Toward inclusive and equitable LGBTIQ+ measurement: Assessing gender and sexual orientation measures and scale validity in national surveys across 21 countries
Bibliographic record
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.
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 | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".