A Comparative Analysis of a Community and General Sample of Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Individuals

Abstract

Samples recruited at lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) venues have certain benefits, but a major drawback is that these samples are prone to bias as they only contain LGB participants who visit such venues. Empirical data with regard to the potential differences between LGB community samples and LGB general samples may shed some light on the generalizability of research findings from convenience samples recruited through LGB venues. The current study attempted to contribute to existing knowledge by examining differences in social demographics, sexual orientation, minority stress, and mental health between a convenience sample recruited at LGB venues ("community sample," N = 3,403) and an LGB sample recruited from a general research panel in the Netherlands ("panel sample," N = 1,000). Various differences were found. In general, community participants were younger, reported a more exclusive same-sex sexual orientation, were more open about their sexual orientation, had lower levels of internalized homonegativity, and encountered more negative social reactions on their LGB status. They also reported higher levels of psychological distress and suicidality. The Nagelkerke R (2) of the analyses (which were adjusted for sociodemographic differences) ranged from .08 (suicide plans among men) to .27 (sexual attraction among women). However, while the estimates of sociodemographics, sexual orientation, minority stress, and mental well-being differed, the relationships between these constructs were comparable in both samples. Implications and suggestions for future studies are discussed.

Respondent-driven sampling as a recruitment method for men who have sex with men in southern sub-Saharan Africa: a cross-sectional analysis by wave

“…Lesotho participants in the earlier waves were also more likely to have disclosed their sexual practices to family members. These findings are similar to the results from a previous study conducted in the Netherlands, which found that participants recruited from lesbian, gay and bisexual venues were more likely to be open about their sexual orientation and to encounter more social stigma related to their sexual orientation, as compared with lesbian, gay and bisexual individuals recruited from a general research panel 28. In particular, stigma may be greater for MSM who are open about their sexual orientation because they may display mannerisms less aligned with traditional male gender roles 29 30.…”

PrEP Interest Among Men Who Have Sex with Men in the Netherlands: Covariates and Differences Across Samples

“…LGBT nonprobability community participants were younger, had more often an exclusive same-sex orientation, and were more open about their sexual orientation (Kuyper, Fernee, & Keuzenkamp, 2016). They also reported more high-risk sexual behavior (Dodds, Mercer, Mercey, Copas, & Johnson, 2006;Evans, Wiggins, Mercer, Bolding, & Elford, 2007).…”

Sexual orientation and neurocognitive ability: A meta-analysis in men and women

“…Some studies oversampled from university or urban community sources (e.g., while others relied on online survey participants (e.g., Peters et al, 2007). This may have produced some sampling biases, common in research with difficult-to-reach or minority populations (Kuyper et al, 2016).…”