Recommendations on the Best Practices for the Collection of Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Data on Federal Statistical Surveys

RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE BEST PRACTICES FOR THE COLLECTION OF

SEXUAL ORIENTATION AND GENDER IDENTITY DATA ON FEDERAL STATISTICAL SURVEYS

Pursuant to the June 2022 Executive Order 14075 on Advancing Equality for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual,

Transgender, Queer, and Intersex Individuals, the Office of the Chief Statistician of the United States

developed this report to provide recommendations for Federal agencies on the current best practices

for the collection of self-reported sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) data on Federal

statistical surveys. These recommendations build on a long history of robust Federal effort to develop

and refine SOGI measurement best practices.

The report highlights the importance of continual learning, offers considerations for including SOGI

items on surveys, provides example approaches for collecting and reporting this information, offers

guidance on how to safeguard SOGI data, and concludes with a summary of challenges that need further

research. It is not the intent of this report to limit the continued evolution and improvement of SOGI

data collection methods.

This report does not cover the collection of SOGI data about individuals as part of administrative

transactions, for example, by way of forms required to apply for a job, benefits, or services. These

administrative collections have different quality, privacy, legal, and ethical concerns that are outside the

scope of this document.

This report does not mandate any particular approach or create any new requirements for agencies. In

the future, Federal agencies may need to diverge from the recommendations in this report to reflect

new, evidence-based best practices.

THE IMPORTANCE OF FEDERAL STATISTICS

Federal surveys play a vital role in generating the data that the public, businesses, and government

agencies need to make informed decisions. Measuring sexual and gender minority (SGM) populations

in Federal surveys improves understanding of SGM populations and supports evidence-based

policymaking. By asking respondents about their sexual orientation and gender identity, Federal surveys

have shown that, for example:

• the lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender (LGBT

) community was hit harder by the economic

impact of the COVID-19 pandemic [10],

• LGBT adults struggled more with mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic than non-LGBT

adults [9],

Sexual and gender minority (SGM) populations include, but are not limited to, individuals who identify as lesbian, gay,

bisexual, asexual, transgender, Two-Spirit, queer, and/or intersex. Individuals with same-sex or -gender attractions or behaviors

and those with a difference in sex development are also included. These populations also encompass those who do not self-

identify with one of these terms but whose sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or reproductive development is

characterized by non-binary constructs of sexual orientation, gender, and/or sex. (NIH Sexual & Gender Minority Research

Office).

This report uses the acronyms “LGBT”, or “LGBTQI+” depending on the source material being referenced.

• college students who identify as gender minorities have had more difficulty finding safe and

stable housing [33], and

• the rate of violent crime victimization of lesbian or gay persons has been more than two times

the rate for straight persons [38].

BEST PRACTICES EVOLVE THROUGH CONTINUOUS LEARNING

SOGI measures need to be flexible and adapt over time to maintain usefulness. In addition to changes in

terminology over time other changes could impact the ways SOGI data should be collected to meet the

purposes of various surveys.

Many of the Federal agencies that currently collect SOGI data continue to conduct rigorous research and

testing. Agencies undertake this work to ensure that measures are developed with the utmost care and

consideration, reflecting the personal nature of these topics for survey respondents, and the importance

of collecting accurate data. These research efforts assess the accuracy of responses, how difficult it is for

an individual to respond to the questions, how comfortable respondents are answering the questions,

and other relevant topics. Question development and implementation efforts are also informed by

ongoing engagement with data providers and users.

Federal staff across agencies collaborate to learn from collective experience and promote development

of questions that can be used across Federal data collections. In order to learn from interagency

practices and expertise, The Office of Management and Budget first convened the Federal Interagency

Working Group on Measuring Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in 2015. This group was charged

with addressing the lack of data on SGM populations, and documenting methodological considerations

that support successful collection and accurate measurement of SOGI data. This working group

concluded its tenure with publication in 2016 of three highly-cited papers. The papers documented

SOGI

measures in Federal surveys and the testing used to develop them, summarized results from evaluations

of SOGI measures, and provided recommendations for a research agenda to continue improvement and

adoption of SOGI measures in the Federal government.

In addition, the Federal Committee on Statistical Methodology’s (FCSM) Measuring Sexual Orientation

and Gender Identity (SOGI) Research Group provides an ongoing venue for collaboration among Federal

staff. This group focuses on exploring the measurement of SOGI, considering the differing dimensions of

sex, gender, and sexuality. Any Federal agencies considering adding, expanding, or revising the

collection of SOGI data are encouraged to participate in the FCSM SOGI Research Group.

This report draws heavily on the work of the Federal agencies and interagency groups that have

dedicated significant time and resources to researching, coordinating, and sharing best practices. As a

result of these efforts, many Federal surveys are currently collecting valuable information on SGM

populations. Best practices will continue to evolve with ongoing research on challenges such as proxy

Those interested in joining the FCSM SOGI Research Group should contact the group’s co-chairs for more information (contact

information is available on the group’s website).

reporting, youth respondents, evolving terminology, translation into other languages, and privacy

protection, which will certainly continue to improve the quality and availability of SOGI statistics.

CONSIDERATIONS FOR INCLUDING SOGI ITEMS ON SURVEYS

The following section presents a summary of practices and considerations in this area. As mentioned

above, while we believe many of these practices and considerations will have ongoing relevance to SOGI

data collection, we are also presenting these practices with acknowledgement of the dynamic and

evolving nature of this subject.

Starting with the planned uses: As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), Federal agencies

must ensure that all survey questions provide useful data that meet the intended purposes without

unduly burdening respondents.

Consider how resulting data will be used when adding SOGI questions

to a survey. For example, agencies may want to collect SOGI data to detect differences between groups,

to estimate population sizes or features, and to meaningfully inform policies and programs intended to

address inequality. As always, data should only be collected if there are plans to publish statistics,

release data to the public or researchers, or to otherwise support the mission of the agency; and to

minimize burden and privacy risk to respondents, only the minimum amount of information needed to

meet the planned uses should be collected. The ability to protect confidentiality should also guide

decisions about when and how to ask for this information. Keep in mind that sexual orientation and

gender identity are two separate concepts. It may not always be necessary to ask about both.

Strategies to ensure sufficient sample size: There’s no best practice for the minimum survey sample size

needed to collect SOGI data. In addition to the disclosure risk created by small samples, sample size also

affects the ability of a survey to detect differences between groups. Underpowered studies have a high

risk of finding that there are no statistically significant differences between groups in the sample data,

even when real inequality exists in the population. During the survey planning stage, Federal agencies

may find it helpful to use current estimates of SGM population prevalences

to conduct a power analysis

for key survey outcomes and to check estimated cell sizes against agency standards for publication.

Surveys may need to combine data across years, reduce geographic detail, or collapse respondents into

a single “sexual or gender minority” category in order to release results. Federal agencies may find that

considering what information about SGM populations is most important to their analytical goals will be

helpful when deciding what methods they use to address small population size.

Considering sensitivity and burden for all respondents: There may be some concern that adding SOGI

questions to a survey will cause respondents to skip questions or abandon the survey altogether,

harming the quality of the entire collection. But current surveys collecting SOGI data show that

respondents are unlikely to skip SOGI questions (low item nonresponse), especially compared to other

sensitive data items [1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 16, 15, 25, 33, 34]. Item nonresponse varies, though, by demographic

group, with older people, women, non-Hispanic African Americans, Asians, and Hispanics, and those

For more information on agency responsibilities under the Paperwork Reduction Act, see https://pra.digital.gov/

For example, both Gallup and the Williams Institute release regular estimates of the LGBT population.

See, for example, Chapter 5 of the Statistical Standards for the National Center of Education Statistics.

with less education having higher rates [5, 11, 16, 17, 18, 31, 39]. The addition of SOGI items typically

does not cause significant survey breakoffs in household surveys [5], although this also varies by

demographic group [38].

Using tested terminology: The terminology used to describe sexual orientation and gender identity, and

the way people identify with those concepts is fluid and evolving. It is difficult to find response options

that both comprehensively reflect LGBTQI+ identities and are universally understood [24], particularly

for youth or young adults [2, 3, 8, 19, 30, 35, 37]. Therefore, it’s important to test terminology with a

broad range of respondents, or rely on previously tested terminology.

Using tested translations: Research to date has illustrated the difficulty in translating SOGI terms.

Translation challenges include conveying the intended meaning in a culturally and linguistically

appropriate way as well as a lack of terminology that conveys concepts in some languages [17, 20, 21,

22, 27, 29, 36].

Using design elements that improve data quality: Allowing respondents to select multiple response

options (mark all that apply) prevents forcing respondents to choose between multiple applicable

identities or orientations. When feasible, adding a write-in response option can provide valuable

information [39]. However, evaluation of write-in responses show that not all responses indicate SGM

status [27,41]. Write-in responses must be individually coded in order to use them as an indicator of

SGM status, and data files should indicate when a response was coded. SOGI questions are typically

placed at the end of demographic questions, with the gender identity series (as shown in the Example

SOGI Module below) appearing together (i.e., not split up) for appropriate context. Because sex

assigned at birth does not define gender [25], respondents should not be asked to provide their sex

assigned at birth unless they are also given the opportunity to provide their current gender identity.

Confirming gender minority status: Every survey question suffers some degree of measurement error

resulting from errors in data entry. Whenever an individual’s responses to the two-step gender identity

items classify the respondent as a gender minority a confirmation questions can be used to verify. For

example, a respondent who indicates their sex at birth was “Female” and selects “Male” as their current

identity would be asked to confirm these responses (see Example SOGI Module below). Due to the

relatively small size of the gender minority population, even small data entry error rates can result in a

significant proportion of false positives within the set of respondents classified as gender minorities. This

can greatly reduce a survey’s ability to detect real differences in outcome measures [22]. False negatives

present a much lower risk of impacting analyses of differences between groups, although they may lead

to underestimation of SGM population size. Giving a confirmation question to all respondents may be

indicated if a goal of the survey is to estimate population size.

HOW TO ASK ABOUT SEXUAL ORIENTATION AND GENDER IDENTITY

There is no single, best practice set of questions for soliciting information about a person’s sexual

orientation or gender identity. The context of the data collection, including planned uses for the data,

alignment with other surveys or datasets, sample size, ability to code write-in responses, and ability to

protect confidentiality should guide decisions about when and how to ask for this information. This

section provides some example approaches for asking about sexual orientation or gender identity. These

examples are not an exhaustive presentation of appropriate ways to collect SOGI data.

More in-depth measures such as the Example SOGI Module below can support detailed and

disaggregated reporting of sexual and/or gender minority individuals. This multi-question approach

provides a structure capable of maximizing the amount of detail reported for both the sexual orientation

and gender identity items, facilitating a more comprehensive identification. Response options may be

modified as needed to meet specific data needs or as indicated by new evidence. Responses can also be

aggregated to different levels (e.g., SGM) as needed for compliance with agency disclosure prevention

protocols. This module, with slight variations, is typical for the large, general purpose statistical surveys

that currently collect SOGI data.

A less detailed approach to collecting gender identity such as the Example Gender Question below can

provide higher-level results that may meet data needs while minimizing burden, sensitivity, and

privacy risk. This approach adds a third response option to traditional binary measures and collects only

basic information about an individual’s current gender identity. This approach may suit surveys with

smaller sample sizes or where privacy and confidentiality are of heightened concern, such as internal

staff surveys. Surveys that currently collect gender using only binary response options (i.e.,

“male”/”female”) can use this approach to update to a more inclusive question.

A single question about LGBT status such as the Example LGBT Status Question below can provide the

necessary information to determine a respondent’s SGM status by asking about aspects of sexual

orientation and gender identity at the same time. This type of question may be useful as a screener

question or as a tool for basic equity analysis.

Other tested and verified measures can be found in the Additional Resources for Asking about SOGI

section below.

EXAMPLE SOGI MODULE

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Q1. Which of the following best represents how you think of yourself?

 Gay or lesbian

 Straight, that is not gay or lesbian

 Bisexual

 I use a different term [free-text]

 I don’t know

GENDER IDENTITY

This module is based on the module in the Census Bureau’s Household Pulse Survey, which was in turn based on modules in

the Bureau of Justice Statistic’s National Crime Victimization Survey and the National Center of Health Statistic’s National

Health Interview Survey.

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

 Female

 Male

Q2. How do you currently describe yourself (mark all that apply)?

 Female

 Male

 Transgender

 I use a different term [free-text]

Q3. Just to confirm, you were assigned {FILL} at birth and now you describe yourself as {FILL}. Is that

correct?

 Yes

 No <skip back to Q1 and/or Q2 to correct>

EXAMPLE GENDER QUESTION

Q1. Are you:

Mark all that apply.

 Female

 Male

 Transgender, non-binary, or another gender

EXAMPLE LGBT STATUS QUESTION

Q1. Which of the following do you consider yourself to be? You can select as many as apply.

 Straight or heterosexual

 Gay

 Lesbian

 Bisexual

 Transgender

To minimize false positives, Q3 should be asked of individuals whose response to Q1 (sex at birth) differ from their response

to Q2 (current gender identity).

This question is based on ongoing research by the National Center for Health Statistics.

This question is based on the Gallup Poll.

REPORTING SOGI INFORMATION

Federal agencies may consider strategies such as pooling data from multiple time points (e.g., months or

years of survey data), aggregating detailed groups where needed, and providing measures of

uncertainty to generate the most useful results. More information on these strategies can be found in

the FCSM’s Framework for Data Quality

SEXUAL ORIENTATION REPORTING CATEGORIES

Depending on sample size, the recommendation is to report out five categories for “sexual

orientation.” Evaluation of National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) data found that people who use

“Don’t know” are qualitatively different than those that use “something else”

for sexual orientation [6,

7]. Those who report using “a different term” may also be qualitatively different from those who

respond “don’t know.” Therefore, reporting these categories out separately can provide valuable

information. If sample size allows, estimates may be further disaggregated (for example collecting and

reporting “gay” and “lesbian” separately).

1. Gay or lesbian

2. Straight

3. Bisexual

4. A different term

5. Don’t know

In the event the respondent did not answer the question, data can be reported as ‘missing.’ Imputed

data on sexual orientation may be unreliable. Because sexual minority groups are relatively small, a

small change resulting from imputation procedures can result in relatively large changes in statistical

results. Categorizing the response as missing avoids risks associated with imputed data.

GENDER REPORTING CATEGORIES

When using a two-step approach to measuring gender, as depicted in the Example SOGI Module, the

recommendation is to report out four categories for gender based on the following logic when the

analytical goal is to illuminate any potential differences in outcome measures for gender minorities. If

sample size allows, estimates may be further disaggregated (for example reporting trans men and trans

women, or frequent write-in responses, separately).

1. Cisgender Male – would be determined by Q1 “male” AND Q2 “male” OR “I use another term”,

accompanied by a write-in response that codes as male.

2. Cisgender Female – would be determined by Q1 “female” AND Q2 “female” OR “I use another

term”, accompanied by a write-in response that codes as female.

Many surveys, including the NHIS, use “something else” as a response option for sexual orientation. This report instead

recommends using the response option “I use a different term” followed by a free-text field, based on the findings of a recent

NASEM panel [25].

Write-in responses may be coded and included in other reporting categories where appropriate. Responses that don’t fit into

other categories or that don’t have written clarification may be reported as “a different term.”

3. Gender minority - would be any of these combinations:

a. Q1 female and Q2 male

b. Q1 male and Q2 female

c. Q2 transgender

d. Q2 “I use another term”, accompanied by a write-in response that codes the response

as gender minority

4. Another gender identity – would be determined by Q2 “I use another term”, unless

accompanied by a write-in response that codes the response into a different category

There is not enough evidence at this time to support classifying those who report “another gender

identity” into the “gender minority” category, unless write-in responses are collected and coded to one

of the first three reporting categories.

In the event the respondent did not answer one or both of the questions, data can be reported as

‘missing’ to prevent obscuring differences between groups. As in Sexual Orientation, gender identity

based on imputed data may be unreliable.

SAFEGUARDING SOGI DATA

Survey data are typically linked or linkable to a specific individual. Even slight modifications to existing

binary measures of sex or gender on surveys can create significant privacy risks for respondents.

Removal of direct identifiers (e.g., name or telephone number) only mitigates some of the privacy risk; it

may be possible to determine an individual’s SGM status if re-identified through other information on

the survey. Unless properly safeguarded against re-identification, breaches,

and mishandling, SGM

status revealed to unauthorized parties or for unauthorized purposes could be used to target

individuals, deny them access to programs or services, or cause other harms. Steps to minimize privacy

risk not only reduce the likelihood of such harms, but also promote the trust needed for respondents to

feel comfortable providing data in a way that maintains the usefulness of the data.

In implementing these safeguards, Federal agencies should engage relevant agency experts on data

governance, including their Statistical Official, agency general counsel, and the Senior Agency Official

for Privacy (SAOP), who is responsible for ensuring compliance with applicable privacy requirements

and managing privacy risks consistent with the agency’s mission.

Agencies are responsible for

complying with the Privacy Act of 1974, if applicable, and any other applicable laws, regulations, and

policies (e.g., OMB Circular A-130). The FCSM Data Protection Toolkit contains helpful tools for

maximizing the usefulness of data while protecting privacy.

As with any other data, and in accordance with applicable laws, regulations, and policies, agencies

should:

OMB Memorandum M-17-12, Preparing for and Responding to a Breach of Personally Identifiable Information, § III(C) (Jan. 3,

2017).

OMB Memorandum M-16-24, Role and Designation of Senior Agency Officials for Privacy (Sept. 15, 2016).

• Evaluate the privacy risks associated with collecting, maintaining, and using such data

throughout its life cycle

- including when involving intermediaries (e.g., state, local, tribal, and

territorial governments; schools; grantees; contractors; or other entities) - and balance the need

for new information against any privacy risks;

• Have a plan for data governance across the data life cycle, including disposition of data;

• Assess available statutory authority to protect the confidentiality of survey data, and make sure

that the agency provides respondents with the strongest confidentiality protections available;

• Carefully control access to microdata, especially if it is linked or linkable to a specific individual;

• Develop a plan to handle Freedom of Information Act requests that could disclose sensitive data

ONGOING RESEARCH

The Federal statistical system is actively conducting further research, but currently does not have the

ability to provide best practices or recommendations for several areas. Additional research is needed

for: bridging and linking to binary gender measures; collecting SOGI data by proxy, from youth

respondents, in employment settings, on administrative forms, or in languages other than English; and

collecting data about the intersex status of respondents [15]. Additional information is detailed below.

For non-response bias analysis, longitudinal analysis, weighting responses, or generating blended

estimates from multiple data sources, gender identity data may need to be linked with other datasets

or bridged to previous survey rounds that collected gender with only binary (male/female) response

options. Any approach that an agency takes to transform more inclusive gender identity data to a binary

set of response options will by necessity discard or disregard information provided by respondents

about how they identify.

Little is known about the ability and willingness of respondents to answer SOGI questions on behalf of

other household members (i.e., proxy response). It is common practice to ask one person to provide

information for other members of the household on Federal surveys. There is some concern that proxy

reporting to SOGI questions may generate inaccurate responses because respondents may not be

comfortable sharing information about others or may not know the information. However, the limited

research carried out to date suggests respondents are generally willing and able to answer for other

members of the household [13, 26]. Further research is needed to evaluate proxy versus self-response,

as well as item nonresponse to these questions to ensure they produce high quality measures on

Federal household surveys.

There are special considerations when determining what age groups receive these questions and how

the information is solicited, particularly if asking SOGI questions of younger populations (i.e., the

population under 18 years of age). Question wording and response options that are appropriate for

asking these questions of adults are not necessarily sufficient for soliciting information from youth

respondents. There are unique issues associated with asking SOGI questions among youths, such as

parental consent and assent laws, as well as designing data collection methods that protect respondent

OMB Circular A-130, Managing Information as a Strategic Resource, Appendix II § 4 (Jul. 28, 2016).

OMB Circular A-130, Managing Information as a Strategic Resource, § 4(i) (Jul. 28, 2016).

privacy. In addition, there are challenges with greater salience among younger populations, such as

outness, fluidity over time, dynamic and evolving terminology, and uncertainty/questioning status [34].

Further research is needed on the sensitivity and potential impacts on response rates, breakoffs, and

response accuracy when adding SOGI items to non-household surveys, such as business surveys and

employee surveys. For example, while studies of household surveys have not shown significant

breakoffs, a survey of farm operators did find that adding SOGI items resulted in reduced response rates

[42]. While technically beyond the scope of this report, more research is also needed on how to collect

and protect data collected as part of administrative transactions, for example, by way of forms

required to apply for a job, benefits, or services.

Additional research is needed on best practices for collecting SOGI data in languages other than English

using translations that are linguistically and culturally appropriate.

Finally, additional research is needed on how best to ascertain information about intersex status (i.e.,

people who are born with, or naturally develop over time, sex traits that do not correspond to a single

sex), particularly in the field of survey research [25].

OMB encourages continued testing and research to address these issues with the goal of improving the

quality, availability, and consistency of sexual orientation and gender identity data.

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES FOR ASKING ABOUT SOGI

FEDERAL RESOURCES

Federal Committee on Statistical Methodology’s (FCSM) Measuring Sexual Orientation and Gender

Identity (SOGI) Research Group

Interagency Technical Working Group on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Items in the Household

Pulse Survey: Report and Recommendations (2021)

National Institutes of Health Sexual & Gender Minority Research Office

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Sexual and Gender Minority Clearinghouse

National Academies Measuring Sex, Gender Identity, and Sexual Orientation (2022)

National Academies Understanding the Well-Being of LGBTQI+ Populations Consensus Study Report

(2020)

National Academies the Health of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender People Consensus Study

Report (2011)

NON-FEDERAL RESOURCES

How Do You Measure the LGBT Population in the U.S.? (gallup.com)

Survey Measures - Williams Institute (ucla.edu)

Best Practices for Asking Questions about Sexual Orientation on Surveys (SMART) - Williams Institute

(ucla.edu)

Best Practices for Asking Questions to Identify Transgender and Other Gender Minority Respondents on

Population-Based Surveys (GenIUSS) - Williams Institute (ucla.edu)

Summary and Final Recommendations – California Health Interview Survey Sexual Orientation and

Gender Identity Working Group

Measuring Aspects of Sexuality and Gender: A Sexual Human Rights Challenge for Science and Official

Statistics | CHANCE (amstat.org)

REFERENCES

[1] Amaya, A. Adapting How We Ask About the Gender of Our Survey Respondents. Pew Research

Center: Decoded. September 2020. Retrieved at: https://medium.com/pew-research-center-

decoded/adapting-how-we-ask-about-the-gender-of-our-survey-respondents-77b0cb7367c0

[2] Bates, N.A., Garcia Trejo, Y.A, Vines, M. (2019). Are Sexual Minorities hard to Survey? Insights from

the 2020 Census Barriers, Attitudes and Motivators (CBAMS) Study. Journal of Official Statistics, 35,

Materials posted on this page are released to inform interested parties of research and to encourage discussion. Opinions

expressed are those of the authors and do not reflect the official position of the Office of the Chief Statistician of the United

States or of the Office of Management and Budget.

709-729. Retrieved at: https://content.sciendo.com/view/journals/jos/35/4/article-

p709.xml?language=en

[3] Bulgar-Medina, Justine. 2017. “Measuring Sexual Minority Identity: An Exploration via Cognitive

Testing.” 72nd Meeting of the American Association for Public Opinion Research, New Orleans, LA

(May 17-21, 2017).

[4] Case, P, Austin, B, Hunter D, Willett, W, Malspeis, S, Manson, J, and Spiegelman, D. 2006. "Disclosure

of Sexual Orientation and Behavior in the Nurses' Health Study II." Journal of Homosexuality 51(1):

13-31. doi:10.1300/j082v51n01_02.

[5] Christopher, E.M. and Burns, L. 2021. Using paradata and metadata to assess effects of addition of

sensitive items to an ongoing longitudinal survey. Presentation for FedCASIC Conference, April 14,

2021.

[6] Dahlhamer, J., Galinsky, A., Joestl, S., and Ward, B. "Sexual Orientation in the 2013 National Health

Interview Survey: A Quality Assessment." Vital and Health Statistics. Series 2, Data Evaluation and

Methods Research 169 (2014): 1-32.

[7] Eliason, M. J., A. Radix, J. A. McElroy, S. Garbers, and S. G. Haynes. 2016. The “Something Else” of

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

National Health Interview Survey Questions. Women’s Health Issues 26(Suppl 1): S71–S80.

[8] Eliason, M. J. and C. G. Streed, Jr. 2017. Choosing “Something Else” as a Sexual Identity: Evaluating

Response Options on the National Health Interview Survey. LGBT Health 4(5): 376–379.

[9] File, T, and Marlay, M. 2022. Regardless of Household Type, LGBT Adults Struggled More With

Mental Health Than Non-LGBT Adults. America Counts: Stories Behind the Numbers. U.S. Census

Bureau. Retrieved at:

https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2022/06/lgbt-adults-report-anxiety-

depression-during-pandemic.html

[10] File, T, and Marshall, J. 2021. Household Pulse Survey Shows LGBT Adults More Likely to Report

Living in Households With Food and Economic Insecurity Than Non-LGBT Respondents. America

Counts: Stories Behind the Numbers. U.S. Census Bureau. Retrieved at:

https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2021/08/lgbt-community-harder-hit-by-economic-impact-

of-pandemic.html

[11] Gruskin, E, Hart, S, Gordon, N, and Ackerson, L. 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): 976-9.

[12] Heslin, KC, and Hall, JE. 2021. Sexual Orientation Disparities in Risk Factors for Adverse COVID-19–

Related Outcomes, by Race/Ethnicity — Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, United States,

2017–2019. Morbidity Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) 70:149–154. Retrieved at:

http://dx.doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm7005a1

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

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

of Official Statistics 35 (4): 885-911. Retrieved at: https://doi.org/10.2478/jos-2019-0037

[14] Ivey-Stephenson, AZ, Demissie, Z, Crosby, AE, Stone, DM, Gaylor, E, Wilkins, N, Lowry, R, and Brown,

M. 2019. Suicidal Ideation and Behaviors Among High School Students — Youth Risk Behavior

Survey, United States. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR), 69(Suppl-1):47–55.

Retrieved at: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/su/su6901a6.htm?s_cid=su6901a6_w

[15] Jans, M. 2022. We Keep Proving That SOGI Questions Work, but Have More to Learn. American

Journal of Public Health, 112(3), 366–368. Retrieved at: https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.2021.306709

[16] Jans, M., Herman, J. L., Viana, J., Grant, D., Park, R., Wilson, B. D. M., Tom, J., Lordi, N., & Holtby, S.

(2019). Flexible Pretesting on a Tight Budget: Using Multiple Dependent Methods to Maximize

Effort-Return Trade-Offs. In Advances in Questionnaire Design, Development, Evaluation and Testing

(pp. 749–768). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119263685.ch30

[17] Jans, M, Viana, J, Grant, D, Cochran, S, Lee, A, and Ponce, N. 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

[18] Kim, H, and Fredriksen-Goldsen, K. 2013 “Nonresponse to a Question on Self-Identified Sexual

Orientation in a Public Health Survey and Its Relationship to Race and Ethnicity.” American Journal

of Public Health 103(1): 67-69

[19] 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? Paper presented at the American

Association for Public Opinion Research Annual Meeting, May 16-19, 2019, Toronto, Canada.

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

C. (2016a). Improving Measures of Sexual and Gender Identity in English and Spanish to Identify

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

[21] Michaels, S., Stern, M., Guerino, P., Haffer, S.C., and Reed-Gillette, D. (2016b). Results from

Qualitative Research using Cognitive Interviews. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American

Association for Public Opinion Research.

[22] Miller, K., Willson, S., Ryan, V.. (2021). An Initial Cognitive Evaluation of a 2-Step Gender Identity

Measure. National Center for Health Statistics - CCQDER. Hyattsville, MD

https://wwwn.cdc.gov/QBank/Report.

[23] Miller, K and Ryan, JM. 2011. "Design, Development and Testing of the NHIS Sexual Identity

Question." National Center for Health Statistics (2011): 1-33. Retrieved at:

https://wwwn.cdc.gov/qbank/report/Miller_NCHS_2011_NHIS%20Sexual%20Identity.pdf

[24] Morgan, RE, Dragon, C, Daus, G, Holzberg, J, Kaplan, R, Menne, H, Smith, AS, and Spiegelman, M.

2020. Updates on Terminology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Survey Measures. FCSM

20-03. Federal Committee on Statistical Methodology. August 2020.

[25] National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2022. Measuring Sex, Gender Identity,

and Sexual Orientation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

https://doi.org/10.17226/26424

[26] Ortman, J.M., Bates, N., Brown, A., and R.C. Saywer. 2017. Optimizing Self and Proxy Response to

Survey Questions on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity. Paper presented at the Annual

Meeting of the Population Association of America, April 27-29, Chicago, IL. Retrieved at:

https://paa.confex.com/paa/2017/mediafile/ExtendedAbstract/Paper13962/Ortman%20Bates%20B

rown%20Sawyer%20PAA%202017.pdf

[27] Otero Class, B., Meyers, M., and Berger, M. Distribution of Spanish Responses to Open Ended Sexual

Orientation Questions. Paper presented at the 77th Annual American Association for Public Opinion

Research Conference. May 10-13, 2022. Chicago, Illinois.

[28] Pho, Anthony. 2022. How do People Want to be Asked About Their Sexual Orientation and Gender

Identity on National Health Surveys? Presented at the American Association for Public Opinion

Research Annual Meeting, May 18-21, 2022, Chicago, Ill..

[29] Ridolfo, H, Miller, K, and Maitland, A. 2012. "Measuring Sexual Identity using Survey

Questionnaires: How Valid are our Measures?" Sexuality Research & Social Policy 9 (2): 113-124.

[30] Russell, S. T., T. J. Clarke, and J. Clary. 2009. Are Teens “Post-Gay”? Contemporary Adolescents’

Sexual Identity Labels. Journal of Youth and Adolescence 38(7): 884–890.

[31] Saewyc, E, Bauer, G, Skay, C, Bearinger, L, Resnick, M, Reis, E, and Murphy, A. "Measuring Sexual

Orientation in Adolescent Health Surveys: Evaluation of Eight School-based Surveys." Journal of

Adolescent Health 35, no. 4 (2004): 345-e1.

[32] Sansone, D. LGBT students: New evidence on demographics and educational outcomes. Economics

of Education Review, Volume 73, December 2019, DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2019.101933

[33] Spiegelman, M. and E. Christopher. NCES Celebrates LGBTQ+ Pride Month. NCES Blog. June 2022.

Retrieved at: https://nces.ed.gov/blogs/nces/post/nces-celebrates-lgbtq-pride-month

[34] Spock, Strategies to Improve Measurement of Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Among

Youth, 2022, Retrieved at: https://www.jahonline.org/article/S1054-139X(22)00646-2/fulltext

[35] 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.

[36] Stern, MJ, Michaels, S, Milesi, C, et al. 2016. “Task 1.32.a: Develop and Test Sexual and Gender

Minority Status (LGBT) Items Final Summary Report.” (unpublished report)

[37] 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.

[38] Truman, J, and Morgan, RE. 2022. Violent Victimization by Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity,

2017–2020. Statistical Brief. Bureau of Justice Statistics. Retrieved at:

https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/vvsogi1720.pdf

[39] Truman, J.L., Morgan, R.E., Gilbert, T., and Vaghela, P. 2019. Measuring sexual orientation and

gender identity in the national crime victimization survey. Journal of Official Statistics, 35 (4), 835–

858. Retrieved at: http://dx.doi.org/10.2478/JOS-2019-0035

[40] VanKim, N, Padilla, J, Joseph, L, and Goldstein, A. 2010. "Adding Sexual Orientation Questions to

Statewide Public Health Surveillance: New Mexico's Experience." American Journal of Public Health

100 (12): 2392-6.

[41] Virgile, M., Holzberg, J., Ellis, R., and S. Feuer. Coding Open-Ended Responses to Survey Questions

on Sexual Orientation. Paper presented at the Population Association of America Annual Meeting,

April 6-9, 2022, Atlanta, Georgia.

[42] Young, L, and Rater, BR. 2022. The Farm Producer Survey: Unit and Item Nonresponse. RDD

Research Report Number RDD-22-01. Research and Development Division, National Agricultural

Statistics Service, United States Department of Agricultural. Retrieved at:

https://www.nass.usda.gov/Education_and_Outreach/Reports,_Presentations_and_Conferences/re

ports/Farm_Producer_Survey_Initial_Resultsnew_07_22_2022.pdf