实现包容性和公平的 LGBTIQ+ 测量:在 21 个国家的国家调查中评估性别和性取向措施及量表有效性

IF 4 1区 社会学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL Journal of Social Issues Pub Date : 2024-09-23 DOI:10.1111/josi.12635
K. Colin Li, Elli van Berlekom, S. Atwood, Yu-Chi Wang
{"title":"实现包容性和公平的 LGBTIQ+ 测量:在 21 个国家的国家调查中评估性别和性取向措施及量表有效性","authors":"K. Colin Li,&nbsp;Elli van Berlekom,&nbsp;S. Atwood,&nbsp;Yu-Chi Wang","doi":"10.1111/josi.12635","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Despite growing global interest in lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, intersex, and queer/questioning (LGBTIQ+) research, variations in measurement practices across countries have remained underexplored. In this work, we focused on two fundamental aspects of measurement vital to understanding the experiences of LGBTIQ+ people. Specifically, we documented current measures of sex, gender, and sexual orientation used in national mental well-being-related surveys and reviewed whether the mental well-being scales in those surveys have been validated for LGBTIQ+ people. We employed a stratified sampling strategy and evaluated national surveys from a list of randomly selected countries representing 10% of global nations (<i>N</i> = 21). Fewer than half of the countries measured sexual orientation and fewer than one-third measured gender beyond the binary in their national surveys. Among the countries that measured gender or sexual orientation, the response options and question phrasing were often not inclusive. In addition, most of the mental well-being scales lacked validity evidence for LGBTIQ+ populations. Finally, we outline recommendations for the future of reimagining LGBTIQ+ research in terms of measurement, highlighting the importance of research engagement with the global LGBTIQ+ community.</p>","PeriodicalId":17008,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Social Issues","volume":"80 3","pages":"920-946"},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/josi.12635","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Toward inclusive and equitable LGBTIQ+ measurement: Assessing gender and sexual orientation measures and scale validity in national surveys across 21 countries\",\"authors\":\"K. Colin Li,&nbsp;Elli van Berlekom,&nbsp;S. Atwood,&nbsp;Yu-Chi Wang\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/josi.12635\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Despite growing global interest in lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, intersex, and queer/questioning (LGBTIQ+) research, variations in measurement practices across countries have remained underexplored. In this work, we focused on two fundamental aspects of measurement vital to understanding the experiences of LGBTIQ+ people. Specifically, we documented current measures of sex, gender, and sexual orientation used in national mental well-being-related surveys and reviewed whether the mental well-being scales in those surveys have been validated for LGBTIQ+ people. We employed a stratified sampling strategy and evaluated national surveys from a list of randomly selected countries representing 10% of global nations (<i>N</i> = 21). Fewer than half of the countries measured sexual orientation and fewer than one-third measured gender beyond the binary in their national surveys. Among the countries that measured gender or sexual orientation, the response options and question phrasing were often not inclusive. In addition, most of the mental well-being scales lacked validity evidence for LGBTIQ+ populations. Finally, we outline recommendations for the future of reimagining LGBTIQ+ research in terms of measurement, highlighting the importance of research engagement with the global LGBTIQ+ community.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":17008,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Social Issues\",\"volume\":\"80 3\",\"pages\":\"920-946\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/josi.12635\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Social Issues\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/josi.12635\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Social Issues","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/josi.12635","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

尽管全球对女同性恋、男同性恋、双性恋、变性人、双性人和同性恋/疑问者(LGBTIQ+)研究的兴趣与日俱增,但各国在测量实践方面的差异仍未得到充分探索。在这项工作中,我们重点关注对了解 LGBTIQ+ 人的经历至关重要的两个基本测量方面。具体来说,我们记录了目前在国家心理健康相关调查中使用的性、性别和性取向测量方法,并审查了这些调查中的心理健康量表是否针对 LGBTIQ+ 人士进行过验证。我们采用了分层抽样策略,从随机抽取的国家名单中评估了国家调查,这些国家占全球国家总数的 10%(N = 21)。在这些国家的调查中,只有不到一半的国家测量了性取向,只有不到三分之一的国家测量了二元性别以外的性别。在对性别或性取向进行测量的国家中,回答选项和问题措辞往往不具有包容性。此外,大多数心理健康量表缺乏针对 LGBTIQ+ 群体的有效性证据。最后,我们概述了从测量角度重新规划 LGBTIQ+ 研究的未来建议,强调了与全球 LGBTIQ+ 社区开展研究的重要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Toward inclusive and equitable LGBTIQ+ measurement: Assessing gender and sexual orientation measures and scale validity in national surveys across 21 countries

Despite growing global interest in lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, intersex, and queer/questioning (LGBTIQ+) research, variations in measurement practices across countries have remained underexplored. In this work, we focused on two fundamental aspects of measurement vital to understanding the experiences of LGBTIQ+ people. Specifically, we documented current measures of sex, gender, and sexual orientation used in national mental well-being-related surveys and reviewed whether the mental well-being scales in those surveys have been validated for LGBTIQ+ people. We employed a stratified sampling strategy and evaluated national surveys from a list of randomly selected countries representing 10% of global nations (N = 21). Fewer than half of the countries measured sexual orientation and fewer than one-third measured gender beyond the binary in their national surveys. Among the countries that measured gender or sexual orientation, the response options and question phrasing were often not inclusive. In addition, most of the mental well-being scales lacked validity evidence for LGBTIQ+ populations. Finally, we outline recommendations for the future of reimagining LGBTIQ+ research in terms of measurement, highlighting the importance of research engagement with the global LGBTIQ+ community.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
9.70
自引率
7.70%
发文量
73
期刊介绍: Published for The Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues (SPSSI), the Journal of Social Issues (JSI) brings behavioral and social science theory, empirical evidence, and practice to bear on human and social problems. Each issue of the journal focuses on a single topic - recent issues, for example, have addressed poverty, housing and health; privacy as a social and psychological concern; youth and violence; and the impact of social class on education.
期刊最新文献
Issue Information Challenging the Status-Quo with Practical Theory: Introduction to John T. Jost's Kurt Lewin Award Address From oppressive to affirmative: Situating the health and well-being of LGBTIQ+ people as impacted by systemic and structural transitions in Russia, Turkey, Pakistan, and India Reimagining LGBTIQ+ research – Acknowledging differences across subpopulations, methods, and countries The damaging legacy of damage-centered LGBTIQ+ research: Implications for healthcare and LGBTIQ+ health
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1