Table 3.

LGBTQ-Affirmative Care Outcomes From Baseline to 15-Month Follow-Up Moderated by Supervision Attendance At (n = 113)

Outcomes	Explicit LGBTQ Bias		Implicit LGB Bias		LGBTQ-Affirmative Practice Clinical Skills		LGBTQ-Affirmative Practice Beliefs		LGBTQ-Affirmative Practice Behaviors		LGB TQ-Affirmative Practice Intentions		N of LGBTQ Clientsa
	Est	[95% CI]	Est	[95% CI]	Est	[95% CI]	Est	[95% CI]	Est	[95% CI]	Est	[95% CI]	Est	[95% CI]
Assessment
15 months	−0.08	[−0.25, 0.08]	−0.15 *	[−0.29, −0.01]	0.90 ***	[0.64, 1.15]	0.13 †	[−0.01, 0.27]	0.05 †	[−0.02, 1.12]	−0.22 †	[−0.45, 0.01]	0.22	[−0.23, 0.67]
Baseline	ref	ref	ref	ref	ref	ref	ref	ref	ref	ref	ref	ref	ref	ref
Attended supervision at least once
Yes	0.07	[−0.17, 0.30]	0.04	[−0.13, 0.21]	0.13	[−0.16, 0.43]	0.17 †	[−0.02, 0.37]	−0.36	[−1.04, 0.31]	0.01	[−0.30, 0.32]	1.16 †	[−0.07, 2.05]
No	ref	ref	ref	ref	ref	ref	ref	ref	ref	ref	ref	ref	ref	ref
Assessment × Supervision	−0.26 *	[−0.50, −0.02]	−0.10	[−0.31, 0.11]	0.31	[−0.07, 0.68]	0.06	[−0.15, 0.27]	0.97 *	[0.14, 1.80]	0.33 †	[−0.01, 0.67]	0.11	[−0.66, 0.89]

Note. Models were adjusted for age, gender (female vs. male, transgender male, or gender nonbinary), sexual orientation (heterosexual vs. gay, lesbian, bisexual, queer, or other), and student status (yes vs. no).

^aCount outcome used generalized linear mixed model with a log link and Poisson distribution.

^†p <. 10.

^*p < .05.

^**p < .01.

^***p <.001.