Abstract
Survey measurements of sexual orientation have become increasingly common in national population surveys although validation of these measurements is rare and inherently problematic. We instead assess the reproducibility of parallel measurements from two independent samples of the USA population made in the 2008-2018 General Social Surveys and the adult probability subsets of the 2013-2018 National Health Interview Survey (Ns = 12,098 and 190,113).
Restricting analysis to the categories gay/lesbian, bisexual, and straight, we obtain similar estimates of the proportion of the U.S. population who consider themselves gay/lesbian (NHIS: 1.59% vs. GSS: 1.93%, p = 0.059) but not bisexual (NHIS: 1.03% vs. GSS: 2.90%, p < 0.001). Fitting multinomial logistic regression models controlling for year, gender, birth cohort, education, and race, we find that compared to the NHIS, the GSS had 1.248 (p=0.022) times higher relative odds of eliciting a response of Gay-Lesbian (vs. Straight) and 2.980 (p<0.001) times higher relative odds of eliciting a response of Bisexual (vs. Straight). Expanding the model by adding 3-way interaction terms for orientation-by-predictor-by-survey, we find that we cannot reject the null hypothesis that trends over time and across subpopulations in reporting of sexual orientation were statistically equivalent for the two survey programs.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
CFT undertook this work while on sabbatical leave from Queens College, CUNY
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The datasets used in these secondary analyses are publicly available without restriction (https://gss.norc.org/get-the-data and https://nhis.ipums.org/nhis/). As such, these secondary analyses are exempt from IRB review.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Disclosures
Declaration of Interest No potential conflicts of interest are reported by the authors.
Data Availability and IRB Statement The datasets used in these secondary analyses are publicly available without restriction (https://gss.norc.org/get-the-data and https://nhis.ipums.org/nhis/). As such, these secondary analyses are exempt from IRB review.
Funding Details This work was supported in part by a sabbatical leave fellowship to CFT by the City University of New York (Queens College). The authors designed the study, conducted the analysis, and are solely responsible for interpretation of the data, the writing of the manuscript, and the decision to submit the manuscript for publication. The funder had no role in these activities.
Data Availability
The datasets used in these secondary analyses are publicly available without restriction (https://gss.norc.org/get-the-data and https://nhis.ipums.org/nhis/).