Affiliation:
1. US. Census Bureau, Center for Behavioral Science Methods , 4600 Silver Hill Road, Washington , DC 20233 , U.S.A.
2. US. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Office of Survey Methods Research , Suite 5930, 2 Massachusetts Ave., NE, Washington , DC 20212 , U.S.A.
Abstract
Abstract
Within the United States Federal Statistical System, there has been interest in capturing sexual orientation (SO) and gender identity (GI), collectively known as SOGI, on surveys to allow researchers to estimate the size and distribution of sexual and gender minority populations. SOGI measurement in federal surveys may also help to identify disparities between people who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) and those who do not in domains such as health, crime, or employment. Although research has been conducted on best practices for SOGI measurement in surveys, it has largely been limited to examination of self-reports. Many federal surveys use proxy reports, when one person generally responds for all household members. This research used cognitive interviews and focus groups to explore proxy response to SOGI questions. We explored potential sources of measurement error in proxy responses to SOGI questions, including sensitivity, difficulty, as well as the willingness and ability of respondents to answer SOGI questions about other household members. We also conducted paired interviews with members of the same household to assess level of agreement for SOGI questions. Findings suggest that measuring SOGI by proxy may be feasible in federal large-scale, general population surveys.
Reference59 articles.
1. Bickart, B.A., J. Blair, G. Menon, and S. Sudman. 1990. “Cognitive Aspects of Proxy Reporting of Behavior.” In Advances in Consumer Research 17, edited by M. Goldberg, G. Gorn, and R. Pollay, 198–206. Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research.
2. Bickart, B.A., J.M. Phillips, and J. Blair. 2006. “The Effects of Discussion and Question Wording on Self and Proxy Reports of Behavioral Frequencies.” Marketing Letters 17: 167–180. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-006-5232-1.10.1007/s11002-006-5232-1
3. Blair, J., G. Menon, and B. Bickart. 1991. “Measurement Effects in Self vs. Proxy Responses: An Information-Processing Perspective.” In Measurement Errors in Surveys, edited by P.P. Biemer, R.M. Groves, L.E. Lyberg, N.A. Mathiowetz, and S. Sudman, 145–166. New York: Wiley.
4. Boehm, L.M. 1989. “Reliability of Proxy Response in the Current Population Surve.” In Proceedings of the Survey Research Methods Section: American Statistical Association, 486–489. Alexandria, VA: American Statistical Association. Available at: https://ww2.amstat.org/sections/srms/Proceedings/papers/1989_086.pdf (accessed February 2018).
5. Boyle, C.A., E.A. Brann, and Selected Cancers Cooperative Study Group. 1992. “Proxy Respondents and the Validity of Occupational and Other Exposure Data.” American Journal of Epidemiology 136: 712–721. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a116550.10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a116550
Cited by
4 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献，注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献，订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献