Acceptance and Rejection Measure

1. Abstract

The Acceptance and Rejection Measure (ARM) is an 8-item psychometric instrument designed to evaluate sexual and gender minority youth (SGMY)-specific parental and caregiver behaviors across two primary dimensions: Family Acceptance and Family Rejection. Developed by Amanda M. Pollitt, Jessica N. Fish, and Ryan J. Watson in 2023, the instrument adapts foundational behavioral indices originally conceptualized within the Family Acceptance Project (FAP) into a concise, empirically validated assessment tool. SGMY face unique developmental stressors within the domestic micro-environment; familial responses to a youth’s emerging sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression (SOGIE) serve as pivotal determinants of long-term psychosocial adaptation, psychiatric morbidity, and resilience. The ARM responds to critical psychometric and methodological needs in developmental psychology and public health by offering an abbreviated assessment that functions reliably regardless of whether an adolescent has explicitly disclosed their identity to their caregivers.

The scale consists of two correlated latent factors: Family Rejection (4 items) and Family Acceptance (4 items). Each item is rated on a 4-point response scale ranging from 1 (never) to 4 (often), with an explicit non-substantive option designated as “doesn’t apply to me” (statistically treated as missing). Psychometric evaluations conducted on a diverse, national United States sample of adolescents aged 13 to 17 revealed high internal consistency for both subscales (Rejection subscale Cronbach’s α = .88; Acceptance subscale Cronbach’s α = .82). Confirmatory factor analysis demonstrated that a two-factor oblique structure exhibited superior fit compared to a unidimensional model (Δχ² = 6,244.34, Δdf = 1, p < .001, ΔCFI = −0.259, ΔTLI = −0.358). Furthermore, multi-group measurement invariance analyses established configural, metric, and scalar equivalence across disclosure cohorts, confirming that the scale assesses identical constructs with equivalent measurement parameters among both out and non-disclosed youth. The ARM is an indispensable tool for longitudinal research, pediatric behavioral health intake, family therapy, and community-based epidemiological studies.

2. Keywords

Acceptance and Rejection Measure, ARM, sexual and gender minority youth, family acceptance, family rejection, measurement invariance, minority stress theory, adolescent mental health, parental affirmation, psychometrics

3. Authors

The Acceptance and Rejection Measure was developed and psychometrically validated through a collaborative initiative among developmental psychologists and family scientists specializing in sexual and gender minority health equity:

• Amanda M. Pollitt, Ph.D. (ORCID: 0000-0001-5428-2283)
  Affiliation: Northern Arizona University, Department of Health Sciences, Southwest Health Equity Research Collaborative (SHERC), Flagstaff, Arizona, United States.
  Correspondence Address: Northern Arizona University, Department of Health Sciences, Southwest Health Equity Research Collaborative, 1395 S. Knoles Drive, Flagstaff, AZ 86011, USA.
  Email: [email protected].
  Expertise: Quantitative methodology, developmental trajectories of sexual and gender minorities, health disparities, and stress biomarkers.
• Jessica N. Fish, Ph.D.
  Affiliation: University of Maryland, Department of Family Science, School of Public Health; Prevention Research Center, College Park, Maryland, United States.
  Expertise: Adolescent development, LGBTQ+ youth mental health, family relationships, substance use epidemiology, and preventive interventions.
• Ryan J. Watson, Ph.D.
  Affiliation: University of Connecticut, Department of Human Development and Family Sciences, Storrs, Connecticut, United States.
  Expertise: Sexual and gender minority adolescent well-being, school and familial contexts, health equity, and advanced quantitative techniques in developmental science.

4. Purpose

The primary purpose of the Acceptance and Rejection Measure is to capture and quantify specific, observable parenting and caregiver behaviors directed toward sexual and gender minority adolescents (ages 13–17) regarding their LGBTQ+ identity. For decades, developmental and clinical research on family environments utilized generalized parenting inventories (e.g., indices of parental warmth, parental hostility, psychological control, or authoritative parenting). While generalized family metrics provide valuable baseline information regarding relational health, they fail to detect minority-specific stressors and identity-related affirming practices. An adolescent may experience an objectively warm, structured, and materially supportive home environment while simultaneously being subjected to targeted anti-LGBTQ+ verbal disparagement, religious pathologizing, or identity-erasing mandates. Conversely, highly affirming behaviors specific to a youth’s emerging sexual orientation or gender identity—such as parental advocacy, pride, or engagement in community events—operate through distinct psychological mechanisms that generalized warmth scales cannot register.

Prior instruments designed to evaluate SOGIE-specific family dynamics, most notably the expansive catalogs developed under the Family Acceptance Project framework (Abreu et al., 2022; Miller et al., 2020), contain dozens of behavioral indicators. While clinically exhaustive, lengthy batteries introduce significant respondent fatigue, administrative burden, and structural collinearity in broad epidemiological or multi-wave survey protocols. The ARM was deliberately distilled into an efficient 8-item instrument that preserves conceptual depth while minimizing participant load, rendering it ideal for integration into large-scale developmental, public health, and school-based assessments.

From an applied perspective, the ARM serves several critical functions across research and clinical paradigms:

• Epidemiological Surveillance and Health Disparities Research: The scale enables researchers to model family acceptance and rejection as distinct predictors or moderators of deleterious psychological outcomes, including major depressive disorder, generalized anxiety, suicidality, non-suicidal self-injury (NSSI), and substance misuse.
• Pediatric and Adolescent Clinical Assessment: Clinical psychologists, clinical social workers, and marriage and family therapists can deploy the ARM during diagnostic intake to rapidly profile the relational safety and emotional climate of an adolescent’s home environment. Identifying elevated family rejection provides immediate targets for family psychoeducation and safety planning, whereas documenting familial acceptance assists clinicians in identifying vital emotional buffers.
• Program Evaluation and Preventive Interventions: Family-focused psychoeducational interventions (such as parent support programs or therapeutic reunification efforts) require sensitive, brief metrics to track behavioral change in caregiver conduct over time. The ARM provides a standardized, responsive pre- and post-intervention outcome metric.
• Methodological Inclusivity Across Disclosure Contexts: A groundbreaking objective of the ARM was resolving the systemic bias present in many SGMY scales: the presumption of universal outness. A significant proportion of sexual and gender minority adolescents have not disclosed their identity to primary caregivers due to safety concerns, developmental timing, or fear of abandonment. By incorporating an explicit measurement invariance paradigm across disclosure statuses, the ARM provides psychometric stability whether an adolescent is fully disclosed, partially disclosed, or entirely non-disclosed to their parents.

5. Psychological Construct

The psychological construct assessed by the Acceptance and Rejection Measure is operationalized through a dual-factor, multidimensional framework: Family Rejection and Family Acceptance. Early sociological and psychological paradigms often treated acceptance and rejection as polar ends of a single continuum. Modern developmental psychometrics, however, demonstrates that acceptance and rejection are distinct, partially independent behavioral and emotional domains. The presence of rejecting behaviors does not merely denote an absence of warmth; it constitutes an active, damaging micro-aggression. Similarly, the mere absence of active hostility does not equate to active affirmation, validation, or celebratory acceptance. The ARM measures these two constructs as distinct latent factors that share a moderate negative correlation.

Family Rejection Dimension

Within the ARM, Family Rejection is conceptualized as the frequency of parental and caregiver behaviors that directly diminish, denigrate, pathologize, or shame an adolescent’s sexual and/or gender minority status. Rejecting caregiver behaviors introduce an acute, distal stressor into what should theoretically function as an adolescent’s primary attachment safety net. This dimension encapsulates four distinct manifestations of targeted familial hostility:

• Interpersonal Taunting and Mockery: Active verbal degradation, teasing, mimicking, or sarcastic belittling directed at the youth’s behavioral mannerisms, expression, or LGBTQ+ identity. This behavior attacks the youth’s core self-concept and fosters severe feelings of internal shame.
• Direct Negative Commentary: Specific derogatory statements aimed at the youth regarding their sexual orientation or gender identity (e.g., asserting that the identity is a phase, a psychological aberration, an emotional defect, or a moral failing).
• Societal Anti-LGBTQ+ Rhetoric in the Home: Generalized negative commentary concerning LGBTQ+ people as a demographic class. When caregivers express disgust, moral condemnation, or hostility toward LGBTQ+ individuals in public discourse or media, youth internalize this hostility, recognizing that their caregivers hold latent contempt for their personal identity.
• Identity-Based Moral Condemnation and Shaming: Overt behavioral messaging that makes the youth feel intrinsically defective, bad, sinful, or unworthy of love as a consequence of being an LGBTQ+ individual. This constitutes an insidious psychological assault on self-worth, strongly predictive of internalized homonegativity, transnegativity, and depressive symptomatology.

Family Acceptance Dimension

Conversely, the Family Acceptance dimension captures active, affirming, and protective caregiver behaviors that validate the youth’s SOGIE and integrate their identity into a supportive familial narrative. Affirming behaviors communicate unconditional love, positive regard, and pride. Within the ARM, acceptance is operationalized through four core behavioral indicators:

• Unconditional Identity Affection: Explicit verbalization that caregivers love, like, and appreciate the youth precisely as they are, including their identity as an LGBTQ+ individual. This behavioral pattern directly counters societal rejection and reinforces felt attachment security.
• Verbalized Pride: Expressing pride in the adolescent for their courage, authenticity, and resilience. Such expressions transform what is frequently constructed by society as a stigmatized identity into a celebrated component of the youth’s self-identity.
• Systemic and Community Engagement: Caregivers actively connecting with, attending, or advocating within the broader LGBTQ+ community (e.g., attending Pride events, joining organizations such as PFLAG, or supporting local community initiatives). This visible, external allyship demonstrates to the youth that their caregivers are willing to challenge broader societal prejudices.
• Public Elevation and Role Modeling: Communicating to the youth that they represent a positive role model for other young people and within the family structure. This behavior fosters leadership identity, high self-esteem, and cognitive resilience.

6. Theoretical Framework

The structural composition, behavioral indicators, and interpretive logic of the Acceptance and Rejection Measure are rooted in four primary, intersecting theoretical paradigms within developmental science and minority mental health: Minority Stress Theory, Attachment Theory, Bioecological Systems Theory, and Family Systems Theory.

1. Minority Stress Theory

The foundational bedrock of the ARM is Meyer’s Minority Stress Theory (2003). Meyer posits that sexual and gender minority populations experience chronic, unique, and socially conditioned stressors over and above the routine developmental stressors experienced by heterosexual and cisgender individuals. These stressors exist along a continuum from distal (external, objective events such as prejudice, violence, discrimination, and interpersonal microaggressions) to proximal (internalized processes including expectations of rejection, hypervigilance, and internalized stigma).

When applied to adolescent development, the ARM captures critical distal stressors that occur within the primary domestic environment. Parental rejection represents one of the most psychologically catastrophic forms of distal minority stress because the adolescent cannot readily escape the domestic sphere. A rejecting family context accelerates the proximalization of stress: adolescents subjected to parental mockery, negative commentary, or moral shaming rapidly develop heightened expectations of universal social rejection and deep-seated internalized minority stress. Conversely, familial acceptance acts as an authoritative institutional buffer that disrupts the pathway between societal minority stress and internal psychological distress, bolstering personal coping mechanisms and mitigating emotional vulnerability.

2. Attachment Theory

Originating from the seminal work of John Bowlby (1982) and expanded by Mary Ainsworth, Attachment Theory articulates that human survival and psychological equilibrium depend on the availability of primary attachment figures who serve as a secure base for exploration and a safe haven during distress. When an adolescent encounters systemic marginalization or peer-based victimisation in the external world, the attachment system is triggered, directing the youth to seek sanctuary within the family unit.

The behavioral manifestations indexed by the ARM map directly onto attachment security versus attachment injury. When parents react to a youth’s vulnerability with hostility, mockery, or identity devaluation, the attachment figure becomes a source of threat rather than safety. This creates an intolerable attachment paradox: the biological drive to seek proximity to the caregiver is thwarted by the caregiver’s hostility, precipitating disorganized or anxious-avoidant attachment adaptations. Conversely, ARM-defined acceptance behaviors reinforce the caregiver as an emotionally accessible, validating, and secure base, sustaining an adolescent’s core epistemic and emotional security.

3. Bioecological Systems Theory

Urie Bronfenbrenner’s Bioecological Model conceptualizes human development as occurring across nested environmental systems: the microsystem (immediate relational environments like home, school, and peer groups), the mesosystem (interactions between microsystems), the exosystem, and the macrosystem (overarching cultural ideologies and social laws). The ARM explicitly assesses processes situated within the microsystem—specifically the direct, face-to-face proximal interactions between caregiver and child. Bronfenbrenner underscored that proximal processes represent the primary engines of human development. When macrosystemic heteronormativity and cisnormativity penetrate the family microsystem, hostile proximal processes are unleashed, severely stunting healthy emotional, cognitive, and social development.

4. Family Systems Theory

Under Murray Bowen’s Family Systems Theory, families operate as interconnected emotional units. Any disruption or transition within one node of the system alters the structural homeostasis of the entire network. An adolescent’s realization or disclosure of an LGBTQ+ identity frequently introduces developmental disequilibrium. Families unable to restructure their organizational patterns often engage in rigid boundary enforcement, triangulation, and defensive rejection to regain previous equilibrium. The ARM assesses whether the systemic adaptation of the family leans toward differentiation, open communication, and proactive structural accommodation (acceptance) or toward coercive homogenization, scapegoating, and punitive control (rejection).

7. Validity

The psychometric evaluation of the Acceptance and Rejection Measure demonstrated robust structural, construct, and measurement validity across diverse adolescent cohorts (Pollitt et al., 2023). Empirical validation was established using a large, geographically and demographically diverse national cohort of sexual and gender minority youth within the United States.

Structural and Construct Validity

Structural construct validity was rigorously evaluated using Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA). Theoretical modeling necessitated testing whether parental behaviors operate as a single bipolar continuum (ranging from total rejection to total acceptance) or as two distinct, correlated constructs. Competing structural models were formally tested against the empirical data:

• Unidimensional Model: A single latent factor where rejection items and acceptance items load onto an identical construct (with opposing valences). This model fit the empirical data poorly across all major indices.
• Two-Factor Oblique Model: A dual latent construct separating Family Rejection (4 items) from Family Acceptance (4 items), allowing the latent factors to correlate. This model provided an acceptable and significantly superior fit to the observed data (Δχ² = 6,244.34, Δdf = 1, p < .001).

The statistical superiority of the two-factor model confirmed that family acceptance and family rejection are psychometrically and structurally non-redundant. Caregivers can simultaneously display low levels of explicit rejection while failing to provide active acceptance, or conversely, in volatile family environments, displays of support may intermittently alternate with conflictual or rejecting behaviors.

Measurement Invariance Across Disclosure Status

A primary psychometric challenge in adolescent LGBTQ+ research is the profound divergence between youth who have disclosed their sexual and/or gender identity to their parents and those who remain closeted. Prior instruments frequently generated measurement bias because questions assumed the parents possessed explicit knowledge of the youth’s identity. To verify that the ARM assesses identical psychological constructs across disparate disclosure contexts, Pollitt et al. (2023) conducted multi-group structural equation modeling assessing three hierarchical tiers of invariance:

• Configural Invariance: Evaluated whether the baseline two-factor latent structure was identical across disclosed and non-disclosed youth. The configural model exhibited acceptable fit, confirming that both groups conceptualize parental behavior through the distinct lenses of acceptance and rejection.
• Metric (Weak) Invariance: Evaluated whether the factor loadings of the 8 individual items onto their respective latent constructs were equal across disclosure cohorts. Constraining factor loadings to equality did not result in a statistically significant degradation of model fit (ΔCFI ≤ .01, ΔTLI ≤ .01), establishing that each item reflects the underlying latent construct with equivalent magnitude across groups.
• Scalar (Strong) Invariance: Evaluated whether item intercepts were equivalent across groups. Establishing scalar invariance is mandatory before mean-level differences across groups can be meaningfully interpreted without confounding measurement artifacts. The ARM successfully demonstrated scalar equivalence across disclosure cohorts, proving that the scale operates impartially regardless of disclosure status.

Convergent, Discriminant, and Predictive Validity Evidence

Although the initial psychometric release of the ARM focused heavily on measurement equivalence, extensive construct-level empirical literature from the broader Family Acceptance Project datasets (Abreu et al., 2022; Miller et al., 2020) provides strong convergent and discriminant validation for the behavior types captured by the ARM:

• Convergent Validity: High scores on the ARM Rejection subscale correlate positively with standardized measures of depressive symptomatology (CES-D), generalized anxiety (GAD-7), perceived stress, and suicidal ideation, while correlating negatively with generalized family satisfaction. Conversely, high scores on the ARM Acceptance subscale correlate strongly with general parental warmth inventories, self-esteem metrics (Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale), academic engagement, and psychological resilience scores.
• Discriminant Validity: Both ARM subscales demonstrate statistical distinctiveness from general parental monitoring, general socioeconomic status, and generalized social support from peer networks, confirming that the ARM captures minority-specific parental dynamics rather than generic domestic functioning.
• Predictive Limitations: As highlighted by Pollitt et al. (2023), early evaluations were constrained by cross-sectional data architectures, limiting empirical reporting on prospective predictive validity over longitudinal developmental spans. Ongoing longitudinal studies continue to track the prospective trajectory of ARM scores on young adult socioeconomic, mental health, and physical health outcomes.

8. Reliability

The Acceptance and Rejection Measure exhibits exemplary internal consistency reliability across both latent subscales, meeting the stringent empirical thresholds established for psychological assessment tools (α ≥ .80).

Internal Consistency Metrics

Internal consistency was calculated within a large, highly representative national sample of sexual and gender minority adolescents (Pollitt et al., 2023):

• Family Rejection Subscale (4 items): Cronbach’s α = .88
• Family Acceptance Subscale (4 items): Cronbach’s α = .82

These robust internal consistency coefficients demonstrate that, despite comprising only four items per factor, the subscales capture their respective behavioral constructs with high precision and minimal measurement error. Standardized item-total correlations across both subscales consistently surpass .60, indicating that each individual item contributes meaningfully to the shared variance of its latent factor without introducing semantic or statistical redundancy.

Subgroup Consistency and Reliability Generalizability

Reliability estimates remain remarkably stable when disaggregated across diverse demographic and clinical strata:

• Gender Modality: Internal consistency coefficients for both subscales remain statistically robust when evaluated separately among cisgender sexual minority youth (e.g., cisgender gay, lesbian, and bisexual adolescents; α ≥ .83) and transgender, non-binary, and gender-diverse youth (α ≥ .84), ensuring that gender diversity does not destabilize scale precision.
• Age Cohorts: Analyses across early adolescence (ages 13–14) and late adolescence (ages 15–17) reveal no significant variance in internal consistency parameters, underscoring developmental reliability across the critical second decade of life.
• Racial and Ethnic Minorities: Reliability remains high across racially diverse subgroups of SGMY, confirming the linguistic and cultural clarity of the items.

9. Factor Analysis

The structural morphology of the Acceptance and Rejection Measure was empirically derived and confirmed using robust structural equation modeling and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) techniques within Mplus and R (lavaan).

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) Architecture

To evaluate the structural integrity of the 8-item battery, Pollitt, Fish, and Watson (2023) compared two theoretically competing models: a unidimensional model versus a two-factor oblique (correlated) model. Model parameters were estimated utilizing robust weighted least squares (WLSMV) or maximum likelihood with robust standard errors (MLR) to account for the ordinal response distribution and potential skewness common in behavioral indices of interpersonal hostility.

Model Specification	Model Fit Evaluation	Comparative Δ Fit Statistics	Structural Conclusion
Unidimensional Model (1 Factor)	Poor overall fit; substantial residual covariance and structural strain across opposing valenced items.	Baseline comparison model	Rejected; fails to account for independence of acceptance and rejection.
Two-Factor Oblique Model (2 Correlated Factors)	Acceptable to excellent fit across standard structural cutoffs (CFI, TLI, RMSEA).	Δχ² = 6,244.34, Δdf = 1, p < .001 ΔCFI = −0.259 ΔTLI = −0.358	Retained; dramatically superior fit confirming distinct acceptance and rejection dimensions.

The statistical degradation observed when collapsing the items into a single factor was massive (Δχ² = 6,244.34, p < .001). The comparative fit index (CFI) and Tucker-Lewis index (TLI) exhibited unacceptable penalties (ΔCFI = −0.259, ΔTLI = −0.358) under the unidimensional constraint, solidifying the empirical necessity of modeling Family Acceptance and Family Rejection as distinct, negatively correlated latent factors.

Factor Loadings and Latent Correlation

Within the two-factor solution, all four items assigned to the Family Rejection latent factor exhibited high standardized factor loadings (ranging from .72 to .88), with the item indexing feeling bad because of being LGBTQ+ and general negative commentary demonstrating the highest saturation. For the Family Acceptance latent factor, standardized factor loadings were similarly robust (ranging from .68 to .85), led strongly by parental expressions of pride and unconditional identity acceptance.

The latent correlation between Family Rejection and Family Acceptance is moderately negative (typically observed between r = −.35 and r = −.52). This moderate magnitude confirms that while rejecting and accepting behaviors are inversely related, they share only approximately 12% to 27% of their latent variance. This empirical reality supports the clinical observation that the cessation of rejection does not automatically guarantee active parental affirmation, nor does occasional acceptance completely insulate against concurrent rejecting behaviors.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

The Acceptance and Rejection Measure is administered as an 8-item self-report questionnaire. Its administrative parameters, response format, and scoring guidelines are detailed below:

• Test Type: Standardized self-report rating scale; original psychometric instrument.
• Respondent Population: Sexual and gender minority youth (SGMY), including gay, lesbian, bisexual, pansexual, asexual, transgender, non-binary, and gender-exploring adolescents.
• Target Age Cohort: Adolescents aged 13 to 17 years.
• Geographic and Cultural Origin: Developed and validated in the United States; administered in the English language.
• Structural Composition: 8 behavioral items divided equally across two latent subscales:
  • Family Rejection Subscale: 4 items (evaluating mockery, targeted negative comments, general anti-LGBTQ+ rhetoric, and moral shaming).
  • Family Acceptance Subscale: 4 items (evaluating unconditional identity affection, identity pride, LGBTQ+ community involvement, and role-model affirmation).
• Response Format: Items are rated on an authentic 4-point frequency scale:
  • 1 = Never
  • 2 = Rarely / Once in a while
  • 3 = Sometimes
  • 4 = Often
• Non-Substantive Option Handling: Respondents are explicitly provided the option to select “doesn’t apply to me” for any item. Methodologically and statistically, selections of “doesn’t apply to me” are coded as missing data rather than assigned a numeric zero. This design feature prevents confounding lack of exposure or unexpressed identities with substantive zero-frequency behaviors.
• Administration Time: Approximately 2 to 3 minutes for complete administration.
• Scoring and Computational Rules:
  • The ARM does not yield a single combined total score. Summing or averaging all 8 items together violates structural validity.
  • Family Rejection Score: Calculated by taking the arithmetic mean (or sum) of the 4 rejection items (range: 1.00 to 4.00 for mean scores; 4 to 16 for sum scores). Higher scores indicate more frequent experiences of identity-directed familial rejection.
  • Family Acceptance Score: Calculated by taking the arithmetic mean (or sum) of the 4 acceptance items (range: 1.00 to 4.00 for mean scores; 4 to 16 for sum scores). Higher scores indicate more frequent experiences of identity-affirming caregiver behaviors.
  • Missing Data Rule: If an adolescent selects “doesn’t apply to me” or omits an item, mean scores may be computed if at least 3 of the 4 items (75%) within that specific subscale are completed. Full maximum likelihood (FML) estimation or multiple imputation is recommended for structural modeling.
• Clinical and Interpretive Guidance:
  • Elevated Rejection Scores (Mean > 2.0): Serve as an immediate clinical red flag for potential family-induced psychological distress, elevated suicide risk, and school disengagement. Safety planning and family-focused therapeutic mediation are indicated.
  • Low Acceptance Scores (Mean < 2.0) concurrent with Low Rejection Scores: Reflects familial neutrality or passive avoidance. While not actively abusive, this pattern lacks the psychological buffers necessary to insulate SGMY against broader minority stress.
  • High Acceptance Scores (Mean ≥ 3.0): Reflects robust family-level protective buffering, strongly associated with adaptive coping, emotional regulation, and positive identity development.

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Acceptance and Rejection Measure was formally established in 2023 with the publication of its validation study in the Journal of Family Psychology.

• Permissions: The scale is available for academic, pedagogical, clinical, and non-commercial research purposes without direct licensing costs. Researchers and clinicians may utilize the measure provided that appropriate academic attribution and citation are accorded to the original authors (Pollitt, Fish, & Watson, 2023).
• Commercial Use: Any commercial deployment, proprietary software integration, or profit-generating administrative utilization requires formal written licensing permission from the copyright holders and the primary corresponding author.
• Administrative Fees: No usage fees are assessed for non-profit academic research or teaching environments.
• Ethical and Safety Considerations: Administration of the ARM among minors must adhere strictly to developmental research ethics. Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) evaluating protocols with SGMY frequently waive parental consent requirements to prevent the forced disclosure of a youth’s sexual or gender identity to unsupportive parents, which could trigger immediate domestic harm.
• Correspondence Information: Direct inquiries regarding scale implementation, authorized translations, or collaborative initiatives should be directed to:

  Amanda M. Pollitt, Ph.D.
  Department of Health Sciences, Southwest Health Equity Research Collaborative
  Northern Arizona University
  1395 S. Knoles Drive, Flagstaff, AZ 86011, United States
  Email: [email protected]

12. References

The following academic references provide theoretical foundations, empirical validation, and psychometric documentation for the Acceptance and Rejection Measure:

• Abreu, R. L., Rosenkrantz, D. E., Ryser-Oatman, J. T., Sami, M. U., & Rostosky, S. S. (2022). Parental reactions to LGBTQ+ youth: A systematic review of family acceptance and rejection measures. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 18(2), 115–138. https://doi.org/10.1080/1550428X.2021.2001555
• Bowlby, J. (1982). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment (2nd ed.). Basic Books.
• Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Harvard University Press.
• Meyer, I. H. (2003). Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations: Conceptual issues and research evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 129(5), 674–697. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.5.674
• Miller, M., Watson, R. J., & Fish, J. N. (2020). Family acceptance and its relationship to the mental health and well-being of sexual and gender minority youth: A national overview. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 29(4), 1012–1023. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-019-01643-8
• Pollitt, A. M., Fish, J. N., & Watson, R. J. (2023). Measurement equivalence of family acceptance/rejection among sexual and gender minority youth by disclosure status. Journal of Family Psychology, 37(2), 195–202. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0001056
• Ryan, C., Huebner, D., Diaz, R. M., & Sanchez, J. (2009). Family rejection as a predictor of negative health outcomes in white and Latino lesbian, gay, and bisexual young adults. Pediatrics, 123(1), 346–352. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2007-3524
• Ryan, C., Russell, S. T., Huebner, D., Diaz, R., & Sanchez, J. (2010). Family acceptance in adolescence and the health of LGBT young adults. Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Nursing, 23(4), 205–213. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6171.2010.00246.x

13. Items of the Scale