Assessing Social Workers’ LGB-Affirmative Practice Competence Using Vignettes: Development and Implications

Background: Social workers are at the frontline of delivering psychological and social services to lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) clients, helping mitigate distress caused by identity-based stigma and maltreatment. Developing competence in LGB-affirmative practice, which entails acceptance of sexual and gender diversity and readiness to address the harmful effects of stigma-related stressors, is essential for effective service provision. However, research in this area has often relied on self-report surveys, which are prone to social desirability bias. Moreover, knowledge about the contributors to LGB-affirmative practice competence is imperative yet inadequate. This study aimed to consolidate a vignette-based assessment of LGB-affirmative practice competence and to examine its correlates in a non-probability sample of social workers practicing in Hong Kong and Taipei/New Taipei City.

Methods: Data were collected using a cross-sectional design. Between March and August 2024, a total of 321 social workers (mean age = 33.38 years, SD = 7.27; 67% female; 36% non-heterosexual) from Hong Kong and Taipei/New Taipei City participated in a survey and vignette-based assessment. The survey prompted participants to report their experiences of receiving LGB-related training and providing professional services to LGB clients. Participants also read two case scenarios describing identity- and relationship-related issues faced by LGB clients and answered five open-ended questions: (a) the main concerns presented; (b) the most important issues to be addressed during service provision; (c) the goals of working with the client(s); (d) the challenges they might encounter in working with the client(s); and (e) their perceived preparedness to work with the client(s). Responses were evaluated by multiple raters, yielding scores ranging from 0 to 6 that reflected participants’ case conceptualization and reflexivity in working with LGB clients. Interrater reliability was strong (conceptualization = 0.95; reflexivity = 0.92). Descriptive and bivariate regression analyses were conducted.

Results: Overall, participants demonstrated low to moderate levels of LGB-affirmative practice competence, with mean scores of 1.99 (SD = 1.51) for case conceptualization and 1.47 (SD = 1.28) for reflexivity in LGB practice. Receiving more than 10 hours of LGB practice training was significantly associated with higher case conceptualization scores (B = 0.602, SE = 0.220, p = .007, Cohen’s d = 0.408). Meanwhile, both receiving more than 10 hours of LGB practice training (B = 0.458, SE = 0.187, p = .015, Cohen’s d = 0.384) and having experience working with more than five LGB clients (B = 0.435, SE = 0.192, p = .024, Cohen’s d = 0.355) were significantly associated with higher reflexivity scores.

Implications: Enhancing social workers’ LGB-affirmative competence requires sound and easy-to-use assessment instruments. Vignettes have been recommended as an approach to capturing professional judgment and underlying thought processes. This study contributes to the field by documenting both the protocol and utility of vignette-based assessments for measuring LGB-affirmative practice competence among social workers. The findings also indicate that training and prior experience working with LGB clients are positively associated with LGB-affirmative practice competence, suggesting that educational training and simulation-based learning may be viable and effective strategies for strengthening social workers’ LGB-affirmative practice competence.