Examining the Impact of Question Construction on Reporting of Sexual Identity: Survey Experiment Among Young Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Compared with heterosexuals, sexual minorities in the United States experience a higher incidence of negative physical and mental health outcomes. However, a variety of measurement challenges limit researchers' ability to conduct meaningful survey research to understand these disparities. Despite the prevalence of additional identities, many national health surveys only offer respondents 3 substantive options for reporting their sexual identities (straight/heterosexual, gay or lesbian, and bisexual), which could lead to measurement error via misreporting and item nonresponse. OBJECTIVE: This study compared the traditional 3-option approach to measuring sexual identity with an expanded approach that offered respondents 5 additional options. METHODS: An online survey experiment conducted among New Jersey residents between March and June 2021 randomly assigned 1254 young adults (ages 18-21) to answer either the 3-response measure of sexual identity or the expanded item. Response distributions for each measure were compared as were the odds of item nonresponse. RESULTS: The expanded version of the question appeared to result in more accurate reporting among some subgroups and induced less item nonresponse; 12% (77/642) of respondents in the expanded version selected a response that was not available in the shorter version. Females answering the expanded item were less likely to identify as gay or lesbian (2.1% [10/467] vs. 6.6% [30/457]). Females and Non-Hispanic Whites were slightly more likely to skip the shorter version than the longer version (1.1% [5/457 for females and 3/264 for Non-Hispanic Whites] vs. 0% [0/467 for females and 0/277 for Non-Hispanic Whites]). About 5% (32/642) of respondents answering the longer item were unsure of their sexual identity (a similar option was not available in the shorter version). Compared with respondents answering the longer version of the question, those answering the shorter version had substantially greater odds of skipping the question altogether (odds ratio 9.57, 95% CI 1.21-75.74; P=.03). CONCLUSIONS: Results favor the use of a longer, more detailed approach to measuring sexual identity in epidemiological research. Such a measure will likely allow researchers to produce more accurate estimates of health behaviors and outcomes among sexual minorities.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.079 | 0.065 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".