Institute for Research on Women and Gender, University of Michigan, 204 S. State St., Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1290, USA.
Arch Sex Behav. 2012 Jun;41(3):649-57. doi: 10.1007/s10508-011-9768-7. Epub 2011 May 14.
Researchers are increasingly recognizing the need to include measures of sexual orientation in health studies. However, relatively little attention has been paid to how sexual identity, the cognitive aspect of sexual orientation, is defined and measured. Our study examined the impact of using two separate sexual identity question formats: a three-category question (response options included heterosexual, bisexual, or lesbian/gay), and a similar question with five response options (only lesbian/gay, mostly lesbian/gay, bisexual, mostly heterosexual, only heterosexual). A large probability-based sample of undergraduate university students was surveyed and a randomly selected subsample of participants was asked both sexual identity questions. Approximately one-third of students who identified as bisexual based on the three-category sexual identity measure chose "mostly heterosexual" or "mostly lesbian/gay" on the five-category measure. In addition to comparing sample proportions of lesbian/gay, bisexual, or heterosexual participants based on the two question formats, rates of alcohol and other drug use were also examined among the participants. Substance use outcomes among the sexual minority subgroups differed based on the sexual identity question format used: bisexual participants showed greater risk of substance use in analyses using the three-category measure whereas "mostly heterosexual" participants were at greater risk when data were analyzed using the five-category measure. Study results have important implications for the study of sexual identity, as well as whether and how to recode responses to questions related to sexual identity.
研究人员越来越认识到在健康研究中纳入性取向衡量指标的必要性。然而,对于性认同(性取向的认知方面)的定义和衡量方法,关注相对较少。我们的研究考察了使用两种不同的性认同问题格式的影响:一个三类别问题(回答选项包括异性恋、双性恋或同性恋/双性恋),以及一个具有五个回答选项的类似问题(只有同性恋/双性恋、主要是同性恋/双性恋、双性恋、主要是异性恋、只有异性恋)。对一个基于概率的大学生大样本进行了调查,并对一个随机选择的参与者子样本同时提出了这两个性认同问题。根据三类别性认同测量,约三分之一自认为是双性恋的学生在五类别测量中选择了“主要是异性恋”或“主要是同性恋/双性恋”。除了根据这两种问题格式比较同性恋/双性恋、双性恋或异性恋参与者的样本比例外,还检查了参与者的酒精和其他药物使用率。基于性认同问题格式的不同,性少数群体亚组的物质使用结果也有所不同:在使用三类别测量的分析中,双性恋参与者表现出更高的物质使用风险,而在使用五类别测量的分析中,“主要是异性恋”参与者的风险更大。研究结果对性认同研究以及是否以及如何重新编码与性认同相关的问题的回答具有重要意义。