Toward inclusive and equitable LGBTIQ+ measurement: Assessing gender and sexual orientation measures and scale validity in national surveys across 21 countries

Abstract Despite growing global interest in lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, intersex, and queer/questioning (LGBTIQ+) research, variations in measurement practices across countries have remained underexplored. In this work, we focused on two fundamental aspects of measurement vital to understanding the experiences of LGBTIQ+ people. Specifically, we documented current measures of sex, gender, and sexual orientation used in national mental well‐being‐related surveys and reviewed whether the mental well‐being scales in those surveys have been validated for LGBTIQ+ people. We employed a stratified sampling strategy and evaluated national surveys from a list of randomly selected countries representing 10% of global nations ( N = 21). Fewer than half of the countries measured sexual orientation and fewer than one‐third measured gender beyond the binary in their national surveys. Among the countries that measured gender or sexual orientation, the response options and question phrasing were often not inclusive. In addition, most of the mental well‐being scales lacked validity evidence for LGBTIQ+ populations. Finally, we outline recommendations for the future of reimagining LGBTIQ+ research in terms of measurement, highlighting the importance of research engagement with the global LGBTIQ+ community.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Social Issues
Published
2024-09-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12635
Citations
10
Primary Topic
LGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
6.44
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Toward inclusive and equitable LGBTIQ+ measurement: Assessing gender and sexual orientation measures and scale validity in national surveys across 21 countries

K. Colin Li, S. Atwood, Elli van Berlekom, Yu‐Chi Wang
10 citations
Journal of Social Issues
LGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
6.44
article

Toward inclusive and equitable LGBTIQ+ measurement: Assessing gender and sexual orientation measures and scale validity in national surveys across 21 countries

K. Colin Li, S. Atwood, Elli van Berlekom, Yu‐Chi Wang
article en
10 citations

Abstract

Abstract Despite growing global interest in lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, intersex, and queer/questioning (LGBTIQ+) research, variations in measurement practices across countries have remained underexplored. In this work, we focused on two fundamental aspects of measurement vital to understanding the experiences of LGBTIQ+ people. Specifically, we documented current measures of sex, gender, and sexual orientation used in national mental well‐being‐related surveys and reviewed whether the mental well‐being scales in those surveys have been validated for LGBTIQ+ people. We employed a stratified sampling strategy and evaluated national surveys from a list of randomly selected countries representing 10% of global nations ( N = 21). Fewer than half of the countries measured sexual orientation and fewer than one‐third measured gender beyond the binary in their national surveys. Among the countries that measured gender or sexual orientation, the response options and question phrasing were often not inclusive. In addition, most of the mental well‐being scales lacked validity evidence for LGBTIQ+ populations. Finally, we outline recommendations for the future of reimagining LGBTIQ+ research in terms of measurement, highlighting the importance of research engagement with the global LGBTIQ+ community.

Journal of Social IssuesVol. 80(3)
Boston Children's Hospital (US), Harvard University (US), Stockholm University (SE), University of Toronto (CA), Princeton University (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 3%
LGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
6.44
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.