Stuart Michaels1, Carolina Milesi2, Michael Stern3, Melissa Heim Viox4, Heather Morrison4, Paul Guerino5, Christina N Dragon5, Samuel C Haffer5. 1. 1 Academic Research Centers, NORC at the University of Chicago , Chicago, Illinois. 2. 2 Education and Child Development Department, NORC at the University of Chicago , Chicago, Illinois. 3. 3 Center for Excellence in Survey Research, NORC at the University of Chicago , Chicago, Illinois. 4. 4 Health Sciences, NORC at the University of Chicago , Chicago, Illinois. 5. 5 Office of Minority Health, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services , Baltimore, Maryland.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The goal of this research is to advance the study of health disparities faced by older sexual and gender minorities by assessing comprehension of and improving measures of sexual and gender identity in surveys. METHODS: Cognitive interviews were conducted by expert interviewers with 48 non-lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (non-LGBT) and 9 LGBT older English and Spanish speakers. RESULTS: All respondents were able to answer questions about their sex assigned at birth and current gender identity successfully despite some cisgender respondents' lack of clear understanding of the transgender response option. On the contrary, while the vast majority of English speakers could answer the question about their sexual identity successfully, almost 60% of the non-LGBT Spanish speakers did not select the "heterosexual, that is, not gay (or lesbian)" response category. Qualitative probing of their response process pointed mainly to difficulties understanding the term "heterosexual," leading to their choosing "something else" or saying that they didn't know how to answer. A second round of testing of alternative response categories for the sexual identity question with Spanish speakers found a marked improvement when offered "not gay (or lesbian), that is, heterosexual" instead of beginning with the term "heterosexual." CONCLUSION: This research adds to our understanding of gender and sexual identity questions appropriate for population surveys with older adults. Inclusion of these measures in surveys is a crucial step in advancing insights into the needs of and disparities faced by LGBT older adults.
PURPOSE: The goal of this research is to advance the study of health disparities faced by older sexual and gender minorities by assessing comprehension of and improving measures of sexual and gender identity in surveys. METHODS: Cognitive interviews were conducted by expert interviewers with 48 non-lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (non-LGBT) and 9 LGBT older English and Spanish speakers. RESULTS: All respondents were able to answer questions about their sex assigned at birth and current gender identity successfully despite some cisgender respondents' lack of clear understanding of the transgender response option. On the contrary, while the vast majority of English speakers could answer the question about their sexual identity successfully, almost 60% of the non-LGBT Spanish speakers did not select the "heterosexual, that is, not gay (or lesbian)" response category. Qualitative probing of their response process pointed mainly to difficulties understanding the term "heterosexual," leading to their choosing "something else" or saying that they didn't know how to answer. A second round of testing of alternative response categories for the sexual identity question with Spanish speakers found a marked improvement when offered "not gay (or lesbian), that is, heterosexual" instead of beginning with the term "heterosexual." CONCLUSION: This research adds to our understanding of gender and sexual identity questions appropriate for population surveys with older adults. Inclusion of these measures in surveys is a crucial step in advancing insights into the needs of and disparities faced by LGBT older adults.
Keywords:
LGBT aging; gender identity; sexual identity; survey measurement
Authors: Matt Jans; Joseph Viana; David Grant; Susan D Cochran; Annie C Lee; Ninez A Ponce Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2015-03-19 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Karen I Fredriksen-Goldsen; Hyun-Jun Kim; Susan E Barkan; Anna Muraco; Charles P Hoy-Ellis Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2013-06-13 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Marc N Elliott; James M Dahlhamer; Sarah MacCarthy; Megan K Beckett; Nate Orr; Paul Guerino; Denis Agniel; Catherine L Saunders; Mark A Schuster; Judy H Ng; Steven C Martino Journal: Med Care Date: 2019-12 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Chris Grasso; Hilary Goldhammer; Danielle Funk; Dana King; Sari L Reisner; Kenneth H Mayer; Alex S Keuroghlian Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2019-06-20 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Sophie Horstmann; Corinna Schmechel; Kerstin Palm; Sabine Oertelt-Prigione; Gabriele Bolte Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-06-18 Impact factor: 4.614
Authors: Tonia Poteat; Linda C Gallo; Audrey Harkness; Carmen R Isasi; Phoenix Matthews; Neil Schneiderman; Bharat Thyagarajan; Martha L Daviglus; Daniela Sotres-Alvarez; Krista M Perreira Journal: JMIR Res Protoc Date: 2021-05-06