S Bryn Austin1, Kerith Conron, Aarti Patel, Naomi Freedner. 1. Division of Adolescent and Young Adult Medicine, Children's Hospital, 300 Longwood Ave Boston, MA 02115, USA. bryn.austin@childrens.harvard.edu
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To carry out a study using cognitive processing interview methods to explore ways in which adolescents understand sexual orientation questions currently used on epidemiologic surveys. METHODS: In-depth, individual interviews were conducted to probe cognitive processes involved in answering four self-report survey questions assessing sexual identity, sexual attraction, and sex of sexual partners.A semi-structured interview guide was used to explore variation in question interpretation, information retrieval patterns and problems, item clarity, valence of reactions to items (positive, negative, neutral), respondent burden, and perceived threat associated with the measures. Thirty adolescents aged 15 to 21 of diverse sexual orientations and race/ethnicities participated in the study, including female, male, and transgender youth. RESULTS: A question on sexual attraction was the most consistently understood and thus was easy for nearly all youth to answer. In contrast, a measure of sexual identity with options heterosexual, bisexual, gay/lesbian, and unsure was the most difficult to answer. Most preferred a sexual identity item that also provided the intermediate options mostly heterosexual and mostly homosexual, which many said reflected their experience of feeling between categories. Participants had varying and inconsistent interpretations of sexual behavior terms, such as sex and sexual intercourse, used in assessing the sex of sexual partners. CONCLUSION: Differences in understanding could affect interpretation of survey data in important ways. Development of valid measures of sexual orientation will be essential to better monitor health disparities.
OBJECTIVE: To carry out a study using cognitive processing interview methods to explore ways in which adolescents understand sexual orientation questions currently used on epidemiologic surveys. METHODS: In-depth, individual interviews were conducted to probe cognitive processes involved in answering four self-report survey questions assessing sexual identity, sexual attraction, and sex of sexual partners.A semi-structured interview guide was used to explore variation in question interpretation, information retrieval patterns and problems, item clarity, valence of reactions to items (positive, negative, neutral), respondent burden, and perceived threat associated with the measures. Thirty adolescents aged 15 to 21 of diverse sexual orientations and race/ethnicities participated in the study, including female, male, and transgender youth. RESULTS: A question on sexual attraction was the most consistently understood and thus was easy for nearly all youth to answer. In contrast, a measure of sexual identity with options heterosexual, bisexual, gay/lesbian, and unsure was the most difficult to answer. Most preferred a sexual identity item that also provided the intermediate options mostly heterosexual and mostly homosexual, which many said reflected their experience of feeling between categories. Participants had varying and inconsistent interpretations of sexual behavior terms, such as sex and sexual intercourse, used in assessing the sex of sexual partners. CONCLUSION: Differences in understanding could affect interpretation of survey data in important ways. Development of valid measures of sexual orientation will be essential to better monitor health disparities.
Authors: Alyssa L Norris; Larry K Brown; Ralph J DiClemente; Robert F Valois; Daniel Romer; Peter A Vanable; Michael P Carey Journal: J Natl Med Assoc Date: 2018-12-02 Impact factor: 1.798
Authors: Melissa N Laska; Nicole A VanKim; Darin J Erickson; Katherine Lust; Marla E Eisenberg; B R Simon Rosser Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2015-01 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Heather L Corliss; Brianna M Wadler; Hee-Jin Jun; Margaret Rosario; David Wypij; A Lindsay Frazier; S Bryn Austin Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2012-05-11 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Bethany G Everett; Blair Turner; Tonda L Hughes; Cindy B Veldhuis; Margaret Paschen-Wolff; Gregory Phillips Journal: LGBT Health Date: 2019-10 Impact factor: 4.151