and sociological paradigms: Minority Stress Theory, Stage and Lifespan Models of Sexual Identity Development, and Social Identity and Stigma Theories.

Minority Stress Theory

The primary epidemiological and clinical framework underlying the scale is Ilan H. Meyer’s Minority Stress Model (Meyer, 1995, 2003). Meyer posits that sexual minorities encounter unique, chronic, socially based stressors over and above general everyday life stress. These stressors exist along a continuum from distal, objective environmental events (such as structural discrimination, violence, and institutional rejection) to proximal, subjective psychological processes. The LGBIS operationalizes these proximal minority stress processes: internalized homonegativity represents internalized social stigma; concealment motivation reflects the burden of active identity hiding; and acceptance concerns capture the heightened state of cognitive vigilance and expectation of rejection. By measuring these distinct proximal pathways, the LGBIS permits empirical testing of how societal heterosexism translates into internal psychological distress.

Models of Sexual Minority Identity Development

The LGBIS draws directly from early developmental stage formulations, notably Vivienne Cass’s (1979) Homosexual Identity Formation model, as well as Ruth Fassinger’s multidimensional models of lesbian and gay identity development (Fassinger & Miller, 1996; McCarn & Fassinger, 1996). Cass posited sequential transitions through Identity Confusion, Identity Comparison, Identity Tolerance, Identity Acceptance, Identity Pride, and Identity Synthesis. In Cass's conceptualization, individuals in early phases experience elevated confusion and alienation, often transitioning through a phase of pride and confrontation characterized by intense hostility toward the heterosexual majority (the theoretical root of Identity Superiority) before achieving balanced integration.

Fassinger elaborated on this by decoupling the Individual Sexual Identity process (internal awareness, self-exploration, and personal acceptance) from the Group Membership Identity process (awareness of oppression, relational disclosure, and community affiliation). This dual-trajectory framework highlighted that an individual could be deeply accepting of their private feelings while remaining highly closeted due to hostile external environments. The LGBIS structural subscales—separating private acceptance from public concealment and stigma concerns—directly reflect this theoretical nuance.

Social Identity Theory and Ego Identity Theories

The inclusion of identity affirmation, centrality, and superiority connects the LGBIS to Henri Tajfel and John Turner’s Social Identity Theory. When individuals identify with a socially devalued in-group, they deploy strategies to protect collective self-esteem, which may manifest as strong group pride, derogation of the dominant out-group (heterosexuals), or intense in-group identification. Furthermore, Erik Erikson’s and James Marcia’s ego-identity frameworks inform the scale's treatment of identity uncertainty, distinguishing between active, healthy exploratory moratorium and distress-inducing identity diffusion.

Validity

Psychometric evaluations of the LGBIS have produced comprehensive evidence across multiple validity domains, confirming that the scale accurately captures the multifaceted constructs it was designed to measure.

Construct and Structural Validity

Construct validity was established through sequential exploratory and confirmatory factor analytic procedures conducted across diverse regional, clinical, and community cohorts (Mohr & Fassinger, 2000; Mohr & Kendra, 2011). Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) robustly confirms that multi-factor models exhibit superior fit across comparative fit index (CFI > .92), Tucker-Lewis index (TLI > .90), and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA < .06) relative to unifactorial or undifferentiated models. Furthermore, measurement invariance evaluations across gender (men vs. women) and sexual orientation subgroups (monosexual lesbian/gay individuals vs. bisexual individuals) demonstrate metric and scalar equivalence across critical subscales.

Convergent and Discriminant Validity

Convergent validity is documented through consistent, statistically significant correlations with established external constructs:

• Internalized Homonegativity: Correlates strongly and positively with alternative measures of homophobia, such as the Internalized Homophobia Scale (IHS) and the Nungesser Homosexual Attitudes Inventory (NHAI) (r values typically ranging from .60 to .78).
• Acceptance Concerns and Concealment: Exhibit robust positive associations with generalized rejection sensitivity, social anxiety inventories, public self-consciousness, and outness measures (e.g., the Outness Inventory, where concealment motivation correlates inversely at r = -.55 to -.70).
• Identity Affirmation: Displays strong positive correlations with collective self-esteem, community engagement indices, and psychological flourishing metrics (r = .50 to .68).
• Discriminant Validity: Differentiates clearly from general neuroticism, global negative affectivity, and generic self-esteem scales. While minority stress dimensions correlate moderately with depressive symptoms, multi-trait multi-method (MTMM) analyses demonstrate that LGBIS subscales explain substantial incremental variance beyond generalized psychological distress.

Predictive and Criterion-Related Validity

The LGBIS demonstrates strong predictive utility across clinical and interpersonal outcomes. Research by Mohr and Fassinger (2006) revealed that sexual minority identity dimensions systematically predict romantic relationship quality, attachment security, and partner communication patterns in same-sex couples. Longitudinal investigations (e.g., Feldman, 2012) further confirm that elevated baseline scores on Internalized Homonegativity, Identity Uncertainty, and Acceptance Concerns prospectively predict subsequent depressive episodes, generalized anxiety symptoms, and reduced life satisfaction over 6- to 12-month follow-up periods.

Reliability

The reliability of the Lesbian Gay and Bisexual Identity Scale has been thoroughly evaluated across multiple large-scale investigations, consistently demonstrating solid internal consistency and temporal stability.

Internal Consistency

Across validation studies (Mohr & Fassinger, 2000; Mohr & Kendra, 2011), Cronbach’s alpha (α) and McDonald’s omega (ω) coefficients across the primary subscales show satisfactory to excellent homogeneity:

• Internalized Homonegativity / Binegativity: α = .78 to .85
• Concealment Motivation / Need for Privacy: α = .74 to .82
• Acceptance Concerns / Need for Acceptance: α = .73 to .81
• Identity Uncertainty: α = .79 to .86
• Difficult Process: α = .75 to .83
• Identity Superiority: α = .70 to .77
• Identity Affirmation: α = .82 to .89
• Identity Centrality: α = .78 to .84

These values comfortably exceed the conventional psychometric threshold of .70 recommended for exploratory research and clinical screening batteries.

Test-Retest Reliability

Temporal stability assessments over intervals ranging from two weeks to three months demonstrate substantial stability across identity dimensions in adult cohorts. Two-to-three-week test-retest coefficients reported by Mohr and colleagues yielded Pearson r correlations ranging between .72 and .88 across subscales. More stable, dispositional dimensions such as Identity Centrality and Identity Affirmation routinely display stability estimates above .80, whereas dynamic, transitional dimensions such as Identity Uncertainty appropriately show moderate fluctuations across longer longitudinal intervals, mirroring genuine developmental changes in sexual identity consolidation.

Factor Analysis

The empirical architecture of the LGBIS was delineated through rigorous psychometric modeling across successive developmental stages.

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

In the original item-generation and structural investigations by Mohr and Fassinger (2000), an extensive pool of potential items reflecting affective, cognitive, and interpersonal dimensions of gay and lesbian identity was administered to community and university samples. Principal Axis Factoring (PAF) and maximum likelihood extraction with oblique rotations (Promax and Oblimin) were employed, acknowledging that sexual identity dimensions are theoretically correlated rather than orthogonal. Scree plots, Kaiser-Guttman retention criteria (eigenvalues > 1.0), and parallel analyses converged to extract distinct latent dimensions accounting for over 52% of the cumulative variance. Items exhibiting primary factor pattern loadings ≥ .40 and minimal cross-loadings (≤ .25 on non-target factors) were retained.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) and Model Fit

Subsequent psychometric revision and extension to bisexual populations by Mohr and Kendra (2011) evaluated competitive structural models using Confirmatory Factor Analysis. A multi-factor first-order model specifying correlated latent constructs demonstrated outstanding goodness-of-fit indices:

• Goodness-of-Fit Indices: Comparative Fit Index (CFI) = .93 to .95; Non-Normed Fit Index / Tucker-Lewis Index (NNFI/TLI) = .92 to .94; Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) = .048 to .056 (90% CI [.042, .061]); Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) = .051.
• Model Comparisons: The multidimensional specification proved decisively superior to alternative hierarchical single second-order models or collapsed two-factor models (e.g., combining positive vs. negative identity factors), which yielded unacceptable fit statistics (e.g., CFI < .75, RMSEA > .10).
• Factor Loadings: Standardized factor loadings across items consistently range from .52 to .86, demonstrating robust shared variance between observed indicators and their corresponding latent constructs.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

The operational specifications of the Lesbian Gay and Bisexual Identity Scale are structured as follows:

• Instrument Name: Lesbian Gay and Bisexual Identity Scale (LGBIS)
• Alternative Titles: Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Identity Scale – Revised (LGBIS-R); Multidimensional Measure of Sexual Minority Identity
• Primary Authors: Jonathan J. Mohr, Ph.D., & Ruth E. Fassinger, Ph.D. (Extended with Mark S. Kendra, Ph.D.)
• Administration Format: Standardized self-report inventory; available in interactive digital assessment formats and pencil-and-paper questionnaires.
• Target Population: Individuals aged 18 and older who experience same-sex sexual or romantic attraction and/or identify as lesbian, gay, or bisexual. Adaptable for adolescent research cohorts under appropriate supervision.
• Total Item Count: 27 standardized items.
• Response Scale: 7-point Likert-type continuum anchored from:
• 1 = Disagree Strongly
• 2 = Disagree
• 3 = Disagree Somewhat
• 4 = Neither Agree nor Disagree / Neutral
• 5 = Agree Somewhat
• 6 = Agree
• 7 = Agree Strongly
• Subscales & Scoring Architecture: Subscale scores are calculated by computing the mean average of the constituent items for each dimension (after reverse-scoring designated items), yielding continuous subscale scores ranging from 1.0 to 7.0:
• Acceptance Concerns: Calculated as the average of items 5, 9, 16.
• Concealment Motivation: Calculated as the average of items 1, 4, 19.
• Identity Uncertainty: Calculated as the average of items 3, 8, 14, 22.
• Internalized Homonegativity: Calculated as the average of items 2, 20, 27.
• Difficult Process: Calculated as the average of items 12, 17, and reverse-scored item 23 (R).
• Identity Superiority: Calculated as the average of items 7, 10, 18.
• Identity Affirmation: Calculated as the average of items 6, 13, 26.
• Identity Centrality: Calculated as the average of reverse-scored item 11 (R), 15, 21, 24, 25.
• Reverse-Scored Items Formula: For 7-point Likert items marked as (R), reverse the raw score as follows: Reversed Score = 8 - Raw Score (e.g., 7 becomes 1, 6 becomes 2, etc.).
• Interpretation: There is no single combined aggregate score. Individual profiles across subscales are interpreted independently, providing a nuanced psychometric topography of minority stress vulnerabilities versus affirming identity integration.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The original Lesbian and Gay Identity Scale was introduced by Mohr and Fassinger in 2000, with major structural revisions and extended normative validation for bisexual populations published by Mohr and Kendra in 2011 and archived in open-access measurement repositories in 2012.

The LGBIS is in the public domain for non-commercial academic research, pedagogical purposes, and non-profit psychological evaluations. Researchers and qualified mental health clinicians may reproduce and administer the scale without licensing fees or written permission from the authors, provided that appropriate scholarly attribution is cited in all resulting manuscripts, dissertations, and conference presentations. The complete instrument and scoring guides have been cataloged in academic repositories, including the Columbia University Academic Commons and the Measurement Instrument Database for the Social Sciences (MIDSS). For commercial use, clinical electronic health record integration, or for-profit technological deployment, users must contact the primary author, Dr. Jonathan J. Mohr, at the University of Maryland, College Park, to obtain formal written licensing agreements.

References

• Cass, V. C. (1979). Homosexual identity formation: A theoretical model. Journal of Homosexuality, 4(3), 219–235. https://doi.org/10.1300/J082v04n03_01
• Fassinger, R. E., & Miller, B. A. (1996). Validation of an inclusive model of sexual minority identity formation on a sample of gay men. Journal of Homosexuality, 32(2), 53–78. https://doi.org/10.1300/J082v32n02_04
• Feldman, S. E. (2012). The impact of outness and lesbian, gay, and bisexual identity formation on mental health (Doctoral dissertation). Columbia University Academic Commons. http://academiccommons.columbia.edu/catalog/ac:151767
• McCarn, S. R., & Fassinger, R. E. (1996). Revisioning sexual minority identity formation: A new model of lesbian identity and its implications for counseling and research. The Counseling Psychologist, 24(3), 508–534. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000096243011
• Meyer, I. H. (1995). Minority stress and mental health in gay men. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 36(1), 38–56. https://doi.org/10.2307/2137286
• Meyer, I. H. (2003). Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations: Conceptual issues and research evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 129(5), 674–697. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.5.674
• Mohr, J., & Fassinger, R. (2000). Measuring dimensions of lesbian and gay male experience. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 33(2), 66–90. https://doi.org/10.1080/07481756.2000.12068999
• Mohr, J., & Fassinger, R. (2006). Sexual orientation identity and romantic relationship quality in same-sex couples. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(8), 1085–1099. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167206288277
• Mohr, J. J., & Kendra, M. S. (2011). Revision and extension of a multidimensional measure of sexual minority identity: The Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Identity Scale. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 58(2), 234–245. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022858
• Mohr, J. J., & Kendra, M. S. (2012). The Lesbian, Gay, & Bisexual Identity Scale (LGBIS). Measurement Instrument Database for the Social Sciences (MIDSS).

Items of the Scale