PURPOSE: To examine the performance of various items measuring sexual orientation within 8 school-based adolescent health surveys in the United States and Canada from 1986 through 1999. METHODS: Analyses examined nonresponse and unsure responses to sexual orientation items compared with other survey items, demographic differences in responses, tests for response set bias, and congruence of responses to multiple orientation items; analytical methods included frequencies, contingency tables with Chi-square, and ANOVA with least significant differences (LSD)post hoc tests; all analyses were conducted separately by gender. RESULTS: In all surveys, nonresponse rates for orientation questions were similar to other sexual questions, but not higher; younger students, immigrants, and students with learning disabilities were more likely to skip items or select "unsure." Sexual behavior items had the lowest nonresponse, but fewer than half of all students reported sexual behavior, limiting its usefulness for indicating orientation. Item placement in the survey, wording, and response set bias all appeared to influence nonresponse and unsure rates. CONCLUSIONS: Specific recommendations include standardizing wording across future surveys, and pilot testing items with diverse ages and ethnic groups of teens before use. All three dimensions of orientation should be assessed where possible; when limited to single items, sexual attraction may be the best choice. Specific wording suggestions are offered for future surveys.
PURPOSE: To examine the performance of various items measuring sexual orientation within 8 school-based adolescent health surveys in the United States and Canada from 1986 through 1999. METHODS: Analyses examined nonresponse and unsure responses to sexual orientation items compared with other survey items, demographic differences in responses, tests for response set bias, and congruence of responses to multiple orientation items; analytical methods included frequencies, contingency tables with Chi-square, and ANOVA with least significant differences (LSD)post hoc tests; all analyses were conducted separately by gender. RESULTS: In all surveys, nonresponse rates for orientation questions were similar to other sexual questions, but not higher; younger students, immigrants, and students with learning disabilities were more likely to skip items or select "unsure." Sexual behavior items had the lowest nonresponse, but fewer than half of all students reported sexual behavior, limiting its usefulness for indicating orientation. Item placement in the survey, wording, and response set bias all appeared to influence nonresponse and unsure rates. CONCLUSIONS: Specific recommendations include standardizing wording across future surveys, and pilot testing items with diverse ages and ethnic groups of teens before use. All three dimensions of orientation should be assessed where possible; when limited to single items, sexual attraction may be the best choice. Specific wording suggestions are offered for future surveys.
Authors: Vincent M B Silenzio; Juan B Pena; Paul R Duberstein; Julie Cerel; Kerry L Knox Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2007-09-27 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Michael P Marshal; Mark S Friedman; Ron Stall; Kevin M King; Jonathan Miles; Melanie A Gold; Oscar G Bukstein; Jennifer Q Morse Journal: Addiction Date: 2008-04 Impact factor: 6.526
Authors: Brian Mustanski; Michelle Birkett; George J Greene; Margaret Rosario; Wendy Bostwick; Bethany G Everett Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2013-12-12 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Matthew E Hirschtritt; Emily F Dauria; Brandon D L Marshall; Marina Tolou-Shams Journal: J Adolesc Health Date: 2018-08-02 Impact factor: 5.012
Authors: Laura Kann; Tim McManus; William A Harris; Shari L Shanklin; Katherine H Flint; Barbara Queen; Richard Lowry; David Chyen; Lisa Whittle; Jemekia Thornton; Connie Lim; Denise Bradford; Yoshimi Yamakawa; Michelle Leon; Nancy Brener; Kathleen A Ethier Journal: MMWR Surveill Summ Date: 2018-06-15