Content uploaded by Roberto L. Abreu
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Roberto L. Abreu on Apr 08, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by Roberto L. Abreu
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Roberto L. Abreu on Feb 17, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
Psychol Schs. 2022;59:115–151. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/pits © 2021 Wiley Periodicals LLC
|
115
Received: 19 March 2020
|
Revised: 7 February 2021
|
Accepted: 16 February 2021
DOI: 10.1002/pits.22508
RESEARCH ARTICLE
LGBTQ student experiences in schools from
2009–2019: A systematic review of study
characteristics and recommendations for
prevention and intervention in school
psychology journals
Roberto L. Abreu
1
|Lillian Audette
2
|Y'Londa Mitchell
2
|
Ina Simpson
2
|Jessica Ward
2
|Lindsay Ackerman
2
|
Kirsten A. Gonzalez
3
|Katherine Washington
2
1
Department of Psychology, University of
Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA
2
Department of Psychology, Tennessee State
University, Nashville, Tennessee, USA
3
Department of Psychology, University of
Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee, USA
Correspondence
Roberto L. Abreu, Department of Psychology,
University of Florida, 945 Center Dr,
Gainesville, FL 32603, USA.
Email: rabreu26@ufl.edu
Abstract
The present systematic review analyzes ways in which
empirical studies in the field of school psychology have
studied the experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans-
gender, and queer (LGBTQ) students in the past decade
(2009–2019). Results from 23 studies revealed an over‐
representation of quantitative studies conducted mostly in
the United States and an over‐representation of majority
White, cisgender, and high school participants across stu-
dies. Results also showed that studies in the last decade
have: (a) focused on exploring negative attitudes and be-
haviors toward LGBTQ students and the outcomes of these
attitudes and behaviors, (b) provided direction on how to
support LGBTQ students in schools, and (c) analyzed the
effects of bystanders and perpetrators on the well‐being of
LGBTQ students. In addition, this review revealed ways in
which studies in school psychology journals present pre-
vention and intervention practices for creating a safe en-
vironment for LGBTQ students, including: (a) policies that
focus on the inclusion and protection of LGBTQ students,
References marked with an asterisk (*) indicate studies included in the review.
(b) training for faculty and other school staff to promote
LGBTQ students' safety, and (c) curriculum and extra-
curricular activities that address LGBTQ issues. We pro-
vide recommendations for improving the experiences of
LGBTQ students in schools such as involving community
stakeholders in drafting affirming policies.
KEYWORDS
characteristics, LGBTQ students, prevention, recommendations,
intervention
1|INTRODUCTION
Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) students are harassed, bullied, and victimized at dis-
proportionate rates compared to their heterosexual and cisgender counterparts (Abreu & Kenny, 2018; Kosciw
et al., 2020; National Association of School Psychologists [NASP], 2018). It should be noted that in accordance with
NASP's (2017) position statement, the term LGBTQ in this paper is used to include “students who identify as
lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and/or questioning, and/or who express diverse sexual orientations, gender
identities, and/or gender expression”(p. 1). According to Kosciw et al. (2020), 81% of LGBTQ students have been
verbally harassed, 26% physically harassed, and 11% assaulted in the last year. Similarly, a 2016 report by the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention revealed that LGB youth in schools are forced to have sex and experience
sexual and physical dating violence at higher rates than their heterosexual counterparts (Kann et al., 2016). In
addition, research shows that transgender and gender diverse students are exposed to more negative school
experiences compared to their cisgender heterosexual and cisgender sexual minority counterparts (e.g., Day et al.,
2019). A hostile school climate has significant negative impact on LGBTQ students' mental health and academic
performance such as being more likely to miss school and less likely to want to pursue postsecondary education
(e.g., Collier et al., 2013; Kosciw et al., 2020). Given NASP's call for school psychologists to create and promote a
safe school environment where LGBTQ students can thrive, it is imperative to know the state of the current
research in school psychology pertaining to LGBTQ students.
1.1 |LGBTQ student experiences in schools
Research demonstrates that LGBTQ youth are exposed to more negative experiences in school compared to their
heterosexual and cisgender counterparts, including bullying and harassment (Abreu & Kenny, 2018; Kann et al.,
2016; Kosciw et al., 2020). For example, according to Kosciw et al. (2020), approximately 95% of LGBTQ students
have heard homophobic remarks and approximately 92% have heard negative comments about gender expression
in schools within the past year. Also, according to Kann et al. (2016) about 40% of LGB students consider suicide
and about 30% have attempted suicide in the last year. In addition, transgender and gender diverse students are
exposed to more negative school experiences compared to their cisgender heterosexual and cisgender sexual
minority counterparts. In a study of 398 transgender youth, Day et al. (2018) found that transgender youth were
more likely to experience victimization, bullying, and to report a more negative school climate.
LGBTQ students who have other marginalized identities (e.g., ethnic and racial minorities, non‐Christian, low
income and economically marginalized [LIEM]) may experience increased incidents of discrimination and
116
|
ABREU ET AL.
oppression in schools. For example, in a recent study of 1534 Black LGBTQ students, Truong et al. (2020) found
that 40% of participants experienced harassment or assault as a result of their sexual orientation and gender
identity and race, with gender diverse Black students experiencing greater levels of victimization than their
cisgender sexual minority counterparts. Unfortunately, research about the experiences of LGBTQ students who
share other marginalized identities is scant, and available results are mixed and do not provide a clear picture
about the experiences of these students (see review in Abreu & Kenny, 2018; Stoll & Block, 2015).
Research has documented the effects of the bystander effect, or witnessing others be bullied and victimized
while remaining idle (see review in Hymel et al., 2005), on LGBTQ youth who are bullied in school (e.g., Williams
et al., 2018). Bystanders' behavior can be characterized into three categories: victim support, passive avoidance, or
joining and contributing to the peer victimization (Williams et al., 2018). Bystanders (including school staff) often
passively avoid or join in the victimization of LGBTQ students (e.g., Salmivalli et al., 2011; Williams et al., 2018).
Some evidence‐based interventions for addressing bystander behavior includes computerized softwares that
provide scenarios and feedback to students, videotape reenactments, and peer‐group interventions (e.g., Frey et al.,
2009; Polanin et al., 2012). In addition, researchers have focused on multilayered, school‐wide interventions to
protect and affirm LGBTQ students in schools.
1.2 |School‐wide practices to protect and advocate for LGBTQ students
According to research, schools must implement school‐wide approaches designed to protect LGBTQ students,
including but not limited to inclusive policies, LGBTQ‐affirming curricula, and LGBTQ‐specific professional de-
velopment and training opportunities for teachers and school staff (e.g., Abreu et al., 2016). For example, research
suggests that schools must clearly define what constitutes LGBTQ‐specific bullying and create opportunities for
different stakeholders (e.g., teachers, school staff) to report LGBTQ bullying without facing negative consequences
(Kull et al., 2015). Also, bringing visibility to LGBTQ‐specific issues within classroom (e.g., assigning books with
LGBTQ characters, openly discussing LGBTQ historical figures) can help promote an inclusive environment for
LGBTQ students (Leonardi & Staley, 2015). In addition, research has found that when school staff engage in
professional development activities that include experiential activities such as hearing firsthand from LGBTQ
students about their experiences of discrimination and oppression (e.g., panel discussions), they are better able to
make an emotional connection with the struggles of these students and enact systemic change (Abreu et al., 2016;
Case & Meier, 2014). However, it is unclear how studies published in school psychology journals are addressing (if
at all) prevention and intervention practices for creating a safe environment for LGBTQ students.
1.3 |Demographics and lack of representation in school psychology
Scholars within the field of psychology have historically struggled to understand the importance of critically
examining demographics of their diverse samples to make sense of findings from their research studies. Histori-
cally, psychology as a discipline was established by White men who excluded minorities, immigrants, and women,
among other marginalized groups, and early studies focused on proving the superior intelligence of White people
(Strickland, 2000). Even today, most of the contemporary psychological research conducted is homogenous and
often focuses on people who reside in the United States (see Arnett, 2016) without considering the diversity of
people worldwide. Sue et al. (2011) expressed concerns about the ability to generalize research findings from one
group to another and suggested that research findings that apply to one group will not always be applicable to
another one. Lack of diversity in demographics has also been observed in school psychology research and training
programs (see Grapin et al., 2016; Malone & Ishmail, 2020). In fact, school psychology researchers have made a call
for the field to find ways to better report demographic information in study samples (see Grapin et al., 2016).
ABREU ET AL.
|
117
Little is presently known about how research studies that are published in school psychology journals report this
information. Thus, to understand how findings represent diverse groups of people, we must first have a thorough
understanding of who is being represented.
1.4 |School psychologists and other school personnel's role in advocating for LGBTQ
students
School psychologists are responsible for providing ethical and competent services to LGBTQ students (NASP,
2017;2018). In the United States, the NASP principles for professional ethics state that school psychologists, “…
take steps to foster a school climate that is supportive, inclusive, safe, accepting, and respectful toward all persons,
particularly those who have experienced marginalization in educational settings”(NASP, 2020; I.3.2, p. 44). Also,
school psychologists are charged with promoting and supporting healthy schools, family, and community en-
vironments (NASP, 2020). School psychologists are called to advocate and dismantle systems designed to oppress
LGBTQ students (NASP, 2014,2017). For instance, the position statement by NASP (2017) regarding Safe and
Supportive Schools for LGBTQ + Youth provides guidelines for individual, interpersonal, and systemic ways in which
school psychologists can support LGBTQ students. In their role as advocates, school psychologists can disrupt
oppressive systems by creating and implementing LGBTQ‐inclusive policies, starting and supporting Gay Straight
Alliances (GSAs), collaborating with stakeholders, and modeling acceptance, among other suggestions (e.g.,
Espelage et al., 2019; Murphy, 2012). Furthermore, school psychologists recognize the importance of inter-
sectionality and consider LGBTQ students' intersecting identities when providing counseling and engaging in
advocacy (NASP, 2017,2018).
Other school personnel (e.g., counselors, teachers) are also uniquely positioned to support LGBTQ students. In
fact, research shows that LGBTQ youth who identify at least one supportive adult report better school outcomes
(see review in Graybill & Proctor, 2016). For example, research shows that school counselors are crucial in
modeling inclusivity of transgender and gender diverse students for other school staff (e.g., Marx et al., 2017). Also,
studies have shown that counselors often intervene against abuse toward LGBTQ students (see a review in Abreu
et al., 2016). In addition, research with teachers show that when teachers create supportive environments, stu-
dents' educational outcomes improve significantly, not only for LGBTQ students but for all students (Southern
Poverty Law Center, 2013). Furthermore, teachers are more likely to support LGBTQ students when they work in
schools that have a GSA and antibullying policies (e.g., Swanson & Gettinger, 2016).
1.5 |Current study
The negative experiences of LGBTQ students in schools, the lack of diversity and representation in school psy-
chology research, and the role of school psychologists and other school personnel as agents of change and
advocates for LGBTQ students have been documented. However, journals in the field of school psychology have
yet to publish a review that systematically explores the state of research in the field regarding LGBTQ youth in
schools in the past decade. The purpose of the present systematic review was to uncover ways in which empirical
studies in the field of school psychology have studied the experiences of LGBTQ students in schools in the past
decade (2009–2019). Specifically, this paper aimed to answer the following research questions:
Research Question 1: What have been the studies' characteristics (e.g., topics, methodology)?
Research Question 2: What have been the sample characteristics across studies?
118
|
ABREU ET AL.
Research Question 3: How have researchers across studies captured the experiences of LGBTQ students?
Research Question 4: What are the recommendations across studies for intervention and prevention of
negative experiences of LGBTQ students in schools?
2|METHOD
This systematic review examined advances in research with LGBTQ students from 2009 to 2019 in the following
leading school psychology journals:
School Psychology Forum, Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, Contemporary School
Psychology, Journal of Applied School Psychology, Journal of School Psychology, School Psychology, Psy-
chology in the Schools, School Psychology International, Canadian Journal of School Psychology, School
Psychology Review, and International Journal of School and Educational Psychology.
We examined topics, research questions, participant demographics, patterns of reported experiences among
LGBTQ students in schools, patterns of reported consequences of oppression for LGBTQ students in schools, and
prevention and intervention recommendations across studies in these journals. We focused on all empirical studies
including qualitative, quantitative, and mixed‐method research studies in each journal. While studies that explore
the experiences of LGBTQ students in schools might be published in other journals, the decision to focus on school
psychology journals was due to the documented research and position statements by NASP about the importance
of school psychologists in creating affirming and safe spaces for LGBTQ students (McCabe et al., 2013; NASP,
2018) and the absence of a current systematic analysis of how school psychology journals have reported the
experiences of LGBTQ students across studies.
Inclusion and exclusion criteria were established first. We used a modified approach to Preferred Re-
porting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses (PRISMA; Moher et al., 2009;seeFigure1)to
identify articles. We first conducted a detailed search of the table of contents for each school psychology
journal identified above during the time frame of 2009–2019. Then, we conducted an online search of
databases with the full text of each journal available using keywords related to LGBTQ students. In addition
to this strategy, we used an ancestral approach (White, 1994)tomakesurewewerecapturingallstudies
that met inclusion criteria. This approach entailed reviewing the references list of each article that had been
identified for inclusion. Because some of the inclusion and exclusion criteria (see details below) were not
easily determined from the title and abstract of some articles, the coding team read all articles to make sure
criteria were met.
2.1 |Inclusion and exclusion criteria and article search
2.1.1 |Inclusion and exclusion criteria
Inclusion criteria were studies that: (a) were empirically based (i.e., qualitative, quantitative, and mixed‐method); (b)
focused on the experiences of LGBTQ students in schools; (c) were published in one of the 11 school psychology
journals identified; and (d) were published between 2009 and 2019. We focused only on the articles that docu-
mented the experiences of LGBTQ students, even if the participants were not LGBTQ students (e.g., heterosexual
and cisgender youth, school psychologists and other school personnel who provide services to LGBTQ youth).
ABREU ET AL.
|
119
Given the documented effects of heterosexual and cisgender youth as bystanders on LGBTQ youth and the
importance of school psychologists and other school personnel on the well‐being of LGBTQ students (as described
above), we included studies with samples of heterosexual and cisgender youth and school personnel as long as the
purpose of the study focused on the experiences of LGBTQ individuals (criteria b). That is, studies with hetero-
sexual and cisgender youth and teachers and/or school personnel that did not focus on the experiences of LGBTQ
youth were not included in this review. Exclusion criteria included articles that: (a) were not empirically based; (b)
did not focus on the experiences of LGBTQ students; (c) were not published in the 11 targeted school psychology
journals; or (d) were not published between 2009 and 2019.
2.1.2 |Electronic search strategy
To search for articles, authors two through six conducted electronic searches of the targeted journals individually.
Variations of keywords related to sexual and gender identity, students, and the field of school psychology were
used. Specifically, we used the following terms: (a) sexual and gender identity, LGBTQ, GLBTQ, LGB, GLB, queer,
gay, homosexuality, male homosexuality, bisexuality, lesbian, trans, transgender, sexual orientation, sexual identity,
sexual minority, gender identity, gender expression, gender diversity, gender expansive, genderqueer, and gender
fluid, (b) student, students, alumnus, alumni, former student, and k‐12 students, and (c) school psychology, school
psychologist(s), and psychology in school(s). The electronic search yielded 657 articles. When all duplicate articles
were removed, 158 articles remained. The articles were assigned to three pairs to review. Each member of the pair
independently reviewed each article by reading the entire article to make sure the study met the previously
identified criteria. The research team engaged in discussions to come to an agreement about which articles met
inclusion and exclusion criteria. The first author, a more experienced researcher who has extensive experience
conducting systematic literature reviews and research with LGBTQ individuals, discussed discrepancies with the
team to reach consensus.
657 articles identified through
electronic searching
37 articles identified through
visual search
178 records screened
Excluded After Screening (n = 155)
Not empirical (n = 37)
Not published in the target journals
(n = 101)
Before 2009 (n = 17)
Duplicates Excluded (n = 516)
23 studies included in
literature synthesis
FIGURE 1 Article identification process (PRISMA approach). PRISMA, Preferred Reporting Items for
Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses
120
|
ABREU ET AL.
2.1.3 |Visual search
Authors two through six reviewed the table of content of all articles published in the 11 targeted journals. The
team searched for titles that referenced sexual and gender diversity. The team systematically read the abstracts of
all identified articles and information about the content was carefully scrutinized for inclusion and exclusion
criteria. If the abstract mentioned any form of sexual and/or gender identity and there was indication that it was an
empirical study, the article was included in the final search pool. The visual search yielded 37 articles. The team
engaged in a discussion with the first author to make sure each article met the previously identified criteria and
should, therefore, be included. When all duplicate articles were removed, 23 articles remained.
2.2 |Researchers positionality
The coding team on this project consisted of six individuals, all of whom independently coded articles and parti-
cipated in discussions to reach consensus. The first author is an assistant professor who self‐identifies as a Latinx,
cisgender, gay, queer man. The second author self‐identifies as a White, cisgender, bisexual, female doctoral
candidate. The third and fourth authors self‐identify as African American, cisgender, heterosexual, female, doctoral
students. The fifth author self‐identifies as a White, cisgender, queer, female doctoral student, and the sixth author
self‐identifies as a White, cisgender, heterosexual, female doctoral student. The seventh author is an assistant
professor who self‐identifies as a Mexican‐American, cisgender, heterosexual woman. This author was involved in
the writing process given her expertize in LGBTQ research, with particular expertize in LGBTQ allyship, but was
not involved in the coding process. The last author identifies as an African American, cisgender, heterosexual,
female, undergraduate student.
2.3 |Coding and analysis
From an initial pool of 694 articles, 23 articles were identified for review following the PRISMA review process
(Moher et al., 2009). The first six authors read every article independently to identify topics, research questions,
participant demographics, patterns about LGBTQ experiences in schools, patterns about the consequences of
oppression on LGBTQ students, and patterns about prevention and intervention. All information was kept in an
Excel table. The six authors met biweekly over a period of 1 month for approximately 45–60 min to discuss the
systematic review and to develop consensual agreement.
To maximize accuracy and decrease errors in identifying study characteristics and demographic information
across articles, and to identify accurate patterns, two team members were responsible for breaking down each
study's characteristics and demographic categories (research questions one and two; authors two and three) and
two team members were responsible for finding patterns across studies about the experiences of LGBTQ students
in schools, consequences of oppression on LGBTQ students, and prevention and intervention recommendations
(research questions three and four; authors four and five). Both pairs engaged in coding and discussion about
discrepancies on their own. Once discrepancies were resolved, the first author served as the auditor and resolved
any discrepancies within each pair.
While the information for research questions one and two was easier to code from the established excel table
(e.g., studies explicitly reported participants' demographics), questions three and four required finding patterns in
the results and discussion sections of each study. To code for these research questions, the six phases of thematic
analysis by Braun and Clarke (2006) were used. Specifically, authors four and five began by familiarizing them-
selves with the data by independently reading through each articles' findings and discussion and then coming
together to discuss general reactions. Afterward, authors four and five independently generated initial codes by
ABREU ET AL.
|
121
grouping together similar ideas and findings. Afterward, the authors met to discuss their initial findings, reconcile
discrepancies, and edit themes as needed. The first author provided feedback to the fourth and fifth authors about
the final list of themes.
3|RESULTS
This section presents the results by research question. Studies varied widely in sample size, making it difficult to
make comparisons between samples and studies. To provide a general picture of the demographic make‐up across
studies, percentages of each demographic (e.g., race and ethnicity, gender) were calculated for each study, and then
average percentages across all studies were calculated. Averages were taken unweighted. This was done so that
the large surveys (i.e., five studies with more than 2000 participants) did not influence the portrayal of this review.
Two studies utilized the same samples of participants: Heck, Flentje, and colleagues (2011) and Heck, Lindquist,
and colleagues (2014). When percentages are reported, each participant is counted only once. When a number of
studies are reported, all studies are counted. See Table 1for detailed information about locations, foci, and data
collection strategies for research question one, and participant demographics for research question two. See
Tables 2and 3for detailed information about the themes endorsed by each study for research questions three
and four.
3.1 |Research Question 1
The first research question asked: “What have been the studies' characteristics (e.g., topics, methodology)?”
The studies included in this systematic review were conducted in the United States (n= 18), Canada (n=1),
Spain (n=1), Italy (n=1), Norway (n=1), and Portugal (n= 1). The number of articles per year varied, in-
cluding five articles in 2014, four articles in 2015, 2016, and 2019, three articles in 2018, one article in 2009,
2012, 2013, and no studies in 2010, 2011, and 2017. The focus of the reviewed articles spanned a variety of
topics, to include academic bullying and/or harassment (n=14),school climate (n= 11), mental health (n=5),
gay‐straight alliances (n= 5), advocacy strategies/social justice empowerment (n= 5), achievement (n=4),
school belonging and victimization (n= 4), absenteeism (n= 4), school policy (n= 3), LGBTQ identity dis-
closure (n= 3), social support (for LGBTQ individuals, n= 2), parental/caring adult support (n=2), and sex
education (n= 1). Most of the reviewed studies were quantitative (n= 17), followed by qualitative (n=4),
mixed methods (n= 1), and combined quantitative and intervention (n=1). The majority of the reviewed
studies utilized self‐report questionnaires (n= 18), followed by semi‐structured interviews (n=4), and both
intervention and self‐report questionnaires (n=1). See Table 1for detailed information about studies'
characteristics including location and topics.
3.2 |Research Question 2
3.2.1 |Sample size
The second research question asked: “What have been the sample characteristics across studies?”Studies sample
size (all participants) ranged between 14 and 113,148 participants, with a total of 159,269 participants in all
studies (M= 7239.5; Mdn = 472; SD = 23,788.5). See Table 1for detailed information about sample characteristics
across studies.
122
|
ABREU ET AL.
TABLE 1 Summary of Topics, data collection strategy, and participant demographics
Authors Title Method Research topic Data collection strategy Sample size Race and ethnicity
Antonio, and
Moleiro (2015)
Social and parental
support as
moderators of the
effects of
homophobic
bullying on
psychological
distress in youth
Quantitative Homophobic Bullying; Bullying;
Mental Health Outcomes;
Parental Support; Social
Support
Strategy: self‐report
questionnaire
Type of contact: online
Duration: not reported
Interviewers: n/a
n= 211 Portuguese
LGB youth and
young adults
Not reported
Bodnar and
Tornello (2019)
Does sex education help
everyone?: Sex
education exposure
and timing as
predictors of sexual
health among
lesbian, bisexual,
and heterosexual
young women.
Quantitative Sexual Minority Individuals, Sex
Education, Gender
Differences, Health
Outcomes
Strategy: self‐report
questionnaire
Type of contact: in‐person
and online
Duration: not reported
Interviewers: n/a
n= 5141 adolescent
and young adult
women
64.8% White/Caucasian, 22.3%
Black/African‐American,
12.8% other race, 0.1% not
reported
Burton et al. (2014) School absenteeism and
mental health
among sexual
minority youth and
heterosexual youth.
Quantitative Absenteeism, Mental Health,
Sexual Minority Individuals
Strategy: self‐report
questionnaire
Type of contact: in‐person
Duration: not reported
Interviewers: n/a
n=108 adolescents 59% African‐American,
38% White, 2% Other.
Additionally, 10% Hispanic.
Chong et al. (2019) Fostering youth self‐
efficacy to address
transgender and
racial diversity
issues: The role of
gay‐straight
alliances
Quantitative Gay‐Straight Alliance, Self‐
Efficacy, Race/Ethnic
Minority Individuals, Gender
Minority Individuals,
Socialization
Strategy: self‐report
questionnaires
Type of contact: in‐person
Duration: not reported
Interviewers: n/a
n= 295 youth in
Massachusetts
White 201 (68.1%), Biracial/
multiracial 32 (10.9%),
Latino/a 18 (6.1%), Asian/
Asian American 16 (5.4%),
Black or African American
16 (5.4%), Native
American 4 (1.4%), other
self‐reported racial/ethnic
identities 5 (1.7%), not
reported 3 (1.0%)
(Continues)
ABREU ET AL.
|
123
TABLE 1 (Continued)
Authors Title Method Research topic Data collection strategy Sample size Race and ethnicity
Day et al. (2019) Safe and supportive
schools for LGBTQ
youth: Addressing
educational
inequities through
inclusive policies
and practices
Quantitative Supportive school environments,
& academic achievement,
bullying/harrassment, school
policy, Sexual Minority
Individuals, Gender Minority
Individuals
Strategy: self‐report
questionnaires (1 for
students, 1 for principals)
Type of contact: not reported
Duration: not reported
Interviewers: n/a
n= 113,148 youth
from 263 middle
and high
schools
34% Multiracial, 29% White,
13% Asian, 4% Black/
African American, 3%
American Indian/Alaskan
Native, and 2% Native
Hawaiian/Pacific Islander
(14% did not report a
race). Additionally, 48% of
youth in the sample
identified as Hispanic.
Dragowski et
al. (2016)
Educator's reports on
incidence of
harrassment and
advocacy toward
LGBTQ students
Quantitative Advocacy; Homophobic Bullying;
Cissexism Bullying;
Bystanders
Strategy: self‐report
questionnaire
Type of contact: online, paper
Duration: not reported
Interviewers: n/a
n= 698 School
Psychologists,
School
Counselors, and
Teachers
83.5% White/Caucasian, 5.7%
African american/african
descent, 5.2% Hispanic/
Latino, 2.8% Multiracial,
1.9% Asian/Pacific
islander, 0.8% Native
American
Espelage et
al. (2015)
Clinical trial of second
step middle school
program: Impact on
bullying,
cyberbullying,
homophobic
teasing, and sexual
harassment
perpetration
Quantitative,
Intervention
Homophobic Bullying; School‐
Related Outcomes; Bullying
Strategy: intervention and
self‐report questionnaires
(longitudinal, 4 waves, 1
year apart)
Type of contact: in‐person
Duration: approximately
40 min
Interviewers: n/a
n= 3651 middle
school studentes
22% White, 31% African
American, 33% Hispanic,
11% "biracial and so forth,"
3% not identified
Goldberg et
al. (2019)
What is needed, what is
valued: Trans
student's
perspectives on
trans‐inclusive
policies and
practices in higher
education.
Mixed Methods Gender Minority Individuals;
Supporting LGBT Youth In
Schools; School‐Related
Outcomes
Strategy: survey
Type of contact: online
Duration: median and mode
39 min (M= 153 min,
SD = 762, range:
10–8685 min)
Interviewers: not relevant
n= 507 trans and
gender‐
nonconforming
undergraduate
and graduate
students
379 White only, 34 Latino/a/x/
Latin America only, 28
Asian only, 13 Black/
African American only, 12
Native American only, 5
Middle Eastern only, 36
Biracial/Multiracial
124
|
ABREU ET AL.
TABLE 1 (Continued)
Authors Title Method Research topic Data collection strategy Sample size Race and ethnicity
Graybill et al. (2009) Content‐specific
strategies to
advocate for
lesbian, gay,
bisexual, and
transgender youth:
An exploratory
study
Qualitative School Psychologists; Advocacy;
Supporting LGBT Youth In
Schools; Gay‐Straight
Alliances
Strategy: semi‐structured
interviews
Type of Contact: 6in‐person,
16 phone
Duration: approximately 1 h
Interviewers: not reported
n= 22 Gay‐Straight
Alliance Advisors
20 Caucasian, 1 Jewish, 1
Latino
Hazel et al. (2018) Gender and sexual
minority students'
engagement with
school: The impacts
of grades, feeling
unsafe, and gay/
straight alliances
Quantitative Gay‐Straight Alliances; Gender
Minority Individuals; Sexual
Minority Individuals; School‐
Based Outcomes;
Intersectionality
Strategy: self‐report
questionnaire
Type of contact: in‐person
Duration: approximately
20 min
Interviewers: n/a
n= 411 sexual and
gender minority
youth
246 White, 47 Latino/a, 45
Multiracial/Biracial, 10
Native American, Alaskan
Native, or Native
Hawaiian, 8 Black, 8 Asian
or Asian American, 21
Other, 25 Missing
Heck et al. (2011) Offsetting risks: High
school gay‐straight
alliances and
lesbian, gay,
bisexual, and
transgender (LGBT)
youth
Quantitative Gay‐Straight Alliances, Mental
Health, School belonging,
School victimization,
Outness, Substance Abuse,
Child Abuse, Sexual Minority
Individuals
Strategy: self‐report
questionnaires
Type of contact: online
Duration: not reported
Interviewers: n/a
n= 145 LGBT young
adults
102 (70.8%) White, 14 (9.7%)
African‐American, 8 (5.6%)
Asian American, 7 (4.9%)
Hispanic/Chicano, 1 (0.7%)
Indian/Native American,
12 (8.3%) Other, 1 (0.06%)
did not report
Heck et al. (2014) School belonging, school
victimization, and
the mental health of
LGBT young adults:
Implications for
school psychologists
Quantitative School belonging, School
victimization, Mental Health,
Sexual Minority Individuals,
Outness
Strategy: self‐report
questionnaires
Type of contact: online
Duration: not reported
Interviewers: n/a
n= 145 LGBT young
adults
102 (70.8%) White, 14 (9.7%)
African‐American, 8 (5.6%)
Asian American, 7 (4.9%)
Hispanic/Chicano, 1 (0.7%)
Indian/Native American,
12 (8.3%) Other, 1 (0.06%)
did not report
Kiperman et
al. (2014)
LGB youth's
perceptions of
social support:
Qualitative Social Support; Sexual Minority
Individuals, House's Model of
Social Support, Neufeld and
Harrison's (2002) Framework
Strategy: semi‐structured
interviews
Type of contact: in‐person
Duration: 30 ‐80 min
n= 18 LGB youth 10 White, 5 Black, 3
Multiracial
(Continues)
ABREU ET AL.
|
125
TABLE 1 (Continued)
Authors Title Method Research topic Data collection strategy Sample size Race and ethnicity
Implications for
school psychologists
Interviewers: not reported
Konishi and
Saewyc (2014)
Still a target: Sexual
diversity and power
of caring.
Quantitative Victimization, Sexual Minority
Individuals, School‐Related
Outcomes, Social (Adult)
Support
Strategy: self‐report
questionnaires
Type of contact: in‐person
Duration: not reported
Interviewers: n/a
n= 27,245 Canadian
middle and high
school students
14,643 White, 557 African,
8,373 Asian/Pacific
Islander/Australian, 503
Middle Eastern, 929 Latin,
2,047 First Nations, 299
Other, 2,449 Don't Know
Orue and
Calvete (2018)
Homophobic bullying in
schools: The role of
homophobic
attitudes and
exposure to
homophobic
aggression
Quantitative Homophobic bullying,
Homophobic attitudes;
Familial Homophobia;
Strategy: self‐report
questionnaires
(longitudinal, 2 waves, 2
years apart)
Type of contact: in‐person
Duration: not reported
Interviewers: n/a
n= 791 Spanish high
school students
87.3% Spanish, 9.0% South
American, 3.7% "from
different countries"
Poteat and
Vecho (2016)
Who intervenes against
homophobic
behavior?
Attributes that
distinguish active
bystanders.
Quantitative Strategy: survey
Type of Contact: in‐person
(completed surveys on
computers)
Duration: not reported
Interviewers: n/a
n= 722 students at a
New England
high school
(grades 9
through 12)
630 (87.3%) White, 25 (3.5%)
Asian/Asian‐American, 20
(2.8%) biracial or
multiracial, 11 (1.5%)
Hispanic/Latino, 10 (1.4%)
African American/Black, 2
(0.3%) Arab/Middle
Eastern, 22 (3.0%) Other
Identities, 2 (0.3%) did
not give
Poteat et al. (2015) The role of peers in
predicting students'
homophobic
behavior: Effects of
peer aggression,
prejudice, and
sexual orientation
identity importance
Quantitative Bullying, Homophobic Bullying;
Sexual Orientation Identity
Development; Socialization
Strategy: self‐report
questionnaires
Type of contact: in‐person
Duration: not reported
Interviewers: n/a
n= 437 high school
students
89% White, 3% Hispanic/
Latino, 2% Asian American,
2% African American, 2%
biracial or multiracial, 1%
self‐reported other racial
or ethnic identities; 1% did
not report
126
|
ABREU ET AL.
TABLE 1 (Continued)
Authors Title Method Research topic Data collection strategy Sample size Race and ethnicity
Prati (2012) A social cognitive
learning theory of
homophobic
aggression among
adolescents
Quantitative Bullying, Homophobic Bullying;
Socialization
Strategy: self‐report
questionnaires
Type of contact: in‐person
Duration: not reported
Interviewers: n/a
n= 863 Italian high
school students
Not reported
Quasha et al. (2014) A program review of
middle school gay‐
straight
alliance club
Quantitative Strategy: survey
Type of contact: in‐person
Duration: n/a
Interviewers: n/a
n= 136 on‐site staff
members at 2
middle schools in
northeastern
United States
118 White/Caucasian, 2 Asian/
Native Hawaiian/Pacific
Islander, 5 Hispanic/Latino,
6 Black/African American,
3 Other, 2 participants'
race/ethnicities not
reported
Russell et al. (2016) Are school policies
focused on sexual
orientation and
gender identity
associated with less
bullying? Teachers'
perspectives.
Quantitative Strategy: survey
Type of contact: not reported
Duration: not reported
Interviewers: n/a
n= 3756 teachers in
California
74% White, 11% Hispanic or
Latino/a, 15% Not
Reported
Slaatten et al. (2015) Correlates of gay‐
related name‐calling
in schools
Quantitative Homophobic Bullying; Bullying;
Socialization; Social Support;
Advocacy
Strategy: self‐report
questionnaire
Type of contact: in‐person
Duration: not reported
Interviewers: n/a
n= 921 ninth‐grade
Norwegian
students
Not reported
Varjas et al. (2016) Disclosure experiences
of urban, ethnically
diverse LGBT high
school students:
Implications for
school personnel
Qualitative LGBT identity disclosure,
Intersectionality, Race/Ethnic
Minority Individuals, Sexual
Minority Individual, Gender
Minority Individuals
Strategy: semi‐structured
interviews
Type of contact: in‐person
Duration: 30–120 min
Interviewers: 4 interviewers
n= 29 adolescents 42% Caucasian, 35% Black,
19% Multiracial, 4% Asian
Williams et
al. (2018)
High school bystanders
motivation and
Mixed Methods Bystanders; Sexual Minority
Individuals; Gender Minority
n= 14 high school
students
(Continues)
ABREU ET AL.
|
127
TABLE 1 (Continued)
Authors Title Method Research topic Data collection strategy Sample size Race and ethnicity
response during
bias‐based bullying
Individuals; Homophobic
Bullying; Cissexism Bullying
Strategy: semi‐structured
interviews and follow‐up
interviews
Type of contact: In‐Person
Duration: 60 min
Interviewers: n/a
5 (36%) White; 1(7%) African
American; 8(57%) Latino/
Hispanic
Authors Sexual orientation Gender diversity Age Education level SES Location
Antonio, and
Moleiro (2015)
Homosexual (Gay or Lesbian):
30.8% (n= 65),
Heterosexual: 29.9% (n= 63),
Bisexual: 25.1% (n= 53),
No response/“Declared doubts
as to their sexual
orientation”: 14.6% (n= 30)
Sex: 100%
reported (n= 211)
Female: n= 116 (55%),
Male: n= 95 (45%)
Gender Diversity:
reported
separately (n=0)
M=17
SD =.67
Range = 12–20
“Between the seventh
and 12th grades”the
largest cohort of
whom were in the
12th grade (47.4%)
Not reported From “all regions
of Portugal,”
36% from
Lisbon
Bodnar and
Tornello (2019)
Heterosexual/Straight: n= 4687
Bisexual: n= 372
Lesbian/Homosexual/
Gay: n=82
Sex: inclusion criteria
reported as “women”
M=17.56
SD =1.68
Range = 15–20
Not reported Not reported “Representative
survey of U.S.
Citizens”
Burton et al. (2014)Sexual Minority Youth:
26% (n= 28)
Heterosexual: 74% (n= 80)
Sex: 100% reported
Male: n= 31,
Female: n=77
M= 16.26
SD =0.92
Range = 14–19
Not reported Average parent
education
level
reported was
high school
graduate
with some
college
education
(range: no
high school
to graduate
education)
Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania
and
Columbus,
Ohio
Chong et al. (2019)Heterosexual 29.5% (n= 87), M= 16.07 4 (1.4%) grade 8, Not reported Massachusetts
128
|
ABREU ET AL.
TABLE 1 (Continued)
Authors Sexual orientation Gender diversity Age Education level SES Location
Lesbian or gay 24.8% (n= 73),
Bisexual 20.0% (n= 59),
Questioning 16.1% (n= 18),
Other self‐reported sexual
orientations 18.6% (n= 55),
Not reported 1.0% (n=3)
Sex: 100%
reported (n= 295)
Cisgender female:
n= 200 (67.8%)
Cisgender male:
n= 66 (22.4%)
Gender‐queer:
n= 9 (3.0%)
Transgender:
n= 11 (3.7%)
Other Gender identities:
n= 7 (2.4%)
Not reported: n= 2 (.7%)
SD =1.14
Range = not
reported
47 (15.9%) grade 9,
90 (30.5%) grade 10,
95 (32.2%) grade 11,
55 (18.6%) grade 12,
4 (1.4%) not reported
Day et al. (2019)LGB Youth: n= 6,276
Heterosexual youth: n= 86,354
Unsure youth: n= 6981
Unknown youth (unaccounted
for in percentages reported):
n= 13,537
Sex: 100% reported
(n= 113,148)
Male: 49.49% n= 55,155,
Female: 50.51%
n= 56,629
Gender Diversity: 1.21%
(n= 1364)
FtM Transgender: 61.76%,
MtF
Transgender: 38.24%
M= 14.53
SD =1.73
Range = 10–18
Middle School and High
School (grades 7, 9,
and 11); all public
schools
Free and
reduced‐
price meals:
M= 42%,
SD = 25%,
range:
0%–96%
USA; California
Dragowski et
al. (2016)
Heterosexual: 95.2% (n= 922),
Homosexual: 3.1% (n= 30),
Bisexual: 1.4% (n= 14),
Unsure: 0.3% (n=3)
Sex: 84.9%
reported (n= 822)
Female: 84.9%
13.8% 20–29,
27.6% 30–39,
22.5% 40–49,
28.2% 50–59,
7.9% 60+
Not reported Not reported South (34.4%),
Northeast
(23.5%), West
(22.0%),
Midwest
(20.1%)
Espelage et
al. (2015)
Not reported Sex: 100% reported
(n = 3651)
Boys: n= 1899 (52%)
M=11
SD =not reported
Longitudinal, started with
students in grade 6
All 36 schools
provided
free/reduced
Illinois and Kansas
(Continues)
ABREU ET AL.
|
129
TABLE 1 (Continued)
Authors Sexual orientation Gender diversity Age Education level SES Location
Girls: n= 1752 (48%) Range = not
reported
and continued into
grades 7 and 8
lunch
(proportion
M= .74,
SD = .22)
Goldberg et
al. (2019)
Queer n= 152,
Pansexual n= 81,
Bisexual n= 58,
Asexual n= 53,
Gay n= 33,
Lesbian n= 24,
Questioning n= 17,
Heterosexual n= 17,
Demisexual n= 12,
Something else (e.g., I identify as
multiple orientation; sexual
orientation shifts depending
on context) n=60
Sex: 232% reported
(n= 1176)
Transgender/trans
n= 210, Nonbinary
n= 199, Genderqueer
n= 136, Trans man
n= 106, Gender
nonconforming n= 91,
Gender fluid n= 89,
Agender n= 85,
Masculine of center
n= 64, Androgynous
n= 58, Questioning
n= 50, Trans woman
n= 36, Demigender
n= 24, Feminine of
center n= 24,
Bigender n= 7, Other
identities (man,
woman, mtf, demigirl,
transsexual, neutrois,
two spirit, third
gender) n=21
M=22.44
SD = 5.58
68 (13.4%) First‐Year
College
98 (19.3%) Second‐
Year College
74 (14.6%) Third‐Year
College
70 (13.8%) Fourth‐
Year College
32 (6.3%) Fifth‐Year
College and Above
38 (7.5%) Recent
College Graduate
(in the past year)
127 (25.1%) Current
Graduate Student
Not reported United States:
Graybill et al. (2009)Straight: n= 11,
Lesbian: n=4,
Gay: n=4,
Bisexual: n=2,
Queer/Straight: n=1
Sex: 0% reported (n= 22) M=39
SD =9
Range = 26–55
Masters (n= 16),
Some Graduate
Training (n= 2),
Bachelors (n=4)
Not reported Midwest:
27.4%
(n= 139)
Hazel et al. (2018)Gay: n= 117, Median = 16 Not reported Poverty (Free &
Reduced
130
|
ABREU ET AL.
TABLE 1 (Continued)
Authors Sexual orientation Gender diversity Age Education level SES Location
Lesbian: n= 85,
Bisexual: n= 135,
Queer/Not Sure/
Questioning: n= 47,
Missing: n=15
Sex: 107.8%
reported (n= 443)
Male: n= 174, Female:
n= 206, Transgender/
Gender variant/
Gender Queer: n= 36,
Not Reported: n=27
Range = 12–21 Lunches):
n= 154, Not
In
Poverty:
n= 257
South:
23.5%
(n= 119)
Heck et al. (2011)Bisexual: 37.2% (n= 54),
Gay/Lesbian 57.2% (n= 83),
Other 5.6% (n=8)
Sex: 100%
reported (n= 145)
Male: 33.1%, n= 48,
Female: 60.0%, n=87
Trans/Other: 6.9% n=10
M=19.17
SD =0.76
Range = 18–20
25 (17.2%) 12 years of
education
53 (36.6%) 13 years of
education
49 (33.8%) 14 years of
education
18 (12.4%) 15 years of
education
Not reported East Coast:
22.3%
(n= 113)
Heck et al. (2014)Bisexual: 37.2% (n= 54),
Gay/Lesbian 57.2% (n= 83),
Other 5.6% (n=8)
Sex: 100%
reported (n= 145)
Male: 33.1%, n= 48,
Female: 60.0%, n=87
Trans/Other: 6.9% n=10
M=19.17
SD =0.76
Range = 18–20
25 (17.2%) 12 years of
education
53 (36.6%) 13 years of
education
49 (33.8%) 14 years of
education
18 (12.4%) 15 years of
education
Not reported West Coast:
21.9%
(n= 111)
Kiperman et
al. (2014)
Gay: n=9,
Lesbian: n=5,
Bisexual: n=3,
Not reported: n=1
Sex: 100%
reported (n = 18)
Male: n= 13, Female: n=5
Gender Diversity:
reported
separately (n=0)
M= 17.10
SD =0.90
Range = 15–18
1 9th Grade,
2 10th grade,
9 11th grade,
6 12th grade
Not reported Non‐U.S.:
4.9% (n= 25)
Konishi and
Saewyc (2014)
100% Heterosexual: n=24,539,
Mostly Heterosexual: n=1894,
Sex: 100% reported
(n= 27,245)
Not reported Grades 7–12 Not reported Georgia (n= 10),
Other states
(Continues)
ABREU ET AL.
|
131
TABLE 1 (Continued)
Authors Sexual orientation Gender diversity Age Education level SES Location
Gay: n=118,
Lesbian: n=71,
Bisexual: n=623
Male: n= 13,131, Female:
n= 14,114
(9 listed,
n= 12)
Orue and
Calvete (2018)
Not reported Sex: 100%
reported (n= 791)
Boys: n= 446
Girls: n= 345
M= 13.96
SD =1.18
Range = 12–17
Not reported 8.1% low income,
12.3%
medium‐low
income,
36.1%
medium
income,
28.1%
medium‐high
income,
15.4% high
income
American West
Poteat and
Vecho (2016)
Heterosexual 86.4% (n= 624),
Bisexual 5.1% (n= 37),
Questioning 2.4% (n= 17),
Gay or lesbian 0.7% (n= 5),
Other nonheterosexual
identities 4.0% (n= 29; all
reflected nonheterosexual
identity in write‐in
response),
Not reported 1.4% (n= 10)
Sex: 100%
reported, n= 722
Girls (n= 401; 55.5%),
Boys (n= 319; 44.2%),
Did not report their
gender (n=2)
M=16.10
SD =1.23
Range = 14–19
178 (24.7%) Grade 9
196 (27.1%) Grade 10
188 (26.0%) Grade 11
159 (22.0%) Grade 12
1 (<0.01%) not
reported
Not reported Not reported
Poteat et al. (2015)Heterosexual 93% (n= 406),
Bisexual 2% (n= 9),
Questioning 2% (n=9),
Gay or lesbian 1% (n= 4),
Self‐reported other sexual
orientation identities
1% (n= 4);
Did not report 1% (n=4)
Sex: 100%
reported (n= 618)
Boys: n= 170 (39%)
Girls: n= 267 (61%)
M= 15.72
SD =1.18
Range =14–18
Grades 9–12 Not reported Not reported
132
|
ABREU ET AL.
TABLE 1 (Continued)
Authors Sexual orientation Gender diversity Age Education level SES Location
Prati (2012) Not reported Sex: 100%
reported (n= 863)
Boys: n= 326 (39.3%)
Girls: n= 537 (60.7%)
M= 17.26
SD =1.59
Range = 15–22
203 (23.5%) 9th grade,
178 (20.6%) 10th
grade,
194 (22.5%) 11th
grade,
158 (18.3%) 12th
grade,
130 (15.1%) 13th
grade
Not reported Urban,
Metropolitan
Area in the
Southeastern
United States
Quasha et al. (2014)Heterosexual n= 133,
Homosexual n=1,
Bisexual n=1,
Unsure n=0,
Not reported n=1
Sex: 88.2%
reported (n= 120)
Female n= 103, Male
n= 17, Transgender
n= 0, Not
Reported n=16
Gender Diversity:
reported with
sex (n=0)
23.5% 20–35
40.4% 36–50
34.6% 51–65+
Not reported Not reported British Columbia
Russell et al. (2016) Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported “In 53% of the
schools,
more than
50% of
students are
eligible for
the free and
reduced
meal
program”
Bizkaia (Province),
Spain
Slaatten et al. (2015) Not reported Sex: 48.9%
reported (n= 450)
Boys: n= 450 (48.9%)
“either 14 or 15
years old”
all 9th grade
students (n= 921)
Not Reported “New England high
school”
(Continues)
ABREU ET AL.
|
133
TABLE 1 (Continued)
Authors Sexual orientation Gender diversity Age Education level SES Location
Varjas et al. (2016)Same‐Sex Attraction:
85% (n= 25)
Both Sex Attraction 12% (n=3)
Heterosexual: 3% (n=1)
Sex: 100%
reported (n= 29)
Male: n= 14 (50%),
Female: n= 13 (46%)
FtM transgender:
n= 1 (4%)
M= 16.96
SD =1.06
Range = 15–18
12% 9th Grade, 31% 10th
Grade, 23% 11th
Grade, 30.8% 12th
Grade
Not reported Not reported
Williams et
al. (2018)
Heterosexual: 14% (n= 2),
Gay/Lesbian: 7% (n= 1),
Not reported: 79% (n= 11)
Sex/Gender Combined:
100%
reported (n= 14)
Cisgender female:
n= 1 (7%)
Male: n= 6 (43%)
Female: n= 7 (50%)
M=15.57
SD =1.40
Range = 14–18
3 (21%) grade 9,
5 (36%) grade 10,
3 (21%) grade 11,
3 (21%) grade 12,
Not reported Italy
134
|
ABREU ET AL.
TABLE 2 Summary of themes bout LGBTQ student's experiences in schools (Research Question 3)
Negative and oppressive
attitudes and behaviors
toward LGBTQ students and
negative outcomes
LGBTQ‐specific
advocacy and
support in schools
LGBTQ victimization
and bystanders and
perpetrators
António & Moleiro (2015). Social and
parental support as moderators of
the effects of homophobic bullying
on psychological distress in youth.
✓✓✓
Bodnar and Tornello (2019). Does sex
education help everyone?: Sex
education exposure and timing as
predictors of sexual health among
lesbian, bisexual, and heterosexual
young women.
Burton et al. (2014). School
absenteeism and mental health
among sexual minority youth and
heterosexual youth.
✓
Chong et al. (2019). Fostering youth
self‐efficacy to address
transgender and racial diversity
issues: The role of gay‐straight
alliances.
✓
Day et al. (2019). Safe and supportive
schools for LGBTQ youth:
Addressing educational inequities
through inclusive policies and
practices.
✓
Dragowski et al. (2016). Educator's
reports on incidence of
harrassment and advocacy toward
LGBTQ students.
✓
Espelage et al. (2015). Clinical trial of
second step middle school
program: Impact on bullying,
cyberbullying, homophobic teasing,
and sexual harassment
perpetration.
✓
Goldberg et al. (2019). What is
needed, what is valued: Trans
student's perspectives on trans‐
inclusive policies and practices in
higher education.
✓
Graybill et al. (2009). Content‐specific
strategies to advocate for lesbian,
gay, bisexual, and transgender
youth: An exploratory study.
✓✓
(Continues)
ABREU ET AL.
|
135
TABLE 2 (Continued)
Negative and oppressive
attitudes and behaviors
toward LGBTQ students and
negative outcomes
LGBTQ‐specific
advocacy and
support in schools
LGBTQ victimization
and bystanders and
perpetrators
Hazel et al. (2019). Gender and sexual
minority students' engagement
with school: The impacts of grades,
feeling unsafe, and gay/straight
alliances.
✓✓
Heck et al. (2011). Offsetting risks:
High school gay‐straight alliances
and lesbian, gay, bisexual, and
transgender (LGBT) youth.
✓✓
Heck et al. (2014). School belonging,
school victimization, and the
mental health of LGBT young
adults: Implications for school
psychologists.
✓
Kiperman et al. (2014). LGB youth's
perceptions of social support:
Implications for school
psychologists.
Konishi and Saewyc (2014). Still a
target: Sexual diversity and power
of caring.
✓✓
Orue and Calvete (2018). Homophobic
bullying in schools: The role of
homophobic attitudes and
exposure to homophobic
aggression.
✓
Poteat and Vecho (2016). Who
intervenes against homophobic
behavior? Attributes that
distinguish active bystanders.
✓
Poteat et al. (2015). The role of peers
in predicting students' homophobic
behavior: Effects of peer
aggression, prejudice, and sexual
orientation identity importance.
✓✓✓
Prati (2012). A social cognitive
learning theory of homophobic
aggression among adolescents.
✓✓
Quasha et al. (2014). A program
review of middle school gay‐
straight alliance club.
✓
136
|
ABREU ET AL.
3.2.2 |Race and ethnicity
A few studies (n= 3) did not report racial/ethnic makeup of their samples. Therefore each study's reported
percentage for race/ethnicity has a weight of 1/19. The sum of reported participants for race/ethnicity was greater
than the total reported number of participants for Konishi and Saewyc (2014), Burton et al. (2014), and Day et al.
(2019). Therefore, the totals presented in this section are more than 100%. White participants had the highest
average percentage and highest median percentage (M= 59.5%; Mdn = 64.8%; range: 0.0%–95.5%; SD = 25.3%),
followed by Latinx, Black/African American/African, Asian American/Asian/Pacific Islander/Hawaiian, Multiracial,
Other, Did Not Give/Not Reported, Multiracial/Biracial (combined), Native American, and Middle Eastern. See
Figure 2for a breakdown of the percentages reported across studies for race/ethnicity.
3.2.3 |Sexual orientation, sex, and gender diversity
The majority of studies in the present analysis (n= 15) reported having both sexual minorities and heterosexual
participants in their samples, followed by studies that did not report their participants' sexual orientation (n= 5),
and then studies that reported only sexual minority participants (n= 3; Heck et al., 2011;2014; Kiperman et al.,
2014). Regarding gender diverse participants, most studies (n=14) reported only cisgender participants in their
samples, followed by seven that reported having both gender diverse and cisgender participants in their samples.
Two studies did not report the gender identities of their samples (Graybill et al., 2009; Russell et al., 2016), and no
studies reported only gender diverse participants in their samples. Among the studies that reported having only
cisgender participants in their samples, four studies made an effort to note that they included transgender as an
option in their demographic materials, but that no participants indicated they were transgender (António &
Moleiro, 2015; Kiperman et al., 2014; Quasha et al., 2014; Williams et al., 2018).
TABLE 2 (Continued)
Negative and oppressive
attitudes and behaviors
toward LGBTQ students and
negative outcomes
LGBTQ‐specific
advocacy and
support in schools
LGBTQ victimization
and bystanders and
perpetrators
Russell et al. (2016). Are school
policies focused on sexual
orientation and gender identity
associated with less bullying?
Teachers' perspectives.
✓
Slaatten et al. (2015). Correlates of
gay‐related name‐calling in
schools.
✓
Varjas et al. (2016). Disclosure
experiences of urban, ethnically
diverse LGBT high school students:
Implications for school personnel.
✓
Williams et al. (2018). High school
bystanders motivation and
response during bias‐based
bullying.
✓
Abbreviation: LGBTQ, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer.
ABREU ET AL.
|
137
TABLE 3 Summary of themes about appropriate prevention and intervention practices (Research Question 4)
Policies that focus on
the inclusion and
protection of LGBTQ
Students
Faculty and school staff
training and intervention
to promote LGBTQ
Students' safety
Curriculum and
extracurricular activities
to address LGBTQ issues
António and Moleiro (2015). Social
and parental support as
moderators of the effects of
homophobic bullying on
psychological distress in youth.
✓✓
Bodnar and Tornello (2019). Does
sex education help everyone?:
Sex education exposure and
timing as predictors of sexual
health among lesbian, bisexual,
and heterosexual young
women.
✓✓
Burton et al. (2014). School
absenteeism and mental health
among sexual minority youth
and heterosexual youth.
✓✓
Chong et al. (2019). Fostering
youth self‐efficacy to address
transgender and racial diversity
issues: The role of gay‐straight
alliances.
✓
Day et al. (2019). Safe and
supportive schools for LGBTQ
youth: Addressing educational
inequities through inclusive
policies and practices.
✓✓ ✓
Dragowski et al. (2016). Educator's
reports on incidence of
harrassment and advocacy
toward LGBTQ students.
✓✓
Espelage et al. (2015). Clinical trial
of second step middle school
program: Impact on bullying,
cyberbullying, homophobic
teasing, and sexual harassment
perpetration.
✓✓ ✓
Goldberg et al. (2019). What is
needed, what is valued: Trans
student's perspectives on trans‐
inclusive policies and practices
in higher education.
✓✓ ✓
Graybill et al. (2009). Content‐
specific strategies to advocate
for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and
transgender youth: An
exploratory study.
✓✓
138
|
ABREU ET AL.
TABLE 3 (Continued)
Policies that focus on
the inclusion and
protection of LGBTQ
Students
Faculty and school staff
training and intervention
to promote LGBTQ
Students' safety
Curriculum and
extracurricular activities
to address LGBTQ issues
Hazel et al. (2019). Gender and
sexual minority students'
engagement with school: The
impacts of grades, feeling
unsafe, and gay/straight
alliances.
✓✓
Heck et al. (2011). Offsetting risks:
High school gay‐straight
alliances and lesbian, gay,
bisexual, and transgender
(LGBT) youth.
✓✓ ✓
Heck et al. (2014). School
belonging, school victimization,
and the mental health of LGBT
young adults: Implications for
school psychologists.
✓✓ ✓
Kiperman et al. (2014). LGB youth's
perceptions of social support:
Implications for school
psychologists.
✓✓ ✓
Konishi and Saewyc (2014). Still a
target: Sexual diversity and
power of caring.
✓✓
Orue and Calvete (2018).
Homophobic bullying in
schools: The role of
homophobic attitudes and
exposure to homophobic
aggression.
✓
Poteat and Vecho (2016). Who
intervenes against homophobic
behavior? Attributes that
distinguish active bystanders.
✓
Poteat et al. (2015). The role of
peers in predicting students'
homophobic behavior: Effects
of peer aggression, prejudice,
and sexual orientation identity
importance.
✓✓
Prati (2012). A social cognitive
learning theory of homophobic
aggression among adolescents.
✓✓ ✓
Quasha et al. (2014). A program
review of middle school
gay‐straight alliance club.
✓✓
(Continues)
ABREU ET AL.
|
139
When gender and sexual identity information is combined, the largest group of studies (n= 7) were comprised
of both sexual minority and heterosexual participants but only cisgender participants. This was closely followed by
studies reporting participants who identified as both sexual minorities and heterosexual, and who identified as
cisgender and gender diverse (n= 5), then studies that did not report their participants' sexual identities and had
TABLE 3 (Continued)
Policies that focus on
the inclusion and
protection of LGBTQ
Students
Faculty and school staff
training and intervention
to promote LGBTQ
Students' safety
Curriculum and
extracurricular activities
to address LGBTQ issues
Russell et al. (2016). Are school
policies focused on sexual
orientation and gender identity
associated with less bullying?
Teachers' perspectives.
✓✓
Slaatten et al. (2015). Correlates of
gay‐related name‐calling in
schools.
✓✓
Varjas et al. (2016). Disclosure
experiences of urban, ethnically
diverse LGBT high school
students: Implications for
school personnel.
✓✓
Williams et al. (2018). High school
bystanders motivation and
response during bias‐based
bullying.
✓✓
Abbreviation: LGBTQ, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer.
59.5%
16.1% 11.7%
4.1% 3.8% 2.7% 1.8% 1.0% 0.2% 2.8%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
Percentage
Race/Ethnicity
FIGURE 2 Percentage of race and ethnicity across studies
140
|
ABREU ET AL.
only cisgender participants (n= 4). The remaining types in descending order were studies with samples of only
sexual minority participants and cisgender participants (n= 3), only sexual minority participants, and cisgender and
gender diverse participants (n= 2), a study which reported sexual minority and heterosexual participants and did
not report gender (n= 1), and a study which did not report sexual or gender identities (n= 1).
Sexual Orientation. Some studies (n=5) did not report the sexual orientation of their participants and,
therefore, each study's reported percentage of each sexuality has a weight of 1/17. The most commonly reported
sexual identity was heterosexual/straight (M= 41.1%; Mdn = 29.7%; range: 0.0%–97.8%; SD = 39.1%), followed by
gay and lesbian, other, queer, LGB/sexual minority, pansexual, unknown, questioning, both‐sex attraction, queer/
not sure/questioning (combined), asexual, mostly heterosexual, unsure, demisexual, and not reported. See Figure 3
for a breakdown of the percentages reported across studies for sexual orientation.
Gender and Sex. Allbuttwostudies(Graybilletal.,2009;Russelletal.,2016) reported participant's gender and,
therefore, each study's reported percentage of each gender/sex has a weight of 1/20. Two studies allowed participants
to report multiple gender identities and reported a total number of gender identities greater than their total number of
participants (Goldberg et al., 2019; Hazel et al., 2019). To handle this, their gender identity percentages totaled more
than 100%, and final average gender identity percentages across all studies totals more than 100%. It is further noted
that three studies only reported one gender with the apparent assumption that the remaining participants were
entirely the other binary gender (Day et al., 2019;Dragowskietal.,2016; Slaatten et al., 2015). All such participants
whose sex or gender were not reported were counted as “not reported”in calculations.
The majority of studies (n= 14) reported only cisgender participants and/or assumed that all participants were
cisgender (i.e., did not comprehensively assess for gender). While the majority of studies reported a breakdown of
gender identities (n= 21), many of these studies often conflated sex and gender when reporting gender (i.e.,
labeling male as gender and not sex). Also, the vast majority of participants (n= 96,554, 63.8%) were cisgender.
Categories for gender diverse, noncisgender participants split between transgender and other self‐identified
gender diverse identities. Across studies, the largest reported percentage was female/woman (M= 48.3%; Mdn =
55.0%; range: 0.0%–84.9%; SD = 24.2%), followed by male/man (M= 38.1%; Mdn = 42.9%; range: 0.0%–72.2%;
SD = 18.1%). In addition, across studies that reported gender, the reported gender diverse identities were trans
(F to M), trans (M to F), trans unspecified, nonbinary, genderqueer, gender nonconforming, gender fluid, agender/
genderless, masculine of center, androgynous, questioning, transgender/gender variant/gender queer, other,
demigender, bigender, and not reported. See Figure 4for a breakdown of the percentages reported across studies
for gender and sex.
41.1%
11.6%
9.9%
2.6% 1.9% 1.7% 0.9% 0.8% 0.8% 0.7% 0.6% 0.6% 0.4% 0.4% 0.1%
5.9%
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
35.0%
40.0%
45.0%
Percentage
Reported Sexual Orientation
FIGURE 3 Percentage of sexual orientation across studies
ABREU ET AL.
|
141
3.2.4 |Educational level
Some studies (n= 7) did not provide any education information. Also, some studies were conducted with high
school students (n= 8), followed by both middle and high school students (n= 4), and one study looking only at
middle school students (Espelage et al., 2015). Of the studies that reported education level, three studies included
participants from postsecondary institutions such as colleges and universities, and only one study (Graybill et al.,
2009) examined adults no longer in any educational system. Also, from the studies that reported a breakdown of
education levels (n= 11), 3,536 participants' education levels were reported, or 2.28% of the participants in
the reviewed studies. Each study's reported percentage of each education level has a weight of 1/10. Of those
participants coming from studies that reported education levels, high school students made up 69.4% of the
reported education levels, followed by college students at 16.7% and those who had completed college or any
graduate education at 13.3%. Specifically, reported educational level included 8th grade, 13th/terminal year (from
European studies), 9th grade, 10th grade, 11th grade, 12th grade, freshmen, sophomores, juniors, seniors, and 5th
years and above. Furthermore, for those participants beyond college, studies reported the average level of edu-
cational attainment to include Bachelors, some graduate training, and Master's degree. Finally, a small percentage
did not report participants' education level. See Figure 5for a breakdown of the percentages reported across
studies for educational level.
3.2.5 |Low income and economically marginalized
Some studies (n=6) reported participants who are LIEM. The most common form of LIEM reporting was based on
schools providing free or reduced lunches (n= 4). For example, one study reported that in 53% of the schools in
their study, “more than 50% of students”were eligible to receive reduced price meals or free meals. The remaining
48.3%
38.1%
2.7% 2.1% 1.6% 1.3% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.7% 0. 6% 0.5% 0.5% 0.4% 0.3% 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
7.1%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
Percentage
Reported Gender and Sex
FIGURE 4 Percentage of gender and sex across studies
142
|
ABREU ET AL.
study reported a range of levels of LIEM from low income (8.1%) to high income (15.4%), with the plurality of
participants being of medium income (36.1%).
3.2.6 |States, territories, and countries
The majority of studies (n= 19), reported geographic information of some form, with only four studies not re-
porting any geographic information. Seven studies reported state/provincial information, while only one study
reported specific locations for data collection (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and Columbus, Ohio; Burton et al., 2014).
Studies conducted outside of the United States took place in Western Canada (n= 1), northern Spain (n= 1), Italy
(n= 1), Norway (n= 1), and Portugal (n= 1). Of the studies that reported geographic information, some (n= 7) did
not provide a breakdown of where participants were located within a country. In addition, in total, 158,944
participants' locations were reported, or 99.5% of the participants in the reviewed studies. From the studies that
provided specific number of participants outside of the United States, 90.6% were from Canada, 3.1% were from
Norway, 2.9% from Italy, 2.6% from Spain, 0.7% from Portugal, and less than 0.001% from outside the United
States (not specified). Regarding studies within the United States, the majority of participants came from the West
Coast, followed by the East Coast, Central West, the South, the Midwest, the Northeast, and the Southeast. See
Figure 6for a breakdown of the percentages reported across studies for regions within the United States.
3.2.7 |Religion and spirituality
Given that some of the studies included in this review reported data from religious schools, we thought it would be
important to report on participants' religious and spiritual identity across studies. However, none of the reviewed
studies reported participants' religious or spiritual identities. One study (Quasha et al., 2014) asked for participants
0.1%
20.3%
15.6%
17.5%
14.5%
1.5%
3.1%
5.6% 4.8%
2.6%
0.6%
2.6% 3.4%
7.3%
0.1%
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
Percentage
Reported Educational Level
FIGURE 5 Percentage of educational level across studies
ABREU ET AL.
|
143
(on‐site staff members at two middle schools) to rate the importance of religion/spirituality in their lives from 1
(not at all)to4(very much). In the demographic table of the article, the authors reported a breakdown of how many
participants selected each rating for each school. The authors also provided a description of how each school's
personnel ranked religion/spirituality (Quasha et al., 2014).
3.3 |Research Question 3
The third research question asked: “How have researchers across studies captured the experiences of LGBTQ
students?”A number of themes about LGBTQ student's experiences in schools emerged across studies, including:
(a) negative and oppressive attitudes and behaviors toward LGBTQ students and negative outcomes, (b) LGBTQ‐
specific advocacy and support in schools, and (c) LGBTQ victimization, bystanders, and perpetrators. See Table 2
for detailed information about the experiences of LGBTQ students in schools.
3.3.1 |Negative and oppressive attitudes and behaviors toward LGBTQ students and
negative outcomes
Some studies (n=11) in this review showed that LGBTQ youth are exposed to more negative school experiences
when compared to their heterosexual and cisgender counterparts, contributing to negative and adverse con-
sequences. For example, Poteat et al. (2015) and Prati (2012) found that LGBTQ students are more often the
victims of name‐calling, aggression (e.g., verbal harassment, physical violence), and bullying (in‐person and cy-
berbullying). Also, experiences of victimization in schools contributed to a decrease in a sense of school belonging
(Heck et al., 2014; Konishi & Saewyc, 2014), decreased sense of school safety (Antonio & Moleiro, 2015), and
decreased positivity toward school climates (Day et al., 2019). Due to exposure to victimization in schools, LGBTQ
students chose to be more absent from school because they did not perceive the school setting to be safe for their
well‐being (Burton et al., 2014; Day et al., 2019; Hazel et al., 2019; Konishi & Saewyc, 2014). For example, in a
study by Burton et al. (2014), when compared to their heterosexual counterparts, sexual minority students re-
ported more excused and unexcused absences, and this was strongly associated with higher symptoms of de-
pression and anxiety.
97.45%
0.94% 0.52% 0.38% 0.37% 0.30% 0.04%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
West Coa st East Coast Ce ntral West S outheast Midwest Northea st Southeast
Percentage
Reported Regions within the US
FIGURE 6 Percentage of regions within the united states across studies
144
|
ABREU ET AL.
3.3.2 |LGBTQ‐specific advocacy and social support in schools
Some studies (n=6) discussed the importance of advocating and providing social support to LGBTQ students in
schools and the correlation between school climate and LGBTQ students' decision to disclose their sexual or
gender identity to others in school. For example, According to Varjas et al. (2016), oftentimes when LGBTQ
students disclosed their sexual or gender identity to school personnel, they were met with negative, abusive, and
invalidating reactions. In addition, Antonio and Moleiro (2015) found that when LGBTQ students were victimized
in school settings, the negative emotional impact was greater when social support was low.
3.3.3 |LGBTQ victimization, bystanders, and perpetrators
Many studies (n=13) in this literature review focused on LGBTQ victimization and bystanders and perpetrators.
Some studies (n=7) found that bystanders who witnessed homophobic behavior engaged in either passive
avoidance, victim support, or joined the homophobic behavior. It should be noted, however, that one study focused
on defending behavior and correlated it with being female and/or sexual minority youth and personal attributes of
bravery, leadership, altruism, justice sensitivity, and number of LGBT friends (Poteat & Vecho, 2016).
3.4 |Research Question 4
The fourth research question asked: “What are the recommendations across studies for intervention and pre-
vention of negative experiences of LGBTQ students in schools?”A number of themes about appropriate prevention
and intervention practices for creating a safe environment for LGBTQ students emerged across studies, including:
(a) policies that focus on the inclusion and protection of LGBTQ students, (b) faculty and school staff training and
intervention to promote LGBTQ students' safety, and (c) curriculum and extracurricular activities to address
LGBTQ issues. See Table 3for detailed information about intervention and prevention of negative experiences of
LGBTQ students in schools.
3.4.1 |Policies that focus on the inclusion and protection of LGBTQ students
Many studies (n= 15) in this review highlighted the importance of creating and enforcing policies that focus on the
inclusion and protection of LGBTQ students. For example, many studies (n= 11) in this review urged school
psychologists to create LGBTQ‐specific school non‐discriminatory laws and antibullying policies, as well as edu-
cating school staff and personnel about such policies. In addition, some studies (n= 6) suggested that once policies
are created, they should be disseminated to parents and students (e.g., parent/student handbooks) and that such
policies should be reinforced in the classroom and school wide. Some other studies (n= 5) suggested that policies
need to be implemented early to target negative attitudes.
3.4.2 |Faculty and school staff training and intervention to promote LGBTQ students'
safety
Most studies (n= 18) in this review emphasized the role of faculty and school staff in promoting the safety of
LGBTQ students. For example, some studies (n= 6) emphasized that ongoing training is a crucial aspect in order for
faculty and staff to know how to best support LGBTQ students and intervene to create a safe environment for
ABREU ET AL.
|
145
these students. Other studies (n= 7) emphasized that bystander awareness is also a topic that needs to be
addressed through professional development with faculty and staff. Furthermore, as described by Dragowski et al.
(2016) and Williams et al. (2018), teachers must be equipped to confront and address students' passivity, and to
encourage students to intervene during bullying instances. Another suggestion by Varjas et al (2016) was to display
support for LGBTQ students by putting safe zone symbols on teachers' classroom doors hallways and other visible
places.
3.4.3 |Curriculum and extracurricular activities to address LGBTQ issues
Most studies (n= 17) revealed the importance of creating a safe environment for LGBTQ students through cur-
riculum and extracurricular activities. Specifically, some studies (n= 8) encouraged educators to engage in dis-
cussion within the classroom about what constitutes homophobic or transphobic behavior and how to address it.
For example, this process can be started in the classroom while introducing the syllabus to students and laying out
classroom expectations (Graybill et al., 2009).
Across other studies (n= 7) in this review, researchers discussed the importance of GSAs as a crucial space to
offset areas of disconnection between LGBTQ students and their school environment. For example, specific
to transgender students, Chong et al. (2019) found that engaging in transgender‐related discussions in GSAs led to
increased self‐efficacy of students to address transgender issues. In addition, a few studies (n= 5) discussed the
positive impact of GSAs in schools such as decreasing behavioral and emotional distress, increasing sense of safety
for LGBTQ students, and decreasing incidents of physical and verbal bullying. In addition, Bodnar and Tornello
(2019) found that GSAs are a place to provide sexual health education, especially for sexual minority young women
who are at a higher risk for sexual health concerns and do not benefit from traditional heterosexual sex education
practices.
4|DISCUSSION
This review revealed comprehensive findings regarding empirical research in school psychology with LGBTQ
students. There was a combination of studies published in the United States and outside of the United States, with
the studies conducted outside the United States coming from Canada and Europe (i.e., Spain, Italy, Portugal,
Norway). Therefore, there is a significant gap in capturing the experiences of LGBTQ students in other parts of the
world. Given recent progress in LGBTQ rights in the countries where these studies were conducted, the findings
are likely to be different in countries where no LGBTQ protections exist or the law punishes identifying as LGBTQ.
Most participants whose sexual identity was reported were heterosexual. While we acknowledge the im-
portance of knowing the role that all students (including heterosexual students) and all school personnel play in
identifying ways to create safe spaces for LGBTQ students, we pose that school psychology journals should strive
to prioritize the experiences and narratives of LGBTQ students. Future studies may wish to specifically focus on
LGBTQ students' perspectives on their school environment and experiences in order to supplement the majority of
studies that examined perspectives across the whole population of students. Also, although we found diversity of
gender across studies (e.g., genderqueer, trans, nonbinary), the majority of participants whose gender was iden-
tified were cisgender. Therefore, there is a dearth of studies examining the school experiences of gender diverse
students. Another concern is the high number of studies that reported only having cisgender participants. It was
unclear whether they did not ask participants for their gender identity and/or assumed that all participants were
cisgender. In addition, many of these studies conflated gender (e.g., woman, man, boy, girl) with sex (e.g., female,
male). Thus, these studies provided an unclear picture about the experiences of gender diverse students, and the
nuanced ways in which gender, sex, and sexual orientation intersect with one another.
146
|
ABREU ET AL.
As noted above, not only were most participants White, but when demographics on ethnic and racial minorities
were reported, the studies' results were not explicated nor discussed in terms of the intersection of race and
ethnicity and other marginalized and privileged identities. We assert that simply collecting demographic in-
formation about participants' racial and ethnic identities does not necessarily provide information about how these
students' intersecting identities explain their experiences in school. Instead, researchers should focus on exploring
systemic issues such as structural oppression and inequity (Rosenthal, 2016) within schools and how schools affect
the experiences of racial and ethnically diverse LGBTQ students. For example, given current research to support
that LGBTQ students of Color experience more negative consequences at school than their White LGBTQ
counterparts (e.g., Truong et al., 2020; Zongrone et al., 2020), school psychology researchers should inquire
specifically about how racism interacts with heterosexism and cissexism within schools and how such interactions
lead to more negative outcomes for LGBTQ students of Color.
Regarding LIEM, there was a pattern in recent years to report more information on participants' socioeconomic
status. Given the impact that income and economic marginalization has on students' educational experiences and
opportunities, the documented disproportionate amount of homelessness among LGBTQ students compared to their
heterosexual and cisgender counterparts (Durso & Gates, 2012), and increased diversity and sophistication of measures
of LIEM (e.g., Ware, 2019), we encourage researchers to consider the impact that LIEM has on LGBTQ students. For
example, given research to support the benefits of extracurricular activities on the well‐being of LGBTQ students (e.g.,
Toomey & Russell, 2013), future research should explore how LIEM LGBTQ students might have limited access to
extracurricular activities. Furthermore, no studies in the present analysis reported participants' religious affiliation or
spiritual preferences. This was surprising given research to support that religion impacts the well‐being of LGBTQ youth
(e.g., Higa et al., 2014). It is plausible to believe that the experiences of LGBTQ students in religious‐based schools may
differ from that of students in secular schools. We pose that school psychologists move research forward in considering
how religion and spirituality, in various ways, may impact LGBTQ students' school experiences. For example, school
psychologists can further inquire about current resources available for LGBTQ students at religious institutions, as well
as resources needed to secure the well‐being of these students.
4.1 |Suggestions for future research
The majority of the studies in this systematic review were cross‐sectional, which can only provide a snapshot of the
participants' experiences at a given time. In addition, the lack of qualitative studies leaves space for researchers to
gain more insight about LGBTQ students who share other marginalized identities and whose experiences are not
easily captured by quantitative research due to lack of measures that accurately capture intersecting identities. For
example, focus group discussions with LGBTQ students of Color can provide a safe place for these students to
share information about ways in which schools can be more welcoming and affirming of their intersectional
experiences. In addition, using other methodologies such as participatory research might help facilitate better
understanding of the experiences of LGBTQ youth who share other marginalized identities (e.g., LGBTQ students
in rural areas; see Chmielewski et al., 2016 for a review).
With increased research showing disproportionate negative outcomes (e.g., depression, suicidal ideation;
Hatchel et al., 2019) of transgender and gender diverse individuals when compared to their cisgender counter-
parts, we pose that school psychologists need to focus on this population. In fact, given their ethical responsibility
to protect students at an individual and systemic level (e.g., challenge oppressive school policies; NASP, 2020),
including transgender students (NASP, 2014), we urge school psychologists to focus their attention toward un-
covering and fully understanding the experiences of transgender and gender diverse students who share multiple
other marginalized identities (e.g., ethnic and racail minorities, non‐Christian religious identities). Furthermore,
future research should include looking at the intersection of LGBTQ and other marginalized identities beyond
school psychology in order to learn from other fields that may have made more progress in this area. For example,
ABREU ET AL.
|
147
recent studies published in counseling psychology journals have focused on the effects of the current political
climate on the well‐being of LGBTQ individuals who identify as undocumented ethnic and racial minorities (Abreu
et al., in press; Gonzalez et al., in press). Collaborations between school psychologists and counseling psychologists
may lead to groundbreaking research on how political climates (as a system) affect the well‐being of LGBTQ
students who share other marginalized identities (e.g., undocumented, dark skin).
4.2 |Strengths and limitations
There are several strengths and limitations of this study that need to be addressed. Regarding strengths, to the
authors' knowledge this is the only study available in school psychology leading journals that has systematically
analyzed ways in which empirical studies have captured the experiences of LGBTQ students in school psychology
journals in the past decade. This systematic review allows for a valuable account of history and patterns in school
psychology that researchers can use to enhance their understanding of the experiences of LGBTQ students.
Another strength of this study is the diversity within the research team, including multiple levels of expertize in the
areas of LGBTQ research and professional developmental stages. These diverse identities allowed for rich con-
versations about what aspects of the systematic review to focus on and ideas about how to best capture the
patterns presented in the studies reviewed.
There are limitations to this review that are important to address. The researchers chose to focus only on
school psychology journals. This is a limitation because the experiences of LGBTQ students are widely researched
in other areas of psychology and LGBTQ‐specific journals such as in the areas of public health, other mental health
professions (e.g., social work), and gender studies (e.g., Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity,Journal
of Gay and Lesbian Social Services). Therefore, there might be important studies that are not reflected in this
analysis. Given the role of school psychologists as part of interdisciplinary school teams responsible for promoting
the welfare of students, it was important to provide a critical lens of how the field of school psychology is
specifically addressing their role in promoting the well‐being of LGBTQ students. Another limitation is that we
chose to include studies that documented the experiences of LGBTQ students, even if such experiences were from
the lens of teachers and other school personnel who came in contact with these students. While this criterion was
needed given the lack of published research on this area in the past decade in school psychology journals, future
research should analyze the demographic information for LGBTQ students separately from the demographic
information for those who interact with these students.
4.3 |Intervening on behalf of LGBTQ students: Recommendations for school
psychologists
Practitioners need to be aware of the direct impact that the school environment has on LGBTQ youth. Specifically,
practitioners need to trust the experiences of LGBTQ youth and center their voices when deciding how to craft
and implement curriculum and policies (e.g., Kiperman et al., 2014). Also, practitioners should take a systems‐
approach when working with LGBTQ youth and should understand that interventions must target the heterosexist
and cissexist environments where these students find themselves and not LGBTQ students themselves. That is,
while it is important to provide LGBTQ youth tools for coping, practitioners should understand that until the
oppressive policies that put in danger the well‐being of LGBTQ students are dismantled, these students will merely
be surviving and not thriving. In addition, practitioners should consider working with several stakeholder such as
community agencies and students' families to address potential courses of action for creating safe environments
for LGBTQ students (see Abreu & Kenny, 2018). For example, coordinating training sessions for students and staff
about the impact of bullying on LGBTQ students' mental health with LGBTQ community agencies can provide a
148
|
ABREU ET AL.
new perspective on how to best address this phenomena. Furthermore, in line with their ethical responsibility,
practitioners should engage in education and interventions to remove barriers that prevent LGBTQ students from
thriving within the school system and beyond (NASP, 2020). For example, school psychologists should be active in
advocating for changes in school curricula (both at the school and district level) in order to increase representation
of LGBTQ issues and historical events in the classroom (see review in Abreu et al., 2016).
ORCID
Roberto L. Abreu https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1305-2152
REFERENCES
Abreu, R. L., Black, W. W., Mosley, D. V., & Fedewa, A. L. (2016). LGBTQ youth bullying experiences in schools: The role of
school counselors within a system of oppression. Journal of Creativity in Mental Health,11, 325–342.
Abreu, R. L., Gonzalez, K. A., Capielo Rosairo, C., Lindley, L., & Lockett, G. M. (in press). “What American dream is this?”: The
effect of Trump's presidency on immigrant Latinx transgender individuals. Journal of Counseling Psychology.https://
doi.org/10.1037/cou0000541
Abreu, R. L., & Kenny, M. C. (2018). Cyberbullying and LGBTQ youth: A systematic literature review and recommendations
for prevention and intervention. Journal of Child and Adolescent Trauma,11,81–97. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40653-
017-0175-7
*António, R., & Moleiro, C. (2015). Social and parental support as moderators of the effects of homophobic bullying on
psychological distress in youth. Psychology in the Schools,52, 729–742. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.21856
Arnett, J. J. (2016). The neglected 95%: Why American psychology needs to become less American. In Kazdin, A. E. (Ed.),
Methodological issues and strategies in clinical research (pp. 115–132). American Psychological Association. https://doi.
org/10.1037/14805-008
* Bodnar, K., & Tornello, S. L. (2019). Does sex education help everyone?: Sex education exposure and timing as predictors
of sexual health among lesbian, bisexual, and heterosexual young women. Journal of Educational and Psychological
Consultation,29,8–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/10474412.2018.1482219
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology,3,77–101. https://
doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
*Burton, C. M., Marshal, M. P., & Chisolm, D. J. (2014). School absenteeism and mental health among sexual minority youth
and heterosexual youth. Journal of School Psychology,52,37–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2013.12.001
Case, K. A., & Meier, S. C. (2014). Developing allies to transgender and gender‐nonconforming youth: Training for
counselors and educators. Journal of LGBT Youth,11,62–82.
Chmielewski, J. F., Belmonte, K. M., Fine, M., & Stoudt, B. G. (2016). Intersectional inquiries with LGBTQ and gender
nonconforming youth of color:Participatory research on discipline disparities at the race/sexuality/gender nexus,
Inequality in school discipline (pp. 171–188.Palgrave Macmillan.
*Chong, E. S. K., Poteat, V. P., Yoshikawa, H., & Calzo, J. P. (2019). Fostering youth self‐efficacy to address transgender and
racial diversity issues: The role of Gay‐Straight Alliances. School Psychology Quarterly,34,54–63. https://doi.org/10.
1037/spq0000258
Collier, K. L., Van Beusekom, G., Bos, H. M. W., & Sandfort, T. G. M. (2013). Sexual orientation and gender identity/
expression related peer victimization in adolescence: A systematic review of associated psychosocial and health
outcomes. Journal of Sex Research,50, 299–317. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2012.750639
*Day, J. K., Ioverno, S., & Russell, S. T. (2019). Safe and supportive schools for LGBT youth: Addressing educational
inequities through inclusive policies and practices. Journal of School Psychology,74,29–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jsp.2019.05.007
Day, J. K., Perez‐Brumer, A., & Russell, S. T. (2018). Safe schools? Transgender youth's school experiences and perceptions
of school climate. Journal of Youth and Adolescence,47, 1731–1742. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-018-0866-x
*Dragowski, E. A., McCabe, P. C., & Rubinson, F. (2016). Educators' reports on incidence of harrassment and advocacy
toward LGBTQ students. Psychology in the Schools,53, 127–142. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.21895
Durso, L. E., & Gates, G. J. (2012). Serving our youth: Findings from a national survey of service providers working with lesbian,
gay, bisexual, and transgender youth who are homeless or at risk of becoming homeless. The Williams Institute.
*Espelage, D. L., Low, S., Van Ryzin, M. J., & Polanin, J. R. (2015). Clinical trial of second step middle school program: Impact on
bullying, cyberbullying, homophobic teasing, and sexual harassment perpetration. School Psychology Review,44, 464–479.
Espelage, D. L., Valido, A., Hatchel, T., Ingram, K. M., Huang, Y., & Torgal, C. (2019). A literature review of protective factors
associated with homophobic bullying and its consequences among children and adolescents. Aggression and Violent
Behavior,45,98–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2018.07.003
ABREU ET AL.
|
149
Frey, K. S., Hirschstein, M. K., Edstrom, L. V., & Snell, J. L. (2009). Observed reductions in school bullying, nonbullying
aggression, and destructive bystander behavior: A longitudinal evaluation. Journal of Educational Psychology,101,
466–481. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013839
*Goldberg, A. E., Beemyn, G., & Smith, J. Z. (2019). What is needed, what is values: Trans students' perspectives on trans‐
inclusive policies and practices in higher education. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation,29,27–67.
Gonzalez, K. A., Pulice‐Farrow, L., & Abreu, R. L. (in press). “In the voices of people like me”The Counseling Psychologist:
LGBTQ coping during Trump's administration.
Grapin, S. L., Bocanegra, J. O., Green, T. D., Lee, E. T., & Jaafar, D. (2016). Increasing diversity in school psychology: Uniting
the efforts of institutions, faculty, students, and practitioners. Contemporary School Psychology,20, 345–355.
Graybill, E. C., & Proctor, S. L. (2016). Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youth: Limited representation in school
support personnel journals. Journal of School Psychology,54,9–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2015.11.001
*Graybill, E. C., Varjas, K., Meyers, J., & Watson, L. B. (2009). Content‐specific strategies to advocate for lesbian, gay,
bisexual, and transgender youth: An exploratory study. School Psychology Review,38, 570–584.
Hatchel, T., Valido, A., De Pedro, K. T., Huang, Y., & Espelage, D. L. (2019). Minority stress among transgender adolescents:
The role of peer victimization, school belonging, and ethnicity. Journal of Child and Family Studies,28, 2467–2476.
*Hazel, C. E., Walls, N. E., & Pomerantz, L. (2019). Gender and sexual minority students' engagement with school: The
impacts of grades, feeling unsafe, and gay/straight alliances. Contemporary School Psychology,23, 432–443. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s40688-018-0199-5
*Heck, N. C., Flentje, A., & Cochran, B. N. (2011). Offsetting risks: High school gay‐straight alliances and lesbian, gay,
bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) youth. School Psychology Quarterly,26, 161–174. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023226
*Heck, N. C., Lindquist, L. M., Machek, G. R., & Cochran, B. N. (2014). School belonging, school victimization, and the mental
health of LGBT young adults: Implications for school psychologists. School Psychology. Forum (Chicago, Ill.),8,28–37.
Higa, D., Hoppe, M. J., Lindhorst, T., Mincer, S., Beadnell, B., Morrison, D. M., Wells, E. A., Todd, A., & Mountz, S. (2014).
Negative and positive factors associated with the well‐being of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and
questioning (LGBTQ) Youth. Youth & Society,46, 663–687.
Hymel, S., Rocke‐Henderson, N., & Bonanno, R. A. (2005). Moral disengagement: A framework for understanding bullying
among adolescents. Journal of Social Sciences,8,1–11.
Kann, L., Olsen, E. O. M., McManus, T., Harris, W. A., Shanklin, S. L., Flint, K. H., Queen, B., Lowry, R., Chyen, D., Whittle, L.,
Thornton, J., Lim, C., Yamakawa, Y., Brener, N., & Zaza, S. (2016). Sexual identity, sex of sexual contacts, and health‐
related behaviors among students in grades 9‐12—United States and selected sites, 2015. MMWR Surveillance
Summaries,65,1–202. https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.ss6509a1
*Kiperman, S., Varjas, K., Meyers, J., & Howard, A. (2014). LGB youth's perceptions of social support: Implications for
school psychologists. School Psychology. Forum (Chicago, Ill.),8,75–90.
*Konishi, C., & Saewyc, E. (2014). Still a target: Sexual diversity and power of caring. School Psychology International,35,
504–515. https://doi.org/10.1177/014303431351240
Kosciw, J. G., Clark, C. M., Truong, N. L., & Zongrone, A. D. (2020). The 2019 National School Climate Survey: The experiences
of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer youth in our nation's schools. GLSEN
Kull, R. M., Kosciw, J. G., & Greytak, E. A. (2015). From statehouse to schoolhouse: Anti‐bullying policy efforts in U.S. states and
school districts. GLSEN
Leonardi, B., & Staley, S. (2015). Affirm gender and sexual diversity within the school community. Phi Delta Kappa,97,69–73.
Malone, C. M., & Ishmail, K. Z. (2020). A snapshot of multicultural training in school psychology. Psychology in the Schools,
57(4), 1022–1039.
Marx, R., Roberts, L., & Nixon, C. (2017). When care and concern are not enough: School personnel's development as allies
for trans and gender non‐conforming students. Social Sciences,6,11–16.
McCabe, P. C., Rubinson, F., Dragowski, E. A., & Elizalde‐Utnick, G. (2013). Behavioral intentions of teachers, school
psychologists, and counselors to intervene and prevent harassment of LGBTQ youth. Psychology in the Schools,50,
672–688.
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & Group, P. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and
meta‐analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Medicine,6, e1000097. https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?
id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097
Murphy, H. E. (2012). Improving the lives of students, gay and straight alike: Gay‐straight alliances and the role of school
psychologists. Psychology in the Schools,49, 883–891.
National Association of School Psychologists [NASP]. (2014). Safe schools for transgender and gender diverse students.
National Association of School Psychologists [NASP]. (2017). Safe and supportive schools for LGBTQ + youth.
National Association of School Psychologists [NASP]. (2018). Supporting LGBTQ + youth during troubling times.
National Association of School Psychologists [NASP]. (2020). The professional standards of the national association of school
psychologists.
150
|
ABREU ET AL.
*Orue, I., & Calvete, E. (2018). Homophobic bullying in schools: The role of homophobic attitudes and exposure to
homophobic aggression. School Psychology Review,47,95–105. https://doi.org/10.17105/SPR-2017-0063.V47-1
Polanin, J. R., Espelage, D. L., & Pigott, T. D. (2012). A meta‐analysis of school‐based bullying prevention programs' effects
on bystander intervention behavior. School Psychology Review,41,47–65.
*Poteat, V. P., Rivers, I., & Vecho, O. (2015). The role of peers in predicting students' homophobic behavior: Effects of peer
aggression, prejudice, and sexual orientation identity importance. School Psychology Review,44, 391–406.
*Poteat, V. P., & Vecho, O. (2016). Who intervenes against homophobic behavior? Attributes that distinguish active
bystanders. Journal of School Psychology,54,17–28.
*Prati, G. (2012). A social cognitive learning theory of homophobic aggression among adolescents. School Psychology Review,
41, 413–428.
*Quasha, S., McCabe, P. C., & Ortiz, S. O. (2014). A program review of a middle school Gay‐Straight Alliance club. School
Psychology Forum (Chicago, Ill.),8,91–102.
Rosenthal, L. (2016). Incorporating intersectionality into psychology: An opportunity to promote social justice and equity.
American Psychologist,71, 474–485.
*Russell, S. T., Day, J. K., Ioverno, S., & Toomey, R. B. (2016). Are school policies focused on sexual orientation and gender
identity associated with less bullying? Teachers' perspectives. Journal of School Psychology,54,29–38.
Salmivalli, C., Voeten, M., & Poskiparta, E. (2011). Bystanders matter: Associations between reinforcing, defending, and the
frequency of bullying behavior in classrooms. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology,40, 668–676. https://
doi.org/10.1080/15374416.2011.597090
*Slaatten, H., Hetland, J., & Anderssen, N. (2015). Correlates of gay‐related name‐calling in schools. Psychology in the
Schools,52, 845–859. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.21864
Southern Poverty Law Center. (2013). Best practices: Creating an LGBT‐inclusive school climate. A teaching tolerance
guide for school leaders. Southern Poverty Law Center. Southern Poverty Law Center.
Stoll, L. C., & Block, R. (2015). Intersectionality and cyberbullying: A study of cybervictimization in a Midwestern high
school. Computers in Human Behavior,52, 387–397. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.06.010
Strickland, B. R. (2000). Misassumptions, misadventures, and the misuse of psychology. American Psychologist,55, 331–338.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.3.331
Sue, S., Cheng, J. K. Y., & Sue, L. (2011). Problems in generalizing research to other cultures. In Thomas, J. C. & Hersen, M.,
(Eds.) Understanding Research in Clinical and Counseling Psychology. Routledge.
Swanson, K., & Gettinger, M. (2016). Teachers' knowledge, attitudes, and supportive behaviors toward LGBT students:
Relationship to Gay‐Straight Alliances, antibullying policy, and teacher training. Journal of LGBT Youth,13, 326–351.
Toomey, R. B., & Russell, S. T. (2013). An initial investigation of sexual minority youth involvement in school‐based
extracurricular activities. Journal of Research on Adolescence,23, 304–318.
Truong, N. L., Zongrone, A. D., & Kosciw, J. G. (2020). Erasure and resilience: The experiences of LGBTQ students of color, Black
LGBTQ youth in U.S. schools. GLSEN.
*Varjas, K., Kiperman, S., & Meyers, J. (2016). Disclosure Experiences of Urban, Ethnically Diverse LGBT High School
Students: Implications for School Personnel. School Psychology.Forum (Chicago, Ill.),10,78–92.
Ware, J. K. (2019). Property value as a proxy of socioeconomic status in education. Education and Urban Society,51,99–119.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013124517714850
White, H. D. (1994). Scientific communication and literature retrieval. In Cooper, H. & Hedges, L. V., The handbook of
research synthesis (pp. 41–56). Sage.
*Williams, A. J., Banks, C. S., & Blake, J. J. (2018). High school bystanders motivation and response during bias‐based
bullying. Psychology in the Schools,55, 1259–1273.
Zongrone, A. D., Truong, N. L., & Kosciw, J. G. (2020). Erasure and resilience: The experiences of LGBTQ students of color, Native
American, American Indian, and Alaska Native LGBTQ youth in U.S. schools. GLSEN.
How to cite this article: Abreu, R. L., Audette, L., Mitchell, Y., Simpson, I., Ward, J., Ackerman, L., Gonzalez,
K. A., & Washington, K. (2022). LGBTQ student experiences in schools from 2009–2019: A systematic
review of study characteristics and recommendations for prevention and intervention in school psychology
journals. Psychol Schs, 59, 115–151. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22508
ABREU ET AL.
|
151
CopyrightofPsychologyintheSchoolsisthepropertyofJohnWiley&Sons,Inc.andits
contentmaynotbecopiedoremailedtomultiplesitesorpostedtoalistservwithoutthe
copyrightholder'sexpresswrittenpermission.However,usersmayprint,download,oremail
articlesforindividualuse.
