Mischievous Responders and Sexual Minority Youth Survey Data: A Brief History, Recent Methodological Advances, and Implications for Research and Practice

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.


  1. 1.

    Because our Commentary discusses mischievous responders and ways to assess their potential effects on LGBQ–heterosexual disparity estimates, we briefly mention here how these papers dealt with mischievous responders. Holway et al. (2017) used AddHealth data but did not explicitly mention concerns about mischievous responders, but some of their data exclusion criteria (e.g., removing respondents who reported having sex before age 10 or having more than 50 partners) may be partially removing mischievous responders, though such exclusion criteria may alter actual substantive outcomes of interest as well. Phillips et al. (2019) used YRBS data and reference mischievous responders in their limitations sections, but they did not mention any explicit attempt to screen their data. Poteat et al. (2019) and Talley et al. (2019) used the Dane County Youth Assessment and YRBS, respectively, but did not mention mischievous responders or any attempt to screen their data.

  2. 2.

    Gender identity was not assessed in AddHealth (at least, not in the way it would be assessed in contemporary studies) and was not in the public conscienceness as much then (in 1994–1996, when these first two waves of data were collected) as it is in 2020. Thus, the possibility exists that some of these youth were transgender/genderqueer/non-binary/non-conforming and perhaps felt forced to report their sex assigned at birth when asked during the in-person follow-up. However, given that these female-to-male response patterns often coincided with misreporting of adoption status, nativity, and amputee/disability status, many of these cases are likely mischievous responders. Nevertheless, it is worth noting that the transgender + possibility was not raised by Fan et al. (2006), and to date very few studies have assessed the possibility of mischievous responders as relates to gender identity (for exceptions, see Robinson & Espelage, 2011; Robinson-Cimpian, 2014). This is indeed an important area of research, as Robinson-Cimpian’s (2014) results suggest that transgender–cisgender disparities may be far more biased than SMY-heterosexual disparities; more work is needed on this topic.

  3. 3.

    The current Commentary is a collaborative effort by Cimpian and Timmer, but occasionally we insert references to the work or experiences of one of the authors.

  4. 4.

    As Cimpian (2017) makes clear, mischievous responding is only one source of potential bias. Some new work by Salway, Plöderl, Liu, and Gustafson (2019) incorporates multiple forms of bias (including mischievous responding) into calculations of lifetime suicide attempts by sexual orientation. For example, Salway, Plöderl, Liu, and Gustafson’s (2019) model incorporates an assumed mischievousness effect based on the literature, which diminishes the LGB–heterosexual suicide attempt disparity, but then also assumes that a “concealer effect” (i.e., not disclosing stigmatized or sensitive personal information) acts in the opposite direction, increasing the disparity.


  1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2018). YRBS journal articles by DASH authors. 2017. https://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/data/yrbs/pdf/YRBS-Journal-Articles_2018.pdf. Retrieved January 5, 2020.

  2. Cimpian, J. R. (2017). Classification errors and bias regarding research on sexual minority youths. Educational Researcher,46(9), 517–529.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Cimpian, J. R., & Timmer, J. D. (2019). Large-scale estimates of LGBQ-heterosexual disparities in the presence of potentially mischievous responders: A preregistered replication and comparison of methods. AERA Open,5(4), 2332858419888892. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858419888892.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Cimpian, J. R., Timmer, J. D., Birkett, M. A., Marro, R. L., Turner, B. C., & Phillips, G. L. (2018). Bias from potentially mischievous responders on large-scale estimates of lesbian, gay, bisexual, or questioning (LGBQ)—Heterosexual youth health disparities. American Journal of Public Health,108(S4), S258–S265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Fan, X. (2003). Correction to data and conclusions. Child Development,74(3), 965.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Fan, X., Miller, B. C., Park, K. E., Winward, B. W., Christensen, M., Grotevant, H. D., et al. (2006). An exploratory study about inaccuracy and invalidity in adolescent self-report surveys. Field Methods,18(3), 223–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Fish, J. N., & Russell, S. T. (2018). Have mischievous responders misidentified sexual minority youth disparities in the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health? Archives of Sexual Behavior,47(4), 1053–1067.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Friedman, J. H. (2001). Greedy function approximation: A gradient boosting machine. The Annals of Statistics,29(5), 1189–1232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Holway, G. V., Tillman, K. H., & Brewster, K. L. (2017). Binge drinking in young adulthood: The influence of age at first intercourse and rate of sex partner accumulation. Archives of Sexual Behavior,46(2), 525–537.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Katz-Wise, S. L., Calzo, J. P., Li, G., & Pollitt, A. (2015). Same data, different perspectives: What is at stake? Response to Savin-Williams and Joyner (2014a) [Letter to the Editor]. Archives of Sexual Behavior,44(1), 15–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Li, G., Katz-Wise, S. L., & Calzo, J. P. (2014). The unjustified doubt of add health studies on the health disparities of non-heterosexual adolescents: Comment on Savin-Williams and Joyner (2014) [Letter to the Editor]. Archives of Sexual Behavior,43(6), 1023–1026.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Miller, B. C., Fan, X., Christensen, M., Grotevant, H. D., & Van Dulmen, M. (2000). Comparisons of adopted and nonadopted adolescents in a large, nationally representative sample. Child Development,71(5), 1458–1473.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Phillips, G., Beach, L. B., Turner, B., Feinstein, B. A., Marro, R., Philbin, M. M., … Birkett, M. (2019). Sexual identity and behavior among US high school students, 2005–2015. Archives of Sexual Behavior,48(5), 1463–1479.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Poteat, V. P., Russell, S. T., & Dewaele, A. (2019). Sexual health risk behavior disparities among male and female adolescents using identity and behavior indicators of sexual orientation. Archives of Sexual Behavior,48(4), 1087–1097.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Robinson, J. P., & Espelage, D. L. (2011). Inequities in educational and psychological outcomes between LGBTQ and straight students in middle and high school. Educational Researcher,40(7), 315–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Robinson, J. P., & Espelage, D. L. (2012). Bullying explains only part of LGBTQ—Heterosexual risk disparities: Implications for policy and practice. Educational Researcher,41(8), 309–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Robinson, J. P., & Espelage, D. L. (2013). Peer victimization and sexual risk differences between lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or questioning and nontransgender heterosexual youths in grades 7–12. American Journal of Public Health,103(10), 1810–1819.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Robinson-Cimpian, J. P. (2014). Inaccurate estimation of disparities due to mischievous responders: Several suggestions to assess conclusions. Educational Researcher,43(4), 171–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Salway, T., Plöderl, M., Liu, J., & Gustafson, P. (2019). Effects of multiple forms of information bias on estimated prevalence of suicide attempts according to sexual orientation: An application of a Bayesian misclassification correction method to data from a systematic review. American Journal of Epidemiology,188(1), 239–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Savin-Williams, R. C., & Joyner, K. (2014a). The dubious assessment of gay, lesbian, and bisexual adolescents of Add Health. Archives of Sexual Behavior,43(3), 413–422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Savin-Williams, R. C., & Joyner, K. (2014b). The politicization of gay youth health: Response to Li, Katz-Wise, and Calzo (2014) [Letter to the Editor]. Archives of Sexual Behavior,43(6), 1027–1030.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Talley, A. E., Turner, B., Foster, A. M., & Phillips, G. (2019). Sexual minority youth at risk of early and persistent alcohol, tobacco, and marijuana use. Archives of Sexual Behavior,48(4), 1073–1086.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to Joseph R. Cimpian.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cimpian, J.R., Timmer, J.D. Mischievous Responders and Sexual Minority Youth Survey Data: A Brief History, Recent Methodological Advances, and Implications for Research and Practice. Arch Sex Behav 49, 1097–1102 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-020-01661-7

Download citation