Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Measurement opportunities for studying sexual and gender diverse partnerships in population‐based surveys
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Measurement opportunities for studying sexual and gender diverse partnerships in population‐based surveys
Do you wish to request the book?
Measurement opportunities for studying sexual and gender diverse partnerships in population‐based surveys
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Measurement opportunities for studying sexual and gender diverse partnerships in population‐based surveys
2024
Overview
Objective This article outlines for family scholars and researchers designing surveys or searching for data on sexual and gender‐diverse (SGD) families the latest methodological advancements in United States population‐based surveys for studying SGD partnerships by reviewing five recently collected, publicly available, population‐representative data sets. Background LGBTQIA+ adults and SGD partnerships are an expanding demographic group in the United States. Yet, measurement limitations have restricted studies of these partnerships that use population‐based studies. To address this issue, researchers designing population‐representative data collections have adopted new strategies to measure SGD partnerships accurately. However, most population representative surveys continue to lack data on growing segments of the LGBTQIA+ population by relying solely on the sex of partners or limited sexual and gender identity measures. Conclusion We recommend expanding population‐based surveys to incorporate inclusive measures of sexual and gender identity, directly asking about the gender composition of a couple and measurement of cohabiting and other nonmarital relationships. These approaches are especially important for understanding relationships among younger populations who do not follow heteronormative relationship trajectories and hold diverse gender and sexual identities. Implications Although the research opportunities on SGD individuals and partnerships are expanding; researchers must remain mindful of the limitations of current data sets and advocate for updates to the United States population data infrastructure.
