Abramowitz, 1986
Dept. of Psychiatry, Davis Medical Center, University of California, Sacramento, CA, USA

The author claims to give an overview of the empirical research about sex reassignment of the last 20 years. He divides the publication into a group of works that he characterizes as pre-quantitative works (up to 1980s) and another group he calls quantitative works. He tries to put the results of both groups in relation to the mostly case oriented representation of previous single cases studies, resp., reviews.

• Sample
• Results
• Methodological Issues
• Authors' Conclusion
• Remarks

Sample
To the group of pre-quantitative works, he counts ten follow-up studies in which a total of 176 females and 44 males are described (Benjamin, 1966; Edgerton & Meyer, 1973; Hastings & Markland, 1978; Hoenig et al., 1971; Hore et al., 1975; Money, 1971; Money & Brennan, 1968; Money & Primrose, 1968 and Randell, 1969, 1971). He classifies these works as pre-quantitative because they did not use psychometric procedures and because the authors were the protagonists of surgical sex reassignment.

To the group of quantitative works, he counts 14 publications in which 149 females and 68 males are described (Bentler, 1976; Blanchard & Steiner, 1983; Fleming et al., 1981; Fleming et al., 1982; Hunt & Hampson, 1980b; Laub & Fisk, 1974; Lothstein, 1980; Meyer & Reter, 1979; Sadoughi et al., 1978; Sörensen, 1981a, b; Wålinder & Thuwe, 1975 and Wålinder et al., 1978). In the mentioned publications psychometric procedures or standardized ratings scales were employed.

Results
A most important result in both the pre-quantitative and quantitative publications is that for about two-thirds of operated patients an improvement can be constated. For about seven percent of the patients severe complications were found, among them the author counts surgical re-reassignment desire, psychotic episodes, hospitalization and suicides.

Methodological Issues
The author complains about the lack of control groups, the lack of exact descriptions of selection criteria, psychiatric diagnoses, of the extent of psychiatric, psychotherapeutic, hormonal and surgical treatment of patients and the (non-) regarding of suicides in follow-up study statistics. He also believes it is important to include researchers who did not participate in the treatment in the follow-up studies to minimize possible research prejudices. The representation of the discussion on methodology of the research by Meyer & Reter (1979), takes the big space, wherein the author orients himself mostly towards the critique of Fleming et al. (1989), but positively highlights the failed attempt by Meyer & Reter to introduce a comparison group.

Author's Conclusions
In the author's judgment the state of the transsexualism research corresponds to the state of psychotherapy research in the pre-experimental era.

Remarks
The differentiation by the author in pre-quantitative and quantitative follow-up studies seems useful. The author compiles the (known) shortcomings of many follow-up studies very well. It contributes little to the clarification of contextual and methodological problems of the follow-up studies, while even more it brings confusion that the author has thrown together follow-up studies in the strictest sense with experimental research on transsexuals. Misleading is his conclusion that Benjamin was the only author of pre-quantitative follow-up studies who "was not a member of the original surgical team and did not have a preponderantly Anglo-American sample" (p. 184).