Cited by 58LGBTQ Health, Identity, and PolicySurvey Methodology and NonresponseGender and Feminist Studies

The Utility of the Two-Step Gender Measure Within Trans and Cis Populations

Open access
Lombardi, Emilia, Banik, Swagata·2016·Sexuality Research and Social Policy

Abstract

It has been acknowledged that more research into the health and well-being of trans people is needed in order to identify important health issues. While recent studies have suggested using a two-question gender status measure to assess assigned sex at birth and gender identity, it is not well understood how participants understand and subsequently answer the questions. The study recruited a convenience sample of 50 people (25 trans and 25 cis) from the general population of Cleveland and Akron, OH. The study used cognitive interviewing methods with scripted, semi-structured and spontaneous probes when appropriate. Participants were asked to read questions out-loud, answer the questions, and explain why they answered the way they did. Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed prior to analysis. The gender status questions were found to be easy to use and understood by both trans and cis participants. The two-question gender status measure was able to encompass a diversity of identities within a trans sample and be consistently answered by the study's cis participants. The measures were able to differentiate between trans and cis groups. The two-step gender measure can be a useful tool in examining gender diversity within general population studies.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s13178-016-0220-6

Cites

25 of 25 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Institute of Medicine (US) Board on the Health of Select Populations. (2013). Collecting sexual orientation and gender identity data in electronic health records: workshop summary. Washington (DC): National Academy of Sciences. 23967501

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lombardi, E., & Banik, S.
Affiliations
Baldwin Wallace University (US)
Corresponding author
Lombardi, Emilia
Venue
Sexuality Research and Social Policy
Published
2016-02-18
Volume
13
Issue
3
Pages
288-296
ISSN
  • 1553-6610 (ISSN-L)
  • 1868-9884
OpenAlex
W2345816177
Cited by
58
References
25
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 2
FWCI
5.23
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Sexuality Research and Social Policy (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
Williams Institute, UCLA
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › LGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Survey Methodology and Nonresponse
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender and Feminist Studies
Keywords
gender identity, transgender people, cisgender people, cognitive interviewing, question comprehension, gender diversity, measurement validity

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review