Mapping the measurement and reporting of sex and gender in quantitative research in chaplaincy journals

Bibliographic Data

ID22310550
AuthorsP K Palmer (0000-0002-7247-4729, Emory University), M Elian Cox (0009-0009-3661-9415, Department of Spiritual and Pastoral Care, Vanderbilt University Medical Center), Marc Cox (Vanderbilt University Medical Center, corresponding author)
Year2026
Volume32
Issue1
Pages1-15
Publication date2026-01-02
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueJournal of Health Care Chaplaincy (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0885-4726 • E-ISSN: 1528-6916
PublisherInforma UK Limited (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1080/08854726.2025.2558295
PMID40961011
OpenAlexW4414275890
LanguageEN
References cited23

Recognition is mounting that improvement is needed in measurement and reporting of sex and gender in research. These variables have been historically treated as binary, and although separate constructs, are often conflated in how they are measured and reported in studies collecting survey-based data. This review maps how sex and gender were measured and reported in quantitative studies published in three chaplaincy journals from 2020-2023. While the majority (71.7%) still report S/G using binary categories, more inclusive survey response options increased over time. Which construct is being measured and how are rarely specified, and S/G terms are used interchangeably or inaccurately, often by categorizing gender with sex terms male and female. These practices are common in studies published across medical and social fields. Shortcomings of current methodological guidance and recommendations for improvement are discussed

Conflation · MEDLINE · Quantitative methodology · Research design · Gender Roles and Identity Studies · LGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy · Religion, Society, and Development