Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Comparing National Probability and Community-Based Samples of Sexual Minority Adults: Implications and Recommendations for Sampling and Measurement

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Archives of Sexual Behavior Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Scientific evidence regarding sexual minority populations has generally come from studies based on two types of samples: community-derived samples and probability samples. Probability samples are lauded as the gold standard of population research for their ability to represent the population of interest. However, while studies using community samples lack generalizability, they are often better able to assess population-specific concerns (e.g., minority stress) and are collected more rapidly, allowing them to be more responsive to changing population dynamics. Given these advantages, many sexual minority population studies rely on community samples. To identify how probability and community samples of sexual minorities are similar and different, we compared participant characteristics from two companion samples from the Generations Study, each designed with the same demographic profile of U.S. sexual minority adults in mind. The first sample was recruited for a national probability survey, whereas the second was recruited for a multicommunity sample from four U.S. cities. We examined sociodemographic differences between the samples. Although there were several statistical differences between samples, the effect sizes were small for sociodemographic characteristics that defined the sample inclusion criteria: sex assigned at birth, race/ethnicity, and age cohort. The samples differed across other characteristics: bisexual respondents, respondents with less education, and those living in non-urban areas were underrepresented in the community sample. Our findings offer insights for recruiting community samples of sexual minority populations and for measuring sexual identity on probability surveys. They also bolster confidence in well-designed community samples as sources for data on sexual minority populations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Age parameters for each cohort were established based on when respondents experienced specific LGBT-related historical events (e.g., Stonewall uprising, discovery of AIDS, legalization of same-sex marriage) in the course of their development (e.g., puberty, early adulthood). For example, the oldest cohort experienced early adulthood in the post-Stonewall era of heightened visibility and collective identity mobilization for LGBT people. By contrast, the middle cohort experienced early adulthood with the emergence of the Internet as a new tool for social interaction, and the younger cohort experienced early adulthood with the legalization of same-sex marriage and the rising visibility of sexual and gender diversity. For more details about the definition of cohorts, see Frost et al. (2019).

References

  • Balsam, K. F., Beauchaine, T. P., Mickey, R. M., & Rothblum, E. D. (2005). Mental health of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and heterosexual siblings: Effects of gender, sexual orientation, and family. Journal of Abnormal Psychology,114(3), 471–476. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.114.3.471.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bayer, R. (1987). Homosexuality and American Psychiatry: The politics of diagnosis. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Binson, D., Blair, J., Huebner, D. M., & Woods, W. J. (2007). Sampling in surveys of lesbian, gay, and bisexual people. In I. H. Meyer & M. E. Northridge (Eds.), The health of sexual minorities: Public health perspectives on lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender populations (pp. 375–418). New York, NY: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. (1988). Chi square tests for goodness of fit and contingency tables. In J. Cohen (Ed.), Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed., pp. 215–271). New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dilley, J. A., Simmons, K. W., Boysun, M. J., Pizacani, B. A., & Stark, M. J. (2010). Demonstrating the importance and feasibility of including sexual orientation in public health surveys: Health disparities in the Pacific Northwest. American Journal of Public Health,100(3), 460–467. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2007.130336.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Dodds, J. P., Mercer, C. H., Mercey, D. E., Copas, A. J., & Johnson, A. M. (2006). Men who have sex with men: A comparison of a probability sample survey and a community based study. Sexually Transmitted Infections,82(1), 86–87. https://doi.org/10.1136/sti.2005.015248.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Dodge, B., Ford, J. V., Bo, N., Tu, W., Pachankis, J., Herbenick, D., … Hatzenbuehler, M. L. (2019). HIV risk and prevention outcomes in a probability-based sample of gay and bisexual men in the United States. Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes,82(4), 355–361.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Drabble, L. A., Trocki, K. F., Korcha, R. A., Klinger, J. L., Veldhuis, C. B., & Hughes, T. L. (2018). Comparing substance use and mental health outcomes among sexual minority and heterosexual women in probability and non-probability samples. Drug and Alcohol Dependence,185, 285–292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2017.12.036.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhower, A., Suyemoto, K., & Lucchese, F. (2014). “Which Box Should I Check?” Examining standard check box approaches to measuring race and ethnicity. Health Services Research,49(3), 1034–1055. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6773.12132.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ellard-Gray, A., Jeffrey, N. K., Choubak, M., & Crann, S. E. (2015). Finding the hidden participant: Solutions for recruiting hidden, hard-to-reach, and vulnerable populations. International Journal of Qualitative Methods,14(5), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406915621420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frost, D. M., Hammack, P. L., Wilson, B. D. M., Krueger, E. A., Kittle, K. R., & Meyer, I. H. (2018). Methodology and technical notes: Generations qualitative interviews recruitment and enrollment. Retrieved from http://www.generations-study.com/methods.

  • Frost, D. M., Hammack, P. L., Wilson, B. D. M., Russell, S. T., Lightfoot, M., & Meyer, I. H. (2019). The qualitative interview in psychology and the study of social change: Sexual identity development, minority stress, and health in the Generations study. Qualitative Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/qup0000148.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Frost, D. M., & Meyer, I. H. (2012). Measuring community connectedness among diverse sexual minority populations. Journal of Sex Research,49(1), 36–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2011.565427.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Galupo, M. P., Mitchell, R. C., & Davis, K. S. (2015). Sexual minority self-identification: Multiple identities and complexity. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity,2(4), 355–364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg, S. K., Rothblum, E. D., Russell, S. T., & Meyer, I. H. (2020). Exploring the Q in LGBTQ: Demographic characteristic and sexuality of queer people in a U.S. representative sample of sexual minorities. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 7, 101–112. https://doi.org/10.1037/sgd0000359.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hammack, P. L., Mayers, L., & Windell, E. P. (2013). Narrative, psychology and the politics of sexual identity in the United States: From ‘sickness’ to ‘species’ to ‘subject’. Psychology & Sexuality,4(3), 219–243. https://doi.org/10.1080/19419899.2011.621131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hatzenbuehler, M. L., Phelan, J. C., & Link, B. G. (2013). Stigma as a fundamental cause of population health inequalities. American Journal of Public Health,103(5), 813–821. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2012.301069.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Heckathorn, D. D. (1997). Respondent-driven sampling: A new approach to the study of hidden populations. Social Problems,44(2), 174–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hooker, E. (1957). The adjustment of the male overt homosexual. Journal of Projective Techniques,21(1), 18–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/08853126.1957.10380742.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Horner, E. (2007). Queer identities and bisexual identities: What’s the difference? In B. A. Firestein (Ed.), Becoming visible: Counseling bisexuals across the lifespan (pp. 287–296). New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Igartua, K., Thombs, B. D., Burgos, G., & Montoro, R. (2009). Concordance and discrepancy in sexual identity, attraction, and behavior among adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health,45(6), 602–608. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2009.03.019.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Institute of Medicine. (2011). The health of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people: Building a foundation for better understanding. Washington, DC: Author. https://doi.org/10.17226/13128.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Koh, A., & Ross, L. (2006). Mental health issues: A comparison of lesbian, bisexual and heterosexual women. Journal of Homosexuality,51(1), 33–57.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Krueger, E. A., Lin, A., Kittle, K. R., & Meyer, I. H. (2020). Generations quantitative survey methods v.20. Retrieved from http://www.generations-study.com/methods.

  • Krueger, E. A., & Upchurch, D. M. (2019). Are sociodemographic, lifestyle, and psychosocial characteristics associated with sexual orientation group differences in mental health disparities? Results from a national population-based study. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology,54(6), 755–770. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-018-1649-0.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Leedy, G., & Connolly, C. (2007). Out in the cowboy state: A look at lesbian and gay lives in Wyoming. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services,19(1), 17–34. https://doi.org/10.1300/J041v19n01.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marshal, M. P., Dietz, L. J., Friedman, M. S., Stall, R., Smith, H. A., Mcginley, J., … Brent, D. A. (2011). Suicidality and depression disparities between sexual minority and heterosexual youth: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Adolescent Health,49(2), 115–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2011.02.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, I. H. (2003). Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations: Conceptual issues and research evidence. Psychological Bulletin,129(5), 674–697. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.5.674.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, I. H., Marken, S., Russell, S. T., Frost, D. M., & Wilson, B. D. M. (2020). An innovative approach to the design of a national probability sample of sexual minority adults. LGBT Health,7(2), 101–108. https://doi.org/10.1089/lgbt.2019.0145.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, I. H., Schwartz, S., & Frost, D. M. (2008). Social patterning of stress and coping: Does disadvantaged social statuses confer more stress and fewer coping resources? Social Science and Medicine,67(1), 368–379. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2008.03.012.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, I. H., & Wilson, P. A. (2009). Sampling lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations. Journal of Counseling Psychology,56(1), 23–31. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014587.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Minton, H. L. (2002). Departing from deviance: A history of homosexual rights and emancipatory science in America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morandini, J. S., Blaszczynski, A., & Dar-Nimrod, I. (2017). Who adopts queer and pansexual sexual identities? Journal of Sex Research,54(7), 911–922. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2016.1249332.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Morin, S. F. (1977). Heterosexual bias in psychological research on lesbianism and male homosexuality. American Psychologist,32(8), 629–637.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muhib, F. B., Lin, L. S., Stueve, A., Miller, R. L., Ford, W. L., Johnson, W. D., & Smith, P. J. (2001). A venue-based method for sampling hard-to-reach populations. Public Health Reports,116(Supplement 1), 216–222.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Rossi, P. H., Wright, J. D., & Anderson, A. B. (2013). Sample surveys: History, current practice, and future prospects. In P. H. Rossi, J. D. Wright, & A. B. Anderson (Eds.), Handbook of survey research (pp. 1–19). London: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rothblum, E. D. (2007). From science fiction to computer-generated technology: Sampling lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals. In I. H. Meyer & M. E. Northridge (Eds.), The health of sexual minorities (pp. 442–454). Boston, MA: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Russell, S. T., Clarke, T. J., & Clary, J. (2009). Are teens ‘“post-gay”’? Contemporary adolescents’ sexual identity labels. Journal of Youth and Adolescence,38(1), 884–890. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-008-9388-2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sadler, G. R., Lee, H.-C., Lim, R. S.-H., & Fullerton, J. (2010). Recruitment of hard-to-reach population subgroups via adaptations of the snowball sampling strategy. Nursing and Health Sciences,12(1), 369–374. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1442-2018.2010.00541.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Saewyc, E. M., Skay, C. L., Hynds, P., Pettingell, S., Bearinger, L. H., Resnick, M. D., & Reis, E. (2008). Suicidal ideation and attempts in North American school-based surveys: Are bisexual youth at increasing risk? Journal of LGBT Health Research,3(2), 25–36. https://doi.org/10.1300/J463v03n02.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salway, T. J., Morgan, J., Ferlatte, O., Hawkins, B., Lachowsky, N. J., & Gilbert, M. (2019). A systematic review of characteristics of nonprobability community venue samples of sexual minority individuals and associated methods for assessing selection bias. LGBT Health,6(5), 205–215.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Savin-Williams, R. C. (2005). The new gay teenager. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sell, R. L., & Holliday, M. L. (2014). Sexual orientation data collection policy in the United States: Public health malpractice. American Journal of Public Health,104(6), 967–969.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Sell, R. L., & Petrulio, C. (1996). Sampling homosexuals, bisexuals, gays, and lesbians for public health research: A review of the literature from 1990 to 1992. Journal of Homosexuality,30(4), 31–47. https://doi.org/10.1300/J082v30n04.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • USDA. (2013). Rural-urban commuting area codes. Retrieved from https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/rural-urban-commuting-area-codes/.

  • Vrangalova, Z., & Savin-Williams, R. C. (2012). Mostly heterosexual and mostly gay/lesbian: Evidence for new sexual orientation identities. Archives of Sexual Behavior,41(1), 85–101. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-012-9921-y.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Watson, R. J., Wheldon, C. W., & Puhl, R. M. (2020). Evidence of diverse identities in a large national sample of sexual and gender minority adolescents. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 30(Suppl. 2), 431–442. https://doi.org/10.1111/jora.12488.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Watters, J. K., & Biernacki, P. (1989). Targeted sampling: Options for the study of hidden populations. Social Problems,36(4), 416–430.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Research reported in this article is part of the Generations Study, supported by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) under award number R01HD078526. This research was also supported by Grants P2CHD042849 and T32HD007081, both awarded to the Population Research Center at the University of Texas at Austin by the NICHD. This research was also supported by NICHD Grant P2CHD041041, awarded to the Maryland Population Research Center, and from the University of Maryland Prevention Research Center cooperative agreement U48DP006382 from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the NIH or CDC. The Generations investigators are: Ilan H. Meyer, Ph.D. (Principal Investigator), David M. Frost, Ph.D., Phillip L. Hammack, Ph.D., Marguerita Lightfoot, Ph.D., Stephen T. Russell, Ph.D., and Bianca D.M. Wilson, Ph.D. (Co-Investigators, listed alphabetically).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Preventive Medicine, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, 2001 N. Soto St., 302-04, Los Angeles, CA, 90032, USA

    Evan A. Krueger

  2. Department of Family Science, University of Maryland School of Public Health, College Park, MD, USA

    Jessica N. Fish

  3. Department of Psychology, University of California, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, CA, USA

    Phillip L. Hammack

  4. Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA

    Marguerita Lightfoot

  5. Department of Human Development and Family Sciences, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA

    Meg D. Bishop & Stephen T. Russell

Authors
  1. Evan A. Krueger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jessica N. Fish
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Phillip L. Hammack
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Marguerita Lightfoot
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Meg D. Bishop
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Stephen T. Russell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Evan A. Krueger.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Ethical Approval

This study had IRB approval.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all participants included in the probability sample. Informed consent was also obtained from participants from the community sample who were selected for inclusion in the subsequent interview study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 39 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Krueger, E.A., Fish, J.N., Hammack, P.L. et al. Comparing National Probability and Community-Based Samples of Sexual Minority Adults: Implications and Recommendations for Sampling and Measurement. Arch Sex Behav 49, 1463–1475 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-020-01724-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-020-01724-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation