Updates on Terminology of Sexual Orientation and 

Gender Identity Survey Measures 

FCSM-20-03 

Prepared by 

Rachel E. Morgan, Christina Dragon, Gemirald Daus, Jessica Holzberg, 

Robin Kaplan, Heather Menne, Amy Symens Smith, and Maura Spiegelman 

under the auspices of 

Federal Committee on Statistical Methodology 

Statistical and Science Policy Office 

Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs 

Office of Management and Budget 

August 2020 
 

 

 

Recommended citation Rachel E. Morgan, Christina Dragon, Gemirald Daus, Jessica Holzberg, Robin 

Kaplan, Heather Menne, Amy Symens Smith, and Maura Spiegelman. 2020. Updates on Terminology of 

Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Survey Measures. FCSM 20-03. Federal Committee on Statistical 

Methodology. August 2020. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE FEDERAL COMMITTEE ON STATISTICAL METHODOLOGY 

MEMBERS 

Rochelle (Shelly) Martinez (Co-Chair) 

Office of Management and Budget 

Stephen Blumberg 

National Center for Health Statistics 

Chris Chapman 

National Center for Education Statistics 

Jennifer Edgar 

Bureau of Labor Statistics 

John Eltinge 

U.S. Census Bureau 

John Finamore 

National Center for Science and Engineering 

Statistics 

Dennis Fixler 

Bureau of Economic Analysis 

Michael Hawes 

U.S. Census Bureau 

Jennifer Madans 

National Center for Health Statistics 

Wendy Martinez 

Bureau of Labor Statistics 

Jaki McCarthy 

National Agricultural Statistics Service 

Jennifer Nielsen (Secretary) 

National Center for Education Statistics 

Jennifer M. Ortman 

U.S. Census Bureau 

Anne Parker 

Internal Revenue Service 

Jennifer Parker 

National Center for Health Statistics 

Polly Phipps 

Bureau of Labor Statistics 

Mark Prell 

Economic Research Service 

Joseph Schafer 

U.S. Census Bureau 

Rolf Schmitt 

Bureau of Transportation Statistics 

Marilyn Seastrom 

National Center for Education Statistics 

Joy Sharp 

Energy Information Administration 

Bob Siviniski 

Office of Management and Budget 

Bruce Taylor (Webmaster) 

National Center for Education Statistics 

G. David Williamson 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

Linda Young 

National Agricultural Statistics Service 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table of Contents 

I. Background and Purpose ............................................................................................................ 1 

II. Describing the Challenge ........................................................................................................... 1 

III. Reviewing Key Insights ............................................................................................................. 2 

a. Sexual Orientation.................................................................................................................. 2 

b. Gender Identity....................................................................................................................... 7 

c. Open-Ended Questions......................................................................................................... 14 

d. Don’t Know or Refused to Answer Questions..................................................................... 15 

e. Cultural/Language Implications for Question Format and Comprehension ...................... 18 

IV. Future Directions .................................................................................................................... 20 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I. Background and Purpose 

In 2016, the OffiIe of Maミageマeミt aミd Budgetげs ふOMBぶ Federal Interagency Working Group 

(IWG) on Measuring Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity (SOGI) released three working 

papers to address the dearth of data on sexual and gender minority (SGM)1 populations and the 

methodological considerations for collecting such data (IWG, 2016a–c). 

One of these working papers, Toward a Research Agenda for Measuring Sexual Orientation and 

Gender Identity in Federal Surveys, addresses the knowledge gaps by proposing research 

priorities and strategies to make the greatest impact on improving SOGI measurement in 

federal surveys (IWG, 2016c). A primary research priority is the need for further research on the 

terminology and ordering of response options for SOGI questions. Since 2016, research and 

data collection efforts have continued to expand, laying the groundwork to address this 

research priority by reviewing the most recent key terms used in collecting data on SGM 

populations, as well as the current data collection methodologies. This paper is intended to 

inform researchers and interested parties beyond the U.S. federal statistical system. 

This scoping paper examines recent sexual orientation and gender identity terminology. Sexual 

orientation is operationally defined as consisting of three constructs—in which さsexual identityざ

is the construct of interest for how people identify themselves. Gender identity is a separate 

construct as well —but the literature more broadly uses the terms さSOGIざ and さsexual 

orientation and gender identityざ when referring to measurement and question development. 

Beyond the typical response options (e.g., さstraight,ざ さlesbian/gay,ざ さbisexual,ざ or さmale,ざ

さfemale,ざ さtransgenderざ), open-ended responses provided by respondents who identify as 

さsomething elseざ (i.e., another sexual orientation or gender identity) are explored in this paper. 

Item nonresponse and the use of さdoミげt kミo┘ざ or さrefused responseざ options are discussed for 

sexual and gender minorities who do not see themselves in the identities provided. Recent 

research examining question format and comprehension of questions and terminology is 

included. This paper concludes with a discussion of findings surrounding SGM terminology and 

areas for future research. 

This paper highlights insights we identified from the literature reviewed about response option 

terminology and associated methodological implications. This paper does not reinvestigate 

research covered in prior SOGI IWG working papers, unless it is particularly relevant to our 

current study of SOGI terminology. Our intent is to contribute to the broader discussion of 

measuring SOGI in surveys while contributing possible future research avenues for 

documenting best practices for SOGI measurement. 

II. Describing the Challenge 

Providing response options that enable a respondent to identify the response appropriate for 

them or their household is a central tenet of survey design. We have anecdotal awareness that 

1 This paper refers to the population of interest as sexual and gender minority (SGM) rather than the more 

commonly used reference of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT). We believe that SGM is more

inclusive, because it includes persons not specifically referenced by the identities listed in LGBT. 

1 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SOGI terminology is fluid and continues to evolve over time. Past research has also highlighted 

challenges in selecting question and response terminology that resonates in both the general 

(i.e., straight cisgender) population and among those who identify as a sexual and/or gender 

minority.2 To ensure that our surveys collect quality information about this topic, it is 

imperative that we carry out research to determine what terminology is most appropriate and 

effective. 

This paper explores recent research about how sexual and gender minorities situate themselves 

into a response option. The focus of this paper is on those who might be a sexual and/or gender 

minority and do not see a response with which they identify. Future papers should consider 

how straight, cisgender people understand and respond to these questions. 

During the past few years, the majority of the salient and relevant research on this topic has not 

focused on the general population. Instead, this research is focused on young people and SGM 

populations. Young people are identifying with new sexual orientation and gender identity 

terminology and therefore represent a large sample of interest in recent studies. Recent 

research includes a few emerging SOGI terminology studies focused on the general population, 

and the results of these surveys are included in this paper where appropriate. 

To conduct the update and assessment of terminology and methodology for collecting SOGI 

data, we conducted a comprehensive search of the literature and conference proceedings. This 

search included key word searches (e.g., さsexual orientation,ざ さsexual identity,ざ さgender 

identity,ざ さtransgender,ざ さsurvey,ざ and さmeasureざ) in Google Scholar, PubMed, and the Centers 

for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Library Search.3 We also reviewed proceedings papers 

of the American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR), the American Statistical 

AssoIiatioミげs Joint Statistical Meetings (JSM), the Population Association of America (PAA), and 

other conferences related to the topic of SOGI measurement. This paper reviews 59 references 

from 2015 to 2019. 

III. Reviewing Key Insights 

a. Sexual Orientation 

Recent research on sexual orientation terminology focuses on three themes: discussion of 

sexual identity terminology independent of lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) response options; 

2 Cisgender is the term for a person who identifies with the sex they were assigned at birth. (Retrieved from 

https://lgbtqia.ucdavis.edu/educated/glossary.) 

3 “peIifiI seaヴIh teヴマs iミIluded さ“e┝ual aミd Geミdeヴ Miミoヴitiesざ/ O‘ ふGeミdeヴ ADJヲ ideミt*ぶ O‘ ふgeミdeヴ ADJヲ

orient*) OR (sexual ADJ2 identity) OR (sexual ADJ2 orientation) OR (gender ADJ2 minorit*) OR (gender ADJ2 

varian*) OR (sex ADJ2 assign*) OR (sex ADJ2 reassign*) OR lgbt* OR trangender* OR transsex* OR (gender ADJ2

presentation*) OR (gender ADJ2 expression*) OR cisgender* OR cissexual* AND 

Exp Data Collection/mt OR exp Data Collection/st OR (data collection OR health survey* OR surveillance OR 

questionnaire* OR interview* OR terminology OR lexicon OR population definition* OR self-identif* OR selfヴepoヴt*ぶ.ti,aH.ざ

2 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

the rejection of sexual orientation labels; and the spectrum or fluidity of sexual orientation. This 

section examines insights drawn from the literature reviewed on sexual orientation terminology 

centered on these three themes. 

Terms used in the most commonly fielded questions on sexual identity do not exhaustively 

desIriHe respoミdeミts’ ideミtities.

The most commonly fielded questions on sexual identity in federal surveys use the terms さgay,ざ

さlesbian,ざ さstraight,ざ and さbisexualざ (IWG, 2016a). The sexual orientation question wording 

might vary, but the response options tend to be similar. For example, the National Health 

Interview Survey (NHIS) asks respondents (National Center for Health Statistics, 2019) the 

following question: 

Do you think of yourself as gay/lesbian; straight, that is not gay/lesbian; bisexual; 

soマethiミg else; or you doミ’t kミow the aミswer?

Gay/lesbian 

Straight, that is not gay/lesbian 

Bisexual 

Something else 

I doミ’t kミow the aミswer

Refused 

Doミ’t kミow

Alternatively, the sexual orientation question on the National Crime Victimization Survey 

(NCVS) is worded differently, but the response options are consistent with those in the NHIS 

(Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2018): 

Which of the following best represents how you think of yourself? 

Gay/lesbian 

Straight, that is not gay/lesbian 

Bisexual 

Something else 

I doミ’t kミow the aミswer

Refused 

Although these questions might include the additional response option of さsomething else,ざ

which sometimes allows respondents to enter additional information, these terms do not 

describe respondentsげ identities exhaustively. This section focuses on sexual identities outside 

those used most frequently as survey response options. We have summarized qualitative 

research in which respondents suggested the inclusion of additional identities. When possible, 

we have provided quantitative estimates about the prevalence of these identities. It should be 

noted that the majority of this research was conducted with youth or young adults, who might 

be particularly likely to identify with sexual identities other than さgay,ざ さlesbian,ざ さstraight,ざ or 

さbisexualざ (IWG, 2016a). 

3 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Qualitative research, particularly cognitive interviews with youth, has explored whether 

additional closed response options for sexual identity are warranted. For example, Temkin et al. 

(2017) probed 20 middle and high school students during cognitive interviews about how they 

would interpret the response option of さsomething else.ざ More than half of the students 

correctly interpreted this to mean another identity not listed, although about one-quarter could 

not explain why someone might choose this option. Their pilot questionnaire administered to 

middle and high school students in Washington, D.C., used the response option さsomething else 

(e.g., asexual,4 aromantic,5 pansexual,6 etc.),ざ and this option was selected by 2 percent of the 

3,054 responding students who answered the question. 

Another set of cognitive interviews, conducted in preparation for the third wave of the National 

Survey of Youth in Custody (NSYC-3) with 35 youth respondents ages 13 to 21 in both 

correctional facilities and the general population, also generated suggestions of additional 

sexual identities to add to the sexual orientation question (Steiger et al., 2017). Five 

participants would have selected the response option さsomething elseざ as the term that best 

described them (rather than さ[lesbian or] gay; straight, that is, not [lesbian or] gay; bisexual; not 

sureざ). Participants suggested additional identities that could be added as response options—in 

particular, pansexual, demisexual,7 asexual, and aromantic—but noted that these fell under the 

broader category of さsomething else.ざ For the full NSYC-3 administration, there were no plans 

to modify response options by adding additional categories or by adding specific examples to 

さsomething else.ざ

The Preventing School Harassment Survey—administered to California middle and high school 

students in 2003, 2004, and 2005—provides additional insight into the identities of young 

respondents (Russell, Clarke & Clary, 2009). Students were given the response options of 

さgay/lesbian,ざ さstraight/heterosexual,ざ さbisexual,ざ さqueer,ざ

8 

さquestioning,ざ and さwrite-in.ざ

Both さqueerざ and さquestioningざ were added because of feedback received during cognitive 

testing, and さwrite-inざ was suggested as a neutral replacement for さother.ざ Overall, 2 percent 

4 さ[Ase┝ual oヴieミtatioミ is] geミeヴall┞ IhaヴaIteヴized H┞ ミot feeliミg se┝ual attヴaItioミ oヴ a desiヴe foヴ paヴtミeヴed

sexuality. Asexuality is distinct from celibacy, which is the deliberate abstention from sexual activity. Some asexual 

people do ha┗e se┝. Theヴe aヴe マaミ┞ di┗eヴse ┘a┞s of Heiミg ase┝ual.ざ ふ‘etヴie┗ed fヴoマ 

https://lgbtqia.ucdavis.edu/educated/glossary.) 

5 さ[AヴoマaミtiI oヴieミtatioミ is] geミeヴall┞ IhaヴaIteヴized H┞ ミot feeliミg ヴoマaミtiI attヴaItioミ oヴ a desiヴe foヴ ヴoマaミIe. 

Aromantic people can be satisfied by friendship and other non-ヴoマaミtiI ヴelatioミships.ざ ふ‘etヴie┗ed fヴoマ 

https://lgbtqia.ucdavis.edu/educated/glossary.) 

6 さ[Paミse┝ual is] used to desIヴiHe people ┘ho ha┗e ヴoマaミtiI, se┝ual oヴ affeItioミal desiヴe foヴ people of all geミdeヴs

aミd se┝es.ざ ふ‘etヴie┗ed fヴoマ https://lgbtqia.ucdavis.edu/educated/glossary.) 

7 さDeマise┝ualit┞ is a sexual orientation in which someone feels sexual attraction only to people with whom they 

have an emotional bond. Most demisexuals feel sexual attraction rarely compared to the general population, and 

some have little to no interest in sexual activity. Demisexuals are considered to be on the asexual spectrum, 

マeaミiミg the┞ aヴe Ilosel┞ aligミed ┘ith ase┝ualit┞.ざ ふ‘etヴie┗ed fヴoマ https://lgbtqia.ucdavis.edu/educated/glossary.) 

8 さOミe defiミitioミ of queer is abnormal or strange. Historically, queer has been used as an epithet/slur against 

people whose gender, gender expression and/or sexuality do not conform to dominant expectations. Some people 

have reclaimed the word queer and self-identify as such. For some, this reclamation is a celebration of not fitting 

iミto ミoヴマs/Heiミg けaHミoヴマal.げざ ふ‘etヴie┗ed fヴoマ https://lgbtqia.ucdavis.edu/educated/glossary.) 

4 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

of respondents selected さqueer,ざ (5 percent of the subset of respondents who selected an 

identity other than さstraight/heterosexualざ) and 4 percent selected さquestioningざ (13 percent 

of the subset of respondents who selected an identity other than さstraight/heterosexualざ). 

Although 3 percent of respondents selected さwrite-inざ (9 percent of the subset of respondents 

who selected an identity other than さstraight/heterosexual), only a fraction of these responses 

included identities not already listed as response options. In particular, 14 of 69 respondents 

wrote in さpansexualざ or described an identity consistent with pansexuality, such as 

さeverythingざ; this group represents less than 1 percent of the responses (2 percent of the 

subset of respondents who selected an identity other than さstraight/heterosexualざ). 

Cognitive interviews with adults also have yielded suggestions of additional categories. 

Bulgar-Medina (2017) conducted cognitive interviews with a convenience sample of 27 adults 

who did not self-identify as straight. Given the response options さlesbian,ざ さgay,ざ さbisexual,ざ

さqueer,ざ and さno label,ざ four participants selected さqueerざ as the term that best described 

them, and two participants selected さno label.ざ The remainder identified themselves as 

さlesbian,ざ さgay,ざ or さbisexual.ざ Additionally, when asked whether other categories might be 

missing, one-third requested the addition of さpansexual.ざ

Meyer et al. (2019) conducted an experiment with approximately 9,700 adults age 18 or older 

in the United States about their sexual orientation, randomly assigning respondents to one of 

two question wordings. Half of the sample received the follow-up question, さWhat do you 

mean by something else?ざ if they responded さsomething elseざ to the sexual orientation 

question. The other half of the sample did not receive a follow-up question. Response options 

for the follow-up question included さqueer,ざ さpansexual,ざ さasexual,ざ さdemisexual,ざ さsamegender loving,ざ

9 and さnone of the above.ざ Fewer than 1 percent (i.e., 0.6 percent) of 

respondents identified as one of these sexual orientations. The sexual orientation question 

used in this experiment uses the same wording as the NHIS. Meyer at al. determined that most 

respondents (53 percent) who initially identified as さsomething elseざ subsequently identified as 

さnone of the above.ざ This research concluded that persons who identify as さsomething elseざ

might include sexual minorities but might also include heterosexual people who do not find an 

appropriate label among the provided choices, as well as people who do not have or do not 

want to respond with a particular sexual identity. 

Some sexual minority groups, especially teens, do not like using labels for their sexual 

orientation. 

Another insight found in recent research on sexual orientation terminology is the rejection of 

labels, which can often go hand-in-hand with identifying as さsomething elseざ when persons are 

asked about sexual orientation. Eliason and Streed (2017) found that one in five persons who 

reported their sexual identity as さsomething elseざ subsequently responded that they さha┗eミげt

9 さSame Gender Loving is a term used by some African American people who love, date, have attraction to people 

of the saマe geミdeヴ.ざ (Retrieved from https://lgbtqia.ucdavis.edu/educated/glossary.) 

5 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

figured out their sexuality,ざ さdoミげt use laHels,ざ or さare not straight but use another label.ざ

Other research similarly reported that persons identifying as さsomething elseざ responded that 

they were さnot straight, but identify with another label such as queer, trisexual, omnisexual, or 

pansexualざ (Eliason et al., 2016). Additionally, teens were also likely to report that they did not 

like labels related to their sexual orientation when identifying as さsomething elseざ (Russell, 

Clarke & Clary, 2009). 

Sexual orientation is a spectrum or continuum that can change over time, but the terminology 

typically used does not treat it as such. 

Sexual orientation terminology fails to treat sexual orientation as a spectrum or continuum that 

can change over time. Kinsey, Pomeroy, and Martin (1948), who developed the Kinsey 

Heterosexual-Homosexual Scale (KHHS), conducted seminal research on sexual orientation. The 

KHHS places sexual identity on a seven-point scale ranging from exclusively heterosexual to 

exclusively homosexual (Kinsey et al., 1948). The KHHS was revolutionary at the time of its 

development, but it was criticized because it was a static measure and did not account for 

potential variations in sexual orientation over time (Klein, Sepekoff, & Wolf, 1985). Klein et al. 

recognized the importance of viewing sexual orientation as a fluid process that can change over 

time and developed a new measure, the Klein Sexual Orientation Grid (KSOG) (Klein et al., 

1985). The KSOG measures sexual orientation using a seven-point scale for three different life 

points: past, present (preceding year), and aミ iミdi┗idualげs ideal choice. Klein et al. concluded 

that sexual orientation in adults changed over time; specifically, adults in their study identified 

as more homosexually oriented over time (Klein et al., 1985). 

Furthermore, research also suggests that sexual orientation is fluid and tends to change during 

oミeげs life course. Women who identified as LGB earlier in their life, or experienced same-sex 

attractions and/or behaviors, reported not identifying as LGB later in life (Diamond, 2003). 

Instead, the women were more ambivalent about sexual orientation labels later in life, 

expressing that the labels were limiting or that they saw their sexual orientation as fluid 

(Diamond, 2003). 

In addition to cisgender adults, teens and transgender adults have similarly viewed their sexual 

orientation as fluid. Teens were likely to respond that their sexual orientation was fluid or that 

they were experimenting, saying they were さhetero-flexible,ざ さbisexually gay,ざ or さbi-curiousざ

(Russell, Clarke & Clary, 2009). Transgender adults also reported fluidity throughout the life 

course and saw these shifts in sexuality as a product of さmultidimensional measurement of 

sexual orientationざ (Galupo, Henise, & Mercer, 2016). 

Sexual identities do not map perfectly to さgay,ざ さlesbian,ざ さstraight,ざ and さbisexual,ざ which is 

evidenced by the fact that teens were known to select multiple sexual orientation categories 

(i.e., a more complex or encompassing identity) when given the option (Russell, Clarke & Clary, 

2009). Individuals might identify with other descriptors (e.g., さqueerざ or さasexualざ) or reject 

labeling themselves entirely. For respondents who choose one of these terms, a single category 

might not capture their identities adequately. Self-described sexual identities might vary by 

6 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

population of interest. For example, young respondents use other terminology to describe 

themselves or decline to select a label. Static categories might be limiting for both older adults, 

by omitting lifetime changes in identity, as well as for young adults, who view their identity as 

fluid or changing. 

b. Gender Identity 

Research shows that current survey measures and terminology for gender identity do not work 

well for all transgender individuals, resulting in variations in reporting gender identity. Current 

survey measures include the two-step question approach to asking gender identity: first asking 

respondents their sex at birth and following up by asking their current gender identity. Current 

terminology often includes terms such as male, female, and transgender. Question format and 

terminology are evolving, but they are not understood in the same way across the entire 

transgender community. Moreover, self-identification can change over time and is affected by 

such factors as culture and language. This section of the paper focuses on insights from the 

literature reviewed around these themes. 

Some gender minority groups do not see transgender as an identity distinct from male or 

female; others prefer genderqueer to female or male. 

The first insights for gender identity are related to variations in question format, response 

options, and reporting. Ellis et al. (2017) and Holzberg et al. (2017) conducted research to 

assess the feasibility of asking about sexual orientation and gender identity in the Current 

Population Survey (CPS). Cognitive interviews with lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender 

(LGBT) and non-LGBT respondents, along with focus groups with members of the transgender 

population, were conducted. The question used in the Ellis et al. (2017) and Holzberg et al. 

(2017) cognitive testing work was a two-step gender identity question with response options 

さmale,ざ さfemale,ざ and さtransgenderざ for current gender identity. 

Cognitive interview findings showed that some respondents had difficulty selecting from the 

available response options because they さeither did not see themselves in the list of response 

categories offered (e.g., because they were gender-fluid), and/or they wanted to choose more 

than one category.ざ Some respondents did not like the limitation of choosing only one category 

because さtransgenderざ is excluded from さmaleざ and さfemale.ざ Others noted that male and 

female were biological concepts of sex and not exclusive from gender identities (Ellis et al., 

2017). 

In general, respondents commented on the lack of response options and the inability to mark 

all that apply. Respondents suggested adding さgender non-binary,ざ さtrans-man,ざ

さtrans-woman,ざ and さsomething else.ざ They also said that transgender respondents might 

identify as both male and transgender or female and transgender; these response options are 

not mutually exclusive (Ellis et al., 2017). 

7 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Furthermore, findings from the focus groups with members of the transgender population 

found that many would use さけtヴaミsgeミdeヴげ as aミ uマHヴella teヴマ to desIヴiHe マeマHeヴs of a 

diverse communityざ even if it was not personally their first choice for self-identification 

(Holzberg et al., 2017). The focus group respondents self-identified in many ways, including 

さman, woman, transgender, queer, gender-fluid, non-binary, and genderqueer. Some indicated 

that their self-identification had changed over time or that it might change in the future, a 

pヴoIess oミe ヴespoミdeミt desIヴiHed as けfiミe tuミiミg theiヴ o┘ミ self-desIヴiptioミげざ (Holzberg et al., 

2017). 

Also important is the finding that さsome respondents explicitly said that they thought it would 

be difficult for researchers to create questions with adequate response options, given the 

diversity of terms used and debate within the transgender community itself about 

terminology.ざ Several question formats were tested in the focus groups; although respondents 

saw shortcomings in all versions, the question with the largest number of current gender 

identity response options was seen as the most promising (Holzberg et al., 2017).10 A few 

respondents were uncomfortable selecting a さtransgenderざ response option because they do 

not use that word to describe themselves. Other respondents were unsure, unwilling, or 

uncomfortable identifying as transgender instead of male or female. The inability to mark all 

that apply was also generally noted by respondents (Holzberg et al., 2017). 

The Report of the National Transgender Discrimination Survey (NTDS) (2008–2009) 

intentionally provided survey results separately for transgender and gender non-conforming 

respondents by asking respondents to identify with a variety of response options. According to 

Grant et al. (2011), this was doミe to Hetteヴ uミdeヴstaミd the Hヴeadth of this Ioママuミit┞げs

experiences. The NTDS was the first study to comprehensively measure experiences and life 

outcomes of transgender people in the United States. 

The survey started by stating the following: 

Transgender/gender non-conforming describes people whose gender identity or 

expression is different, at least part of the time, from the sex assigned to them at birth. 

1. Do you consider yourself to be transgender/gender non-conforming in any way? 

Yes 

No, if no, do NOT continue. 

2. What sex were you assigned at birth, on your original birth certificate? 

Male 

Female 

10 Question 2D. How do you describe ┞ouヴself? ふCheIk oミeぶ. Optioミs iミIlude: さマale,ざ さfeマale,ざ さtヴaミs マale/tヴaミs

マaミ,ざ さtヴaミs feマale/tヴaミs ┘oマaミ,ざ さgeミdeヴケueeヴ/geミdeヴ ミoミ-conforming/non-Hiミaヴ┞,ざ さdiffeヴeミt ideミtit┞ ふplease 

stateぶ: _____________.ざ

8 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3. What is your primary gender identity today?11 

Male/Man 

Female/Woman 

Part time as one gender, part time as another 

A gender not listed here, please specify ______. 

4. For each term listed, please select to what degree it applies to you, not at all, 

somewhat, or strongly. 

Transgender 

Transsexual 

FTM (female to male) 

MTF (male to female) 

Intersex 

Gender non-conforming or gender variant 

Genderqueer 

Androgynous 

Feminine male 

Masculine female or butch 

A.G. or Aggressive 

Third gender 

Cross dresser 

Drag performer (King/Queen) 

Two-spirit 

Other, please specify ____ 

The authors constructed this list of commonly understood choices at the time of publication; 

more than 500 respondents, however, wrote in a range of additional gender identities (Grant et 

al., 2011). Using these four qualifying questions to categorize respondents, the authors 

conveyed that it was labor intensive to categorize the 6,450 survey responses into the two 

tabulation categories for presentation; they noted, however, that さasking more simplified 

identity questions would create more simplified categoriesざ (Grant et al., 2011).12 

The 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey (USTS) is the follow up to the 2008–2009 NTDS and is an 

opt-in internet survey of 50,000 people. Survey results show that 88 percent of respondents 

thought of themselves as transgender, and 86 percent expressed that they were さvery 

comfortable,ざ さsomewhat comfortable,ざ or さneutralざ when asked how comfortable they were 

being described as さtransgender.ざ Eighty-two percent of non-binary respondents were 

comfortable being described as さtransgender.ざ The authors thus concluded that the term 

11 As with many two-step gender identity questions, persons are considered transgender if they provide a 

sex/gender for question 2 and a different sex/gender for question 3. 

12 See Boxes of Our Own Creation: A Trans Data Collection Wo/Manifesto, J. Harrison-Quintana, J. Grant and I. 

Rivera. 2015 Transgender Studies Quarterly V2. N1 for a nice description of how the qualifying questions were 

desigミed so さ...people ┘ould see theマsel┗es aミd theiヴ geミdeヴs iミ the eaヴliest マoマeミts of eミteヴiミg the stud┞

pヴoIess.ざ p. ヱヶ9.

9 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

さtransgenderざ is broadly used and accepted and represents the diverse identities of those who 

participated in the survey (James et al., 2016). 

Unlike in the 2008–2009 survey, the 27,715 respondents were asked to choose only one term 

that best described their current gender identity out of six possible terms: woman, man, trans 

woman (MTF), trans man (FTM), non-binary/genderqueer, and crossdresser. These responses 

were then grouped into four gender identity categories: transgender woman, transgender man, 

non-binary people and crossdressers. Sixty-two percent of respondents were included in the 

transgender man and woman categories. Crossdresser best described the gender identity of 

3 percent of respondents. Thirty-five percent of respondents indicated they identified as 

さnon-binaryざ or さgenderqueerざ (James et al., 2016).13 

Several recent smaller data collections have resulted in additional useful information about 

gender identity question terminology and response options. Bauer et al. (2017) conducted a 

mixed-methods evaluation of a two-step question developed in the United States and a 

multidimensional measure developed in Canada. Data from 588 Canadian respondents were 

collected through an online questionnaire, and 79 respondents were selected for an individual 

interview conducted via telephone or Skype. Results showed strong agreement between the 

two measures on the assessment of gender identity. Twenty participants reported a non-binary 

gender identity on the multidimensional measure, and 29 did on the two-step measure. 

Write-ins that indicated non-binary identities included さagender,ざ さgender queer,ざ さfemale 

questioning,ざ and さnon-binary.ざ In many of the personal interviews, the issue of whether

genderqueer persons are included within a broad definition of さtransざ

14 came up. Genderqueer 

respondents conveyed a variety of views on whether they were trans, recognizing that 

terminology inclusivity or exclusivity is a point of community disagreement. 

Some Indigenous participants identified as Two-Spirit, commonly known as an umbrella term 

used to communicate a broad range of traditional Indigenous gender-diverse identities and 

social roles. One respondent offered, さI think that whereas some people, they misunderstand 

that Two-Spiritedness can be—is considered to be something under the transgender spectrum, 

┘heミ ヴeall┞ itげs soマethiミg thatげs マoヴe of a speItヴuマ iミ itself that is iミIlusi┗e of se┝uality and 

gender identity...but very exclusive to First Nations and Indigenous peopleざ (Bauer et al., 2017). 

The authors recommended including Two-Spirit as a multidimensional sex/gender measure that 

should be further studied: 

Q1. What sex were you assigned at birth, meaning on your original birth certificate? 

Male 

Female 

13 See the full report downloaded on 2/26/19 https://transequality.org/sites/default/files/docs/usts/USTS-FullReport-Dec17.pdf. 

14 さTヴaミsざ is a shoヴteミiミg of さtヴaミsgeミdeヴざ aミd is aミ uマHヴella teヴマ often used instead of, or in combination with, 

さマaミざ oヴ さ┘oマaミざ ふe.g., さtヴaミsマaミ,ざ さtヴaミs┘oマaミ,ざ さtヴaミs マaミ,ざ さtヴaミs ┘oマaミ.ざぶ.

10 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Q2. Which best describes your current gender identity? 

Male 

Female 

Indigenous or other cultural gender minority identity (e.g., two-spirit) 

Something else (e.g., gender fluid, non-binary) 

The third question may be asked only of those who indicated a current gender identity 

different than their birth-assigned sex. If so, it can be forward filled to code cisgender 

participants as living in their identified (and birth-assigned) sex/gender. 

Q3. What gender do you currently live as in your day-to-day life? 

Male 

Female 

Sometimes male, sometimes female 

Something other than male or female 

The authors did not find in question 2 that it was necessary to provide response options that 

allow respondents to identify as man versus trans man: さWhile some trans interview 

participants were clear they were men or women who do not personally identify as trans, none 

stated that they identify as, for example, a trans man but not a man.ざ The authors also added 

an Indigenous or cultural gender identity response option to recognize the traditional gender 

identities that exist in many Indigenous cultures within Canada and the world. The authors 

included さTwo-Spiritざ because it is understood as an umbrella term (Bauer et al., 2017). 

Finally, one response option for other identities (e.g., non-binary, genderqueer, agender, or 

gender fluid) was included for participants who were unable to differentiate between the 

options of さboth male and femaleざ and さneither male nor female.ざ No individual indicated that 

the wording was particularly important to them. The authors also avoided including the broad 

term さgender non-conformingざ to reduce the likelihood of misclassifying queer cisgender 

respondents as trans. 

SGM respondents self-identify using a variety, and in some cases multiple, terms that might 

change over time. 

Another key insight is related to self-identification of gender identity. When asked about their 

current gender identity, transgender respondents made comments that they were still unsure 

or さworking [things] out in their head.ざ Others referred to a self-identification journey, 

reflecting the fact that gender identity varies over time. 

Returning to the research by Holzberg et al. (2017), when asked about their process of selfidentification, respondents used a variety of terms to identify themselves: transgender, male 

and/or man; transmasculine; masculine; woman; trans woman; woman and trans woman; 

11 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

agender fem; fem androgynous; aporagender;15 queer; gender-fluid; genderqueer; genderfluid/genderqueer; non-binary; gender fluid, genderqueer, nonbinary trans woman; non-binary 

genderqueer trans guy; and bi-bi kid (bisexual, bigendered). Later in the focus groups, 

respondents were asked what response options should be included in two-step gender identity 

questions. Respondents mentioned intersex, agender, genderqueer, nongendered, bigender, 

gender-fluid, non-binary, other, neither (instead of transgender), prefer not to answer, and 

none of the above. Some respondents also thought an open-ended question should be used 

instead, although they acknowledged that cisgender people could write in false answers and 

that open-ended responses would be harder for researchers to analyze. The ways respondents 

self-identified were more numerous and diverse than the response options the respondents 

were offered. 

In another study, Kuper et al. (2014) worked to understand the range of identity possibilities 

within the larger sample of transgender individuals. Noting that most samples are drawn from 

clinical samples of transgender individuals, the authors fielded a web-based survey of 292 

adults who self-identified as within the transgender spectrum or gender variant in some way. 

Participants described their current and past gender identities as female, male, genderqueer, 

transgender, transsexual, crossdresser, two spirit, bigender, intergender, drag king, 

androgynous, drag queen, and not listed.16 

In the same study, genderqueer was the most often reported current gender identity after 

female and male. Forty-five percent identified as neither male nor female. Almost 13 percent 

wrote in a gender identity that was not listed. Seventy-two percent of participants identified 

with more than one current gender identity, and 41 percent identified with more than two. 

Participants identified an average of 1.4 past identities that were unique from their current 

identity or identities, evidence that identity shifts over time. 

Sex labels such as male and female are preferred over gender labels such as man and woman. 

Another key insight in gender identity terminology is focused on sex versus gender labels. 

Research by Martinez et al. (2017) explored the use of male/female versus man/woman to 

desIヴiHe oミeげs geミdeヴ ideミtit┞. Cognitive pretesting of the NCVS Supplemental Victimization 

Survey tested a two-part current gender identity question to determine the respondentsげ 

preference for sex labels (male/female) versus gender labels (man/woman). This pretesting was 

targeted toward the general population in the context of a crime survey. Respondents were 

asked the following question: さDo you currently describe yourself as a man, woman, or 

transgender person?ざ A scripted probe was then included, asking gender identity the original 

way: さDo you currently describe yourself as male, female, or transgender?ざ Findings showed 

that most respondents preferred to use sex labels over gender labels. However, no respondent 

15 Apoヴageミdeヴ is defiミed as a さミoミHiミaヴ┞ geミdeヴ ideミtit┞ aミd uマHヴella teヴマ foヴ げa geミdeヴ sepaヴate fヴoマ マale, 

female, and anything in Het┘eeミ ふuミlike Aミdヴog┞ミeぶ ┘hile still ha┗iミg a ┗eヴ┞ stヴoミg aミd speIifiI geミdeヴed feeliミgけ 

ふthat is, ミot aミ aHseミIe of geミdeヴ oヴ ageミdeヴぶざ ふhttps://gender.wikia.org/wiki/Aporagender). 

16 Other gender identities that received four or fewer mentions were not listed. 

12 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

identified as transgender or mentioned transitioning in the sample. Furthermore, among 

respondents there was disagreement on what would work for all ages, such as younger 

respondents not considering themselves to be men and women. This idea was also supported 

by the responses that teen respondents gave. 

Similar to the NCVS research, as part of cognitive testing, researchers in the United Kingdom 

asked respondents how the terms さmanざ and さwomanざ were understood in the question that 

included response options さtrans man,ざ さtrans woman,ざ さtranssexual person,ざ さgender variant 

person,ざ さcross dressing person,ざ さtransvestite person,ざ さintersex person,ざ さin another way 

________________,ざ and さI prefer not to say.ざ Findings showed that さmanざ and さwomanざ were 

problematic terms. Respondents conveyed that these were sexualized roles or that they felt 

uncomfortable selecting these if they were in the process of changing from their birth sex to 

the gender with which they identify, because they did not feel they could yet justify choosing 

さmanざ or さwomanざ as it felt like they would be さlyingざ (Balarajan, 2011). 

Gender identity terminology seems to vary by age, sex assigned at birth, and educational 

attainment. 

After reviewing recent research on gender identity, demographic characteristics are another 

key insight that emerged. The results from the 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey (USTS), a nonprobability opt-in internet survey of 50,000 respondents, included a snapshot of respondents 

by gender identity category, including trans man, trans woman, non-binary and crossdressers 

(James et al., 2016). The age profile showed that nearly half (47 percent) of transgender men 

and women were ages 25–44 years, compared to 35 percent of non-binary respondents and 29 

percent of crossdressers. Non-binary respondents were more likely to be younger (61 percent) 

compared to transgender men (43 percent), transgender women (24 percent) and 

crossdressers (8 percent). Twenty percent of crossdressers were 65 years or older, compared to 

5 percent of transgender women, 1 percent of non-binary respondents, and less than 1 percent 

of transgender men. 

Finally, findings on educational attainment generally showed that survey respondents had 

higher education attainment than the total U.S. population, although this is common among 

internet-based surveys. Looking at the two populations by age, survey respondents showed 

higheヴ peヴIeミtages ┘ith soマe Iollege oヴ a HaIheloヴげs degヴee oヴ higheヴ, compared to the total 

population (65 percent compared to 46 percent and 17 percent compared to 10 percent). 

Survey results also point to variations. Bauer et al. (2017) concluded that demographic 

characteristics used in regression models could be associated with current gender identity. 

Compared to those ages 18–21, individuals in the oldest age group (ages 35+) were more likely 

to identify as a crossdresser. Those in the second oldest group (ages 26–35) were more likely to 

identify as bigender. Those in the oldest group were less likely to identify as genderqueer. 

Moreover, people assigned female at birth were more likely than those assigned male at birth 

to retain their birth sex as their current gender identity. Controlling for age, birth sex females 

were also more likely to identify as genderqueer and less likely to identify as transsexual. The 

13 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

authors concluded that these results highlight the diversity of experience within the 

transgender umbrella and, therefore, the need for sensitivity and thoughtfulness related to 

language. 

Survey questions might benefit from consideration of the variation in how transgender people 

identify over time and by demographic group. 

The literature outlined above highlights the fact that transgender individuals are extremely 

varied in the ways they identify their current gender identity. Some do not want to identify with 

a term that tries to stabilize gender identity, and others do not identify as transgender because 

they do not see themselves as a man or woman. Using a two-step question approach, asking 

first about sex assigned at birth and then about current gender identity, might help to avoid an 

undercount of transgender persons because they do not identify as transgender. Instead, 

researchers can classify respondents based on their sex at birth and current gender identity. 

Others might not identify with the umbrella term さtransgenderざ but instead with such options 

as さgender non-conforming,ざ さgender queer,ざ さnon-binary,ざ さfluid,ざ etc. Another common 

theme is that transgender respondents might still be unsure or さworking [things] out in their 

headざ (Holzberg et al., 2017). Others referred to a self-identification journey, reflecting the fact 

that gender identity varies over time. Findings from the USTS and smaller surveys indicate that 

respondentsげ identities vary in terms of age and other characteristics, suggesting that—in 

addition to question wording, format, terminology, and response options—other factors should 

be taken into consideration as new research methods are developed. 

c. Open-Ended Questions 

さOtherざ is preferred to さsoマethiミg else,ざ Hut is analytically useful only if a write-in option is 

available. 

Some surveys have included open-ended options for their sexual orientation or gender identity 

items, where respondents write in their response after indicating they identify as さsomething 

elseざ or さother.ざ This provides an option for those who might not identify with the listed 

categories, who prefer not to be categorized, or who do not understand any of the terms 

(Joloza et al., 2010). They might partly represent a subset of the community that views sexuality 

and gender as fluid and dynamic concepts, not to be defined by a single label, or they might 

prefer not to identify with any of the options presented to them (Meyer et al., 2019). 

In a tobacco use survey, cognitive testing of a combined sexual orientation/gender identity 

question that did not include an open-ended option proved problematic for a few respondents, 

because their preferred term was not one of the options. A second round of cognitive testing 

allowed an open-ended response (さYou can name a different category if that fits you betterざ), 

14 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

which allowed all respondents to classify themselves in the category with which they identified 

(Scout & Senseman, 2011). 

The wording of the open-ended response is important. In a cognitive research study with older 

adults, the use of the phrasing さsomething elseざ was received with confusion and in some cases 

as judgment. Additionally, the question was not truly open-ended, because there was no 

opportunity to write in what さsomething elseざ meant. The study recommended using さotherplease specifyざ instead of さsomething elseざ (Redford & van Wagenen, 2012). Bates et al. (2019) 

also found the use of さsomething elseざ to be a challenge when analyzing data. Their research 

found that of the 1.5 percent of respondents who marked さsomething else,ざ only 16 percent of 

the write-in responses were sexual minority labels like さqueerざ or さpansexual.ざ Most write-in 

responses were terms like さChristian male,ざ さnormal,ざ and さnot your businessざ (Bates, Trejo, & 

Vines, 2019). 

Interpretation of sexual identity responses of さotherざ or さsomething elseざ can be challenging if 

separate gender identity question is in the survey. The Redford & van Wagenen study (2012) 

did not include a gender identity question, which might explain why some respondents thought 

さsomething elseざ was an opportunity to identify as さtransgender.ざ Similarly, in a United 

Kingdom health survey, researchers were unable to discern whether respondents chose さotherざ

as a gender identity or as a さpolitical rejection of sexual orientation categoriesざ (Semlyen, 

2017). 

Despite these challenges, an open-ended response option should not be summarily discarded. 

Further study of the various write-in responses to さsomething elseざ is warranted to better 

understand the diversity of the terminology SGM people use to identify themselves in the 

future, as terminology (i.e., the actual words that are used) changes and evolves. Research also 

is needed to address whether such an approach results in improved reporting relative to any 

increased costs (i.e., time to analyze responses) and when it might be most effective. 

d. Don’t Know or Refused to Answer Questions

Item nonresponse is relatively low for SOGI questions but should be assessed carefully, 

because even low rates of nonresponse could be problematic when attempting to measure a 

small population. 

A number of factors can influence item nonresponse (i.e., answering さdoミげt kミo┘ざ or refusing 

to answer) on surveys, including mode of administration (Robertson et al., 2017), item 

sensitivity and anonymity of the survey (de Leeuw et al., 2015; Joinson et al., 2008), or whether 

the survey is voluntary and respondents are aware that they can skip items (Betts, 2016). 

Including such options as さdoミげt kミo┘ざ or さprefer not to answerざ or having interviewers 

instruct respondents that they can choose not to answer a question can increase item 

nonresponse. It is important to assess levels of item nonresponse, because it can seriously bias 

prevalence estimates and affect data quality, particularly for small and hard-to-measure 

populations, such as sexual and gender minorities. 

15 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In terms of SOGI questions, several factors might potentially contribute to item nonresponse, 

such as social desirability or confidentiality concerns (Tourangeau & Yan, 2007), development 

of (or fluidity in) self-identity leading to uncertainty in how to answer (Saewyc et al., 2004; 

SMART Report, 2009), or difficulty understanding the question (Shoemaker at al., 2002). 

However, item nonresponse tends to be relatively low for SOGI questions compared to other 

items, particularly other sensitive questions about income, disability, or health (Holzberg et al., 

2019; Dahlhamer et al., 2014; Pierannunzi et al., 2017; Ortman et al., 2017). For example, 

Robertson et al. (2017) examined responses to questions about sexual identity across a number 

of national surveys and found that the percentage of さdoミげt kミo┘/not sureざ responses ranged 

from 0.3 percent to 1.3 percent, and refusals ranged from 0.2 percent to 4.4 percent, consistent 

with other findings (IWG, 2016a). Because item nonresponse to SOGI items generally has been 

low, this has been interpreted to mean that respondents easily understood SOGI questions and 

that the terminology included in the questions was clear to them. However, some research has 

suggested that item nonresponse might vary by question terminology or by respondent 

subgroup. Furthermore, a nonresponse rate of 4 percent could be problematic when 

attempting to measure a small population. 

Improvements in the clarity of SOGI questions have been associated with reduced item 

nonresponse. 

The terminology used in the response options of SOGI items might play a role in item 

nonresponse. The NHIS has used a sexual identity question that included the response 

categories of さlesbian/gay,ざ さstraight, that is not gay or lesbianざ さbisexual,ざ さsomething else,ざ

or さdoミげt kミo┘.ざ However, other surveys do not include a さdoミげt kミo┘ざ option or combine 

さdoミげt kミo┘ざ and さrefuse to answerざ options together, which can lead to different levels of 

item nonresponse. 

Similarly, the National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG) began asking respondents about their 

sexual orientation in 2002. The NSFG is a nationally representative survey collecting 

information on family life, marriage and divorce, pregnancy, and other topics related to family 

and reproductive health. Recently, the items about sexual orientation were revised to include 

categories that were more descriptive and easily understood by respondents (closer to the 

terminology used in the NHIS). These changes reduced the level of item nonresponse over time 

(Ridolfo et al., 2012). Furthermore, when the terminologies used in the question categories are 

conflated with one another (e.g., sexual identity, attraction, and behavioral concepts), item 

nonresponse might increase (Saewyc et al., 2004). This effect might result from confusion with 

the response category terms, because those with clear, concise categories had less item 

nonresponse overall. 

In addition, the current terminology included in such surveys as the NHIS might not encompass 

all possible response categories. This effect might inflate the level of item nonresponse (Eliason 

et al., 2017). If other categories—such as さqueer,ざ さpansexual,ざ さasexual,ざ or さfluidざ—were 

included, the item nonresponse might be reduced. Eliason (2014) provides an overview of the 

16 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

terminology used in sexual and gender identity surveys. She argues that although particular 

labels are associated with a community, the labels do not always map onto a particular identity, 

and no interview or survey could list all of the possible terms. Furthermore, some respondents 

might not identify with any label or choice. Gender identity usually is asked about in a binary 

way on surveys; researchers might consider asking about gender identity as a spectrum to 

reduce item nonresponse (Tate, Ledbetter, and Youseff, 2013). 

Another reason for item nonresponse to SOGI questions might be that some people do not 

want to select a particular label due to the connotations that come with that label. For instance, 

associating oneself with a particular label might create fear of negative repercussions (e.g., 

rejection by family or peers, loss of job) (Temkin et al., 2017). Furthermore, researchers 

sometimes fear that respondents will be offended by these questions and refuse to answer. 

Although some respondents are reluctant to answer SOGI questions, most researchers have 

found that SOGI questions were not any more sensitive than other types of demographic 

questions (e.g., income). Although little empirical evidence exists for either of these 

explanations, Jans et al. (2010) found that item nonresponse to the California Health Interview 

Survey (CHIS) decreased over time between 2003 and 2011, a time period during which public 

support for sexual minorities and legislative protections, such as same-sex marriage, also 

increased in the United States. These findings suggest that in some regions of the United States, 

social stigma might not be as much of a concern moving forward. 

Different population subgroups might have more difficulty understanding and responding to 

SOGI questions. 

Past research has shown that using clear, well-understood categories in SOGI questions can 

reduce item nonresponse rates substantially (6.2 percent to 1.6 percent; Kim & FredriksenGoldsen, 2013). However, this effect might not hold for all subgroups; for instance, Hispanic 

respondents have an item nonresponse rate to a question on sexual orientation of 9 percent. 

Many surveys have not analyzed response by race and ethnicity, but it is thought that different 

groups might have more difficulty identifying with the categories provided on the surveys. 

Findings from research assessing the Behavior Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) 

responses over time showed that minorities (e.g., African Americans, Asian Americans, and 

Hispanic respondents) were more likely to respond さミot suヴe oヴ doミげt kミo┘,ざ and Asian 

Americans and Hispanics were also more likely to refuse to answer. It is unclear why this 

occurred. The finding might reflect a language issue, unfamiliarity with the terms, or other 

cultural differences in these types of terms and definitions of sexuality. Similarly, using data 

from the CHIS, Jans et al. (2010) found higher sexual orientation item nonresponse for Asian 

respondents, regardless of their English proficiency, although nonresponse decreased when 

respondents were interviewed in a non-English language. Higher item nonresponse also was 

found for Spanish-language interviews. More broadly, race, ethnicity, English proficiency, 

percentage of life lived in the United States, poverty, education, and gender all were 

significantly associated with sexual orientation nonresponse. 

17 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fredriksen et al. (2015) aggregated data from 2003 to 2010 from the BRFSS in Washington 

State, which included measures of sexual orientation. They found that adults ages 65 and older 

had item nonresponse rates about sexual orientation similar to those of younger adults, where 

item nonresponse was 1.6 percent and さdoミげt kミo┘/ミot suヴeざ responses were 1.2 percent for 

adults ages 65 and older. This research challenged previous assumptions that older adults 

would have higher rates of item nonresponse due to not understanding or feeling 

uncomfortable with the questions. The rate of item nonresponse lessened over time as the 

terminology included on the survey improved to be clearer; this pattern was maintained even 

after adjusting for other demographic variables, such as gender, income, education, and 

race/ethnicity. In terms of younger respondents, some researchers have found that such groups 

as adolescents might have more fluidity in their sexual identity. In particular, females might 

change their responses to SOGI questions over time at higher rates; these changes can move 

from one response category to another or go from being さunsureざ to identifying with a 

different category (Ott et al., 2011). Among students, an evaluation of eight school surveys 

found that boys, younger students, those who had been held back a grade, those with a 

learning disability, and students with limited English proficiency had higher item nonresponse 

on questions related to sexual orientation (Saewyc et al., 2004). On the other hand, Temkin et 

al. (2017) found no variation by race or ethnicity for students. 

Ruben et al. (2017) showed that veterans had similarly low rates of responding さdoミげt kミo┘ざ or 

refusing to answer SOGI questions as non-veterans. Despite veteransげ sometimes being 

required to conceal their identity because of various policies about military participation—and 

medical professionalsげ feeling hesitant to ask such questions of veterans—they were just as 

willing to answer these items as non-veterans. 

Nonresponse on sexual identity items has also been shown to vary by education level. 

Respondents with less education (i.e., less than a high school diploma or no college education) 

had higher item nonresponse to sexual identity questions than those with at least some college 

education (Dahlhamer et al., 2014; Gruskin et al., 2001). This effect might result in part from 

satisficing behaviors (i.e., in which respondents exert minimal cognitive effort when answering 

questions), as education has been linked to question shortcutting. Some evidence also exists 

that straightlining, (i.e., another question shortcutting behavior in which respondents select the 

same answers throughout a survey), might play a role in SOGI nonresponse (Saewyc et al., 

2004). Student respondents who said they さdoミげt kミo┘ざ to other questions in the survey were 

more likely to say they さdoミげt kミo┘ざ to SOGI questions; the same pattern held for respondents 

who skipped questions entirely throughout the survey. 

e. Cultural/Language Implications for Question Format and Comprehension 

Spanish speakers and persons from Latin American countries have more difficulty with the 

distinction between sexual identity and gender identity. 

18 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is a recognition in the literature that the format of SOGI questions and response options, 

as well as comprehension of the constructs by non-English speaking respondents, is important 

to review and confirm. 

As part of a study on sexual identity and behavior among men who have sex with men, survey 

participants were asked first about their male sex partners and then about their female sex 

partners (Pathela et al., 2006). This ordering of questions, (i.e., about same sex and then 

opposite sex partners), differs from the methodology in other large surveys, such as the 

National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). By including さvaginal intercourseざ

in the definition of sex, asking about same-sex partners (in this case male) might have 

contributed to survey participantsげ not understanding the question and resulted in a 

misclassification of heterosexual men as homosexual. The authors recommended additional 

research on the most accurate and reliable approach to ascertaining the sex of partners. 

Reisner et al. (2014) conducted an online opt-in anonymous survey of more than 36,000 

individuals who were members of a sexual networking website targeting men who have sex 

with men in Latin America/the Caribbean, Portugal, and Spain. The purpose of the survey was 

to test a two-step method to measure gender identity (i.e., sex assigned at birth and current 

gender identity). Survey participants selected from one of six response categories for their 

current gender identity: さmale,ざ さfemale,ざ さmale-to-female,ざ さfemale-to-male,ざ さother 

(specify),ざ and さprefer not to answer.ざ The majority of write-in responses for さother (specify)ざ

indicated that survey participants interpreted gender identity to mean sexual orientation 

identity, because their write-in responses were most commonly さgayざ (59.5 percent) or 

さbisexualざ (28.2 percent). Often respondents who do not understand the concept of gender 

identity will interpret it as sexual orientation (Michaels et al., 2017). This lack of clarity on the 

gender identity item could result from the construct of gender being closely linked to that of 

sexual orientation in the Latin American context. The authors recommended that future studies 

include a prompt to define gender identity as separate from sexual orientation. They also 

recommended additional study to validate the survey items used to measure transgender 

identity. Furthermore, cognitive testing should occur in different languages and geographic 

contexts. 

Michaels et al. (2017) conducted cognitive interviews on sexual and gender identity questions 

with non-LGBT and LGBT older English and Spanish speakers. The interviews revealed no issues 

with respondentsげ answering the two-step gender identity question (i.e., sex assigned at birth 

and current gender identity). Most English speakers had no trouble with the sexual identity 

question, but 58 percent of the non-LGBT Spanish speakers did not identify as heterosexual 

when presented with the response option: さheterosexual, that is, ミot ga┞ ふoヴ lesHiaミぶ.げげ To

address the non-response error with the Spanish version of the sexual identity question, an 

alternative response option was tested: さnot gay (or lesbian), that is, heterosexual.ざ This followup testing found that only 10 percent of non-LGBT Spanish speakers did not identify as 

heterosexual. The authors recommended that this change to the response option be used. 

19 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

IV. Future Directions 

Terminology used to collect SOGI data has continued to evolve since the 2011 Institute of 

Medicine (IOM) report, a seminal piece of research published by National Academies Press that 

focused on the health of SGM persons (IOM, 2011). When the IOM report came out, most of 

the research focused on the さLGBTざ population. Nearly a decade later, the term さsexual and 

gender minorityざ has become the more common vocabulary, especially among researchers. A 

major challenge in identifying, counting, and measuring SGM populations is the diverse 

terminology people use to describe themselves. Moreover, the rate of terminology evolution 

might be outpacing the diversity of identity categories in survey instruments. 

After reviewing the available research and literature, we identified four major findings around 

SGM terminology. First, not everyone fits neatly into the categories federal surveys tend to use. 

Continued testing of alternatives in the field could help ameliorate this issue. Although different 

categories of responses are grouped together for the purposes of analysis, the underlying 

reason for those responses might be nuanced and could provide additional insight into 

respondent identities. Second, language, culture, and other demographic characteristics remain 

important influencers of the type of terminology used—or the understanding of terminology 

available to be used—for identifying a peヴsoミげs se┝ual oヴieミtation and gender identity. Third, it 

will remain important to monitor the performance of SOGI questions on federal surveys and 

other key national surveys. Given the swift pace and evolution of sexual and gender identity 

terminology, it is unlikely that the current terminology will remain relevant. Last, the perennial 

conclusion of SGM research is that we need more research and data collection, because there is 

still a relative dearth of information about these populations, and a large amount of available 

data are qualitative. 

The growing number of labels emerging to describe the constructs of both sexual orientation 

and gender identity presents a challenge for survey methodologists. On the one hand, survey 

methodologists strive to be exhaustive when presenting categories, such that all respondents 

see themselves reflected among the choices. On the other hand, many of the new labels are 

relevant and familiar to only a micro-minority of the population. Thus, adding them to the more 

traditional categories runs the risk of confusing most the population in nationally 

representative surveys. Practical considerations also require methodologists to develop a finite 

set of response options. 

One suggestion based on our review is to continue researching the utility of keeping the 

さsomething elseざ response category, exploring さwrite-inざ options, and understanding response 

patterns. The ever-expanding diversity of terminology people use to identify their sexual 

orientations and gender identities suggests that terminology needs further investigation in 

particular areas (e.g., with younger and older people, specific geographic regions, and 

translation of potentially disparate terms into languages other than English). One significant 

benefit of testing さwrite-inざ response options would be tracking terminology prevalence and 

evolution over time and across different demographic variables (e.g., region, race or ethnicity, 

country of origin, language, or income level). Continued research efforts are needed to 

20 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

understand how often the new and evolving terminology is selected for both sexual orientation 

and gender identity. Although item nonresponse is low for sexual orientation and gender 

identity questions compared to other demographic questions like household income, more 

exploration is needed into the reasoning behind both choosing さdoミげt kミo┘ざ and not 

answering, especially given the size of the SGM population.

Additional qualitative research that explores more nuanced responses through write-in or 

follow-up could be illuminating. The reasons for answering さdoミげt kミo┘ざ or refusing to answer 

are not well understood. We noted that the choice of response options affects ヴeseaヴIheヴsげ 

ability to disentangle why a respondent does not provide an answer to the question. In some 

situations, it might be important to provide more nuanced response options. For example, 

including さIげマ ミot suヴe ┞etざ and さsomething elseざ when asking youth about their sexual identity 

helps to distinguish those who are still developing their identity from those who identify as 

some other type of sexual identity (Temkin et al., 2017). Adding a write-in box after selection of 

さsomething elseざ or さdoミげt kミo┘ざ could enhance insights into terminology choice and answer 

selection. We suggest that research be performed to evaluate さdoミげt kミo┘ざ and refusal rates 

over time, especially if question wording changes. 

Quantitative research to understand the general response patterns of respondents who tend to 

skip or provide non-substantive responses to surveys also could contribute to reducing the rate 

of item nonresponse to SOGI questions and could be supported with qualitative follow-up to 

find out why the questions were skipped or left blank. Over time, it is likely that item 

nonresponse will continue to decrease as people better understand SOGI questions and 

become more comfortable responding to these items. 

The literature indicates that SOGI terminology varies in ways that will continue to challenge our 

ability to distill the terms and descriptors into an exhaustive yet refined list of response options 

to survey questions. Continued research to expand our understanding of the current 

terminology should happen in concert with efforts to design efficient and effective survey 

questions. We posit that there could be utility to employing an さunfolding bracketざ strategy. 

This method has proven successful in collecting SOGI data in the NIH All of Us Research 

Program and other types of demographic information (e.g., race and ethnicity data) in 

pヴogヴaマs like the Ceミsus Buヴeauげs AマeヴiIaミ Coママuミit┞ “uヴ┗e┞ ふAC“ぶ aミd the 2020 Decennial 

Census. Using this approach, sexual orientation could be collected by first asking a screener 

question to identify a broader group of sexual minorities. A detailed list of categories for those 

who identify under the umbrella of LGB would then be shown to those individuals only. This 

method would reveal such terms as さpansexual,ざ さasexual,ざ etc., only to those who identify as a 

sexual minority. The success of this method would be dependent, in part, on the willingness of 

sexual and gender minorities to identify with those well-known terms. Any research pursued on 

the efficacy of an さunfolding bracketざ strategy will need to determine whether there is a 

common term for both sexual orientation and gender identity that all persons of interest will 

select, given changes in terminology that have been identified in the research. Small-scale 

cognitive testing could quickly produce evidence on whether larger field tests are warranted. 

21 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

One limitation is that this technique is best conducted in automated data collections (e.g., CAPI, 

CATI, or web). 

Although this paper focused on work related to terminology for SGM populations, we need to 

strike a balance in survey research by having questions and response options that both SGM 

populations and non-SGM populations can understand and select to appropriately identify 

themselves. This challenge occurs in all survey instruments, but the personal, culturally and 

linguistically specific, and generationally influenced nature of sexual orientation and gender 

identity continue to make this effort a work in progress. Researchers are encouraged to 

consider both their key populations of interest population and research questions when 

developing survey items on sexual identity and gender identity. 

22 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

References 

Balarajan, M., M. Gray, and M. Mitchell. 2011. Monitoring Equality: Developing a Gender 

Identity Question. National Center for Social Research. Research Report 75. Equality and Human 

Rights Commission. 

Bates, N., Y. A. Garcia Trejo, and M. Vines. 2019. Are Sexual Minorities Hard-to-Survey? Insights 

from the 2020 Census Barriers, Attitudes and Motivators Study (CBAMS) Survey. Journal of 

Official Statistics 35(4): 709–730. 

Bauer, G. R., J. Braimoh, A. I. Scheim, and C. Dharma. 2017. Transgender-Inclusive Measures of 

Sex/Gender for Population Surveys: Mixed-Methods Evaluation and Recommendations. PLoS 

ONE 12(5): e0178043. 

Betts, P. M. 2016. Asking About Sexual Orientation on the 2021 Census in England and Wales: 

Research into Public Acceptability, Question Design, and Administration in Online and Paper 

Modes. Presented at the International Conference on Questionnaire Design, Development, 

Evaluation, and Testing (QDET2) Conference: November 9-13, 2016, Miami, FL. 

Bulgar-Mediミa, J. ヲヰヱΑ. け“OGIげ iミ Coミte┝t: Fiミdiミgs fヴoマ Cogミiti┗e Iミteヴ┗ie┘s. Papeヴ pヴeseミted 

at the American Association for Public Opinion Research Annual Meeting: May 18-21, 2017, 

New Orleans, LA. 

Bureau of Justice Statistics. 2018. National Crime Victimization Survey, NCVS-1 Basic Screen 

Questionnaire. Retrieved from https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ncvs18_bsq.pdf. 

Dahlhamer, J. M., A. M. Galinsky, S. S. Joestl, and B. W. Ward. 2014. Sexual Orientation in the 

2013 National Health Interview Survey: A Quality Assessment. Vital and Health Statistics 2(169): 

1–32. 

de Leeuw, E. D., J. J. Hox, and A. Boevé. 2015. Handling Do-Not-Know Answers: Exploring New 

Approaches in Online and Mixed-Mode Surveys. Social Science Computer Review 34 (1): 116–

132. 

Diaマoミd, L. ヲヰヰン. Was it a Phase? Youミg Woマeミげs ‘eliミケuishment of Lesbian/Bisexual 

Identities Over a 5-year Period. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 84: 352–364. 

Eliason, M. J. 2014. An Exploration of Terminology Related to Sexuality and Gender: Arguments 

for Standardizing the Language. Social Work in Public Health 29: 162–175. 

Eliason, M. J., A. Radix, J. A. McElroy, S. Garbers, and S. G. Haynes. 2016. The さSomething Elseざ

of Sexual Orientation: Measuring Sexual Identities of Older Lesbian and Bisexual Women Using 

National Health Interview Survey Questions. Woマeミ’s Health Issues 26(Suppl 1): S71–S80. 

23 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Eliason, M. J. and C. G. Streed, Jr. 2017. Choosing さSomething Elseざ as a Sexual Identity: 

Evaluating Response Options on the National Health Interview Survey. LGBT Health 4(5): 376–

379. 

Ellis, R., M. Virgile, J. Holzberg, D. V. Nelson, J. Edgar, P. Phipps, and R. Kaplan. 2017. Assessing 

the Feasibility of Asking About Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in the Current 

Population Survey: Results from Cognitive Interviews. Statistical Survey Paper. Washington, DC: 

Office of Survey Methods and Research, Bureau of Labor Statistics. 

Federal Interagency Working Group on Improving Measurement of Sexual Orientation and 

Gender Identity in Federal Surveys (IWG). 2016a. Current Measures of Sexual Orientation and 

Gender Identity in Federal Surveys. Retrieved from 

https://nces.ed.gov/FCSM/pdf/current_measures_20160812.pdf 

Federal Interagency Working Group on Improving Measurement of Sexual Orientation and 

Gender Identity in Federal Surveys (IWG). 2016b. Evaluations of Sexual Orientation and Gender 

Identity Survey Measures: What Have We Learned? Retrieved from

https://nces.ed.gov/FCSM/pdf/Evaluations_of_SOGI_Questions_20160923.pdf 

Federal Interagency Working Group on Improving Measurement of Sexual Orientation and 

Gender Identity in Federal Surveys (IWG). 2016c. Toward a Research Agenda for Measuring 

Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in Federal Surveys: Findings, Recommendations, and 

Next Steps. Retrieved from 

https://nces.ed.gov/FCSM/pdf/SOGI_Research_Agenda_Final_Report_20161020.pdf 

Fredriksen-Goldsen, K. I. and H. J. Kim. 2015. Count Me in: Response to Sexual Orientation 

Measures Among Older Adults. Research on Aging 37(5): 464–480. 

Galupo, M. P., S. B. Henise, and N. L. Mercer. 2016. さThe Labels Don't Work Very Wellざ: 

Transgender Individualsげ Conceptualizations of Sexual Orientation and Sexual Identity.

International Journal of Transgenderism 17(2): 93–104. 

Gender Identity in U.S. Surveillance (GenIUSS) Group. 2014. Best Practices for Asking Questions 

to Identify Transgender and Other Gender Minority Respondents on Population-Based Surveys. 

Los Angeles: The Williams Institute, UCLA School of Law. 

Grant, J., L. A. Mottet, J. Tanis, J. Harrison, J. L. Herman, and M. Keisling. 2011. Injustice at Every 

Turn: A Report of the National Transgender Discrimination Survey. Washington, DC: National 

Center for Transgender Equality and National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. 

Gruskin, E., S. Hart, N. Gordon, and L. Ackerson. 2001. Patterns of Cigarette Smoking and 

Alcohol Use Among Lesbians and Bisexual Women Enrolled in a Large Health Maintenance 

Organization. American Journal of Public Health 91(6): 976–979. 

24 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Harrison-Quintana, J., J. Grant, and I. Rivera. 2015. Boxes of Our Own Creation: A Trans Data 

Collection Wo/Manifestation. Transgender Studies Quarterly 2(1): 166–174. 

Holzberg, J., R. Ellis, M. Virgile, D. Nelson, J. Edgar, P. Phipps, and R. Kaplan. 2017. Assessing the 

Feasibility of Asking About Gender Identity in the Current Population Survey: Results from 

Focus Groups with Members of the Transgender Population. Statistical Survey Paper. 

Washington, DC: Office of Survey Methods and Research, Bureau of Labor Statistics. 

Holzberg, J., R. Ellis, R. Kaplan, M. Virgile, and J. Edgar. 2019. Can They and Will They? Exploring 

Response of Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in the Current Population Survey. Journal 

of Official Statistics 35(4): 885–911. 

Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Health Issues 

and Research Gaps and Opportunities. 2011. The Health of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and 

Transgender People: Building a Foundation for Better Understanding. Washington, DC: National 

Academies Press. Available from https://www.nap.edu/catalog/13128/the-health-of-lesbiangay-bisexual-and-transgender-people-building. 

James, S. E., J. L. Herman, S. Rankin, M. Keisling, L. Mottet, and M. Anafi. 2016. The Report of 

the 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey. Washington, DC: National Center for Transgender Equality. 

Jans, M., J. Viana, D. Grant, S. D. Cochran, A. C. Lee, and N. A. Ponce. 2015. Trends in Sexual 

Orientation Missing Data Over a Decade of the California Health Interview Survey. American 

Journal of Public Health 105(5): e43–e50. 

Joinson, A. N., C. Paine, T. Buchanan, and U. D. Reips. 2008. Measuring Self-Disclosure Online: 

Blurring and Non-Response to Sensitive Items in Web-Based Surveys. Computers in Human 

Behavior 24(5): 2158–2171. 

Joloza T., J. E┗aミs, ‘. OげBヴieミ, aミd A. Potteヴ-Collins. 2010. Measuring Sexual Identity: An 

Evaluation Report. Newport, South Wales, UK: Office for National Statistics. 

Kinsey, A.C., W. B. Pomeroy, and C. E. Martin. 1948. Sexual Behavior in the Human Male. 

Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders. 

Klein, F., B. Sepekoff, and T. J. Wolf. 1985. Sexual Orientation: A Multi-Variable Dynamic 

Process. Journal of Homosexuality 11: 35–49. 

Kuper, L. E., R. Nussbaum, and B. Mustanski. 2012. Exploring the Diversity of Gender and Sexual 

Orientation Identities in an Online Sample of Transgender Individuals. Journal of Sex Research 

49(2-3): 244–254. 

25 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lattimore, A. 2018. Developing Statistical Standards for Gender Identity and Sexual Orientation: 

The New Zealand Experiences. Presented at the 7th Global Forum on Gender Statistics, United 

Nations Statistics Division: November 14-16, 2018, Tokyo, Japan. 

Martinez, M., A. Henderson, J. Luck, and M. C. Davis. 2017. Cognitive Pretesting of the National 

Crime Victimization Survey Supplemental Victimization Survey. Research Report Series: Survey 

Methodology #2017-03. Washington, DC: Center for Survey Measurement, Research and 

Methodology Directorate, U.S. Census Bureau. 

Meyer, I. H., S. Marken, Z. Auter, B. D. M. Wilson, and K. Conron. 2019. Asking About Sexual 

Orientation in a National General Population Survey: Do Expanded Response Options Improve 

Survey Performance with Sexual Minority Respondents? May 16-19, 2019, Toronto, Canada. 

Michaels, S., C. Milesi, M. Stern, M. H. Viox, H. Morrison, P. Guerino, C. N. Dragon, and 

S. C. Haffer. Improving Measures of Sexual and Gender Identity in English and Spanish to 

Identify LGBT Older Adults in Surveys. LGBT Health 4(6): 1–7. 

Monson, M., and K. Minoli. 2016. The Importance of Being Counted: Collecting Sexual 

Orientation and Gender Identity (SOGI) Data in Federal Surveys. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency. 

National Center for Health Statistics. 2019. 2019 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) 

Questionnaire. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhis/data-questionnairesdocumentation.htm. 

Ortman, J. M., N. Bates, A. Brown, and R. C. Sawyer. 2017. Optimizing Self and Proxy Response 

to Survey Questions on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity. Presented at the Annual 

Meeting of the Population Association of America, April 27-29, 2017, Chicago, Illinois. Retrieved 

from 

https://paa.confex.com/paa/2017/mediafile/Extende.dAbstract/Paper13962/Ortman%20Bates 

%20Brown%20Sawyer%20PAA%202017.pdf. 

Ott, M. Q., H. L. Corliss, D. Wypij, M. Rosario, and S. B. Austin. 2011. Stability and Change in 

Self-Reported Sexual Orientation Identity in Young People: Application of Mobility Metrics. 

Archives of Sexual Behavior 40(3): 519–532. 

Pathela, P., A. Hajat, J. Schillinger, S. Blank, R. Sell, and F. Mostashari. 2006. Discordance 

Between Sexual Behavior and Self-Reported Sexual Identity: A Population-Based Survey of New 

York City Men. Annals of Internal Medicine 145: 416–425. 

Pierannunzi, C., M. Town, and W. Garvin. 2017. Investigating and Understanding Responses to 

Questions on Sex, Sexual Orientation and Sexual Identity. Paper presented at American 

Association of Public Opinion Research annual conference, May 18-21, 2017, New Orleans, LA. 

26 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Redford, J., and A. Van Wagenen. 2012. Measuring Sexual Orientation Identity and Gender 

Identity in a Self-Administered Survey: Results from Cognitive Research with Older Adults. 

Paper presented at the Population Association of America Annual Meeting, May 3-5, 2012, San 

Francisco, CA. Retrieved from http://paa2012.princeton.edu/abstracts/122975. 

Reisner, S. L., K. Biello, J. G. Rosenburger, A. B. Austin, S. Haneuse, A. Perez-Brumer, D. S. Novak, 

and M. J. Mimiaga. 2014. Using a Two-Step Method to Measure Transgender Identity in Latin 

America/the Caribbean, Portugal, and Spain. Archives of Sexual Behavior 43(8): 1503–1514. 

Ridolfo, H., K. Miller, and A. Maitland. 2012. Measuring Sexual Identity Using Survey 

Questionnaires: How Valid Are Our Measures? Sexuality Research & Social Policy 9(2): 113–124. 

Robertson, R. E., F. W. Tran, L. N. Lewark, and R. Epstein. 2018. Estimates of Non-Heterosexual 

Prevalence: The Roles of Anonymity and Privacy in Survey Methodology. Archives of Sexual 

Behavior 47(4): 1069–1084. 

Ruben, M. A., J. R. Blosnich, M. E. Dichter, L. Luscri, and J. C. Shipherd. 2017. Will Veterans 

Answer Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Questions? Medical Care 55: S85–S89. 

Russell, S. T., T. J. Clarke, and J. Clary. 2009. Are Teens さPost-Gayざ? Coミteマpoヴaヴ┞ AdolesIeミtsげ 

Sexual Identity Labels. Journal of Youth and Adolescence 38(7): 884–890. 

Saewyc, E. M., G. R. Bauer, C. L. Skay, L. H. Bearinger, M. D. Reisnick, and E. Reis. 2004. 

Measuring Sexual Orientation in Adolescent Health Surveys: Evaluation of Eight School-Based 

Surveys. Journal of Adolescent Health 35(345):e1–e15 

Sanderson, M., and S. Immerwahr. 2019. New York City Community Health Survey: SOGI 

Measurement. PowerPoint presented at SOGI Measurement Interagency Workgroup, 

Washington, DC, on June 4, 2019. 

Scout and S. E. Senseman. 2011. Cognitive Testing of an LGBT Surveillance Question. The 

Fenway Institute, The Network for LGBT Tobacco Control. Retrieved from 

https://hivdatf.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/cognitive-testing-on-an-lgbt-surveillancequestion.pdf. 

Semlyen, J. 2017. Recording Sexual Orientation in the UK: Pooling Data for Statistical Power. 

American Journal of Public Health 107(8): 1215–1217. 

Sexual Minority Assessment Research Team (SMART). 2009. Best Practices for Asking Questions 

About Sexual Orientation on Surveys. Los Angeles: The Williams Institute, UCLA School of Law. 

Retrieved from https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/publications/smart-so-survey/. 

Shoemaker, P., M. Eichholz, and E. Skewes. 2002. Item Nonresponse: Distinguishing Between 

Doミげt Kミo┘ aミd ‘efuse. International Journal of Public Opinion Research 14(2): 193–201. 

27 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Stegier, D., L. Heaton, J. Behm, C. MacAllum, and J. Stroop. 2017. Improving the Measurement 

of Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Among Youth. Paper presented at the American 

Association for Public Opinion Research annual Meeting, May 18-21, 2017, New Orleans, LA. 

Tate, C. C., J. N. Ledbetter, and C. P. Youssef. 2013. A Two-Question Method for Assessing 

Gender Categories in the Social and Medical Sciences. Journal of Sex Research 50(8): 767–776. 

Temkin, D., J. Belford, T. McDaniel, B. Stratford, and D. Parris. 2017. Improving Measurement of 

Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Among Middle and High School Students. Child Trends 

22: 1–64. 

Tourangeau, R., and T. Yan. 2007. Sensitive Questions in Surveys. Psychological 

Bulletin 133(5): 859. 

28