Another Flawed Study That Will Be Used to Justify the "Choice Myth"

Stanton Jones and Mark Yarhouse have authored a new study on the alleged effectiveness of ex-gay programs entitled "Ex-Gays? A Longitudinal Study of Religiously Mediated Change in Sexual Orientation" that was unveiled at a press conference in Nashville. It was funded by Exodus International, which obviously has an interest in finding that a "cure" from homosexuality can occur. A very detailed review of the study, its methodology and flaws can be found here at the Box Turtle Bulletin (http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2007/09/17/785)

Suffice it to say, the study has numerous draw backs that raise questions as to its findings ranging from (a) the small size of the study group, (b) the failure to follow up with those who dropped out of ex-gay therapy, (c) the researchers' failure to stick solely with those just beginning the ex-gay program process, and so on. Had the study been properly and consistently done, the "success rate" would no doubt be even lower that the 1/3 who found some "change."

Here are a few comments on the study from Box Turtle Bulletin:

While Jones and Yarhouse's study appears to be very well designed, it quickly falls apart on execution. The sample size was disappointingly small, too small for an effective retrospective study. They told a reporter from Christianity Today that they had hoped to recruit some three hundred participants, but they found "many Exodus ministries mysteriously uncooperative." They only wound up with 98 at the beginning of the study (72 men and 26 women), a population they describe as "respectably large." Yet it is half the size of Spitzer's 2003 study.

Jones and Yarhouse wanted to limit their study's participants to those who were in their first year of ex-gay ministry. But when they found that they were having trouble getting enough people to participate (they only found 57 subject who met this criteria), they expanded their study to include 41 subjects who had been involved in ex-gay ministries for between one to three years. The participants who had been in ex-gay ministries for less than a year are referred to as "Phase 1" subpopulation, and the 41 who were added to increase the sample size were labeled the "Phase 2" subpopulation.

Remember, Jones and Yarhouse described those "experiencing difficulty with change would be likely to get frustrated or discouraged early on and drop out of the change process." And so assessing the dropouts becomes critically important, because unlike the Add Health study, the very reason for dropping out of this study may have direct bearing on both questions the study was designed to address: Do people change, and are they harmed by the process? With as much as a quarter of the initial population dropping out potentially for reasons directly related to the study's questions, this missing analysis represents a likely critical failure, one which could potentially invalidate the study's conclusions.

Even with these significant flaws, the results broke out as follows (25 dropped out and were not interviewed or included in the results):

* 33 people reported change (moving from homosexual, bisexual or other at Time 1 to heterosexual at time 3; or homosexual at Time 1 to bisexual or other at Time 3)

* 29 reported no change

* 8 reported "negative change" (moving from heterosexual, bisexual or other at Time 1 to homosexual at Time 3; or from heterosexual at Time 1 to bisexual or other at Time 3).

* 3 reported uncertain change (moving from bisexual to other, or the reverse)

Given Exodus' constant opposition to laws giving gays equal rights, I can only view any study Exodus sponsored with suspicion, particularly since it gets much of its funding from violently anti-gay "Christian" organizations. I suspect that these groups will use the 33 individuals reporting "change" as proof that homosexuality is a choice and therefore no legal protections are needed. Anyone want to make a bet?