[Bickart, B.A., J. Blair, G. Menon, and S. Sudman. 1990. “Cognitive Aspects of Proxy Reporting of Behavior.” In Advances in Consumer Research 17, edited by M. Goldberg, G. Gorn, and R. Pollay, 198–206. Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research.]Search in Google Scholar
[Bickart, B.A., J.M. Phillips, and J. Blair. 2006. “The Effects of Discussion and Question Wording on Self and Proxy Reports of Behavioral Frequencies.” Marketing Letters 17: 167–180. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-006-5232-1.10.1007/s11002-006-5232-1]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[Blair, J., G. Menon, and B. Bickart. 1991. “Measurement Effects in Self vs. Proxy Responses: An Information-Processing Perspective.” In Measurement Errors in Surveys, edited by P.P. Biemer, R.M. Groves, L.E. Lyberg, N.A. Mathiowetz, and S. Sudman, 145–166. New York: Wiley.10.1002/9781118150382.ch9]Search in Google Scholar
[Boehm, L.M. 1989. “Reliability of Proxy Response in the Current Population Surve.” In Proceedings of the Survey Research Methods Section: American Statistical Association, 486–489. Alexandria, VA: American Statistical Association. Available at: https://ww2.amstat.org/sections/srms/Proceedings/papers/1989_086.pdf (accessed February 2018).]Search in Google Scholar
[Boyle, C.A., E.A. Brann, and Selected Cancers Cooperative Study Group. 1992. “Proxy Respondents and the Validity of Occupational and Other Exposure Data.” American Journal of Epidemiology 136: 712–721. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a116550.10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a1165501442737]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[Cahill, S., R. Singal, C. Grasso, D. King, K. Mayer, K. Baker, and H. Makadon. 2014. “Do Ask, Do Tell: High Levels of Acceptability by Patients of Routine Collection of Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in Four Diverse American Community Health Centers.” PLoS One 9: 1–8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0107104.10.1371/journal.pone.0107104415783725198577]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[Cobb, C. 2018. “Answering for Someone Else: Proxy Reports in Survey Research.” In The Palgrave Handbook of Survey Research, edited by D.L. Vannette and J.A. Krosnick, 87–93. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-54395-6.10.1007/978-3-319-54395-6]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[Dahlhamer, J.M., A.M. Galinsky, S.S. Joestl, and B.W. Ward. 2014. “Sexual Orientation in the 2013 National Health Interview Survey: A Quality Assessment.” Vital and Health Statistics. Series 2, Data Evaluation and Methods Research 169: 1–32.]Search in Google Scholar
[Davis, M.C., J. Fulton, and A. Henderson. 2017. “Is a Proxy Response Good Enough? Using Paired Cognitive Interviews to Assess the Accuracy of Proxy Responses.” Presentation at the DC-AAPOR/WSS Summer Preview/Review Conference. Available at: http://washstat.org/presentations/20170724/Davis.pdf (accessed February 2018).]Search in Google Scholar
[DeMaio, T.J., N. Bates, and M. O’Connell. 2013. “Exploring Measurement Error Issues in Reporting of Same-Sex Couples.” Public Opinion Quarterly 77: 145–158. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfs066.10.1093/poq/nfs066]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[Edgar, J., J. Murphy, and M. Keating. 2016. “Comparing Traditional and Crowdsourcing Methods for Pretesting Survey Questions.” SAGE Open 6: 1–14. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244016671770.10.1177/2158244016671770]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[Ellis, R., M. Virgile, J. Holzberg, D. Nelson, J. Edgar, P. Phipps, and R. Kaplan. 2017. “Assessing the Feasibility of Asking about Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in the Current Population Survey: Results from Cognitive Interviews.” Technical Report, Center for Survey Measurement, U.S. Census Bureau; Office of Survey Methods Research, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Available at: https://www.bls.gov/osmr/pdf/cps_sogi_cognitive_interview_report.pdf (accessed February 2018).]Search in Google Scholar
[Fazio, R.H. 1986. “How Do Attitudes Guide Behavior?” In Handbook of Motivation and Cognition: Foundations of Social Behavior, edited by R.M. Sorrentino and E.T. Higgins, 204–243. New York: Guilford Press.]Search in Google Scholar
[Federal Interagency Working Group on Improving Measurement of Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in Federal Surveys. 2016. “Current Measures of Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in Federal Surveys.” Available at: https://s3.amazonaws.com/sitesusa/wp-content/uploads/sites/242/2014/04/WorkingGroupPaper1_CurrentMeasures_08-16.pdf (accessed February 2018).]Search in Google Scholar
[Fisher, A.D., G. Castellini, J. Ristori, H. Casale, G. Giovanardi, N. Carone, E. Fanni, M. Mosconi, G. Ciocca, E.A. Jannini, and V. Ricca. 2017. “Who Has the Worst Attitudes Toward Sexual Minorities? Comparison of Transphobia and Homophobia Levels in Gender Dysphoric Individuals, the General Population and Health Care Providers.” Journal of Endocrinological Investigation 40: 263–273. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40618-016-0552-3.10.1007/s40618-016-0552-327639401]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[Galupo, M.P., K.S. Davis, A.L. Grynkiewicz, and R.C. Mitchell. 2014. “Conceptualization of Sexual Orientation Identity among Sexual Minorities: Patterns across Sexual and Gender Identity.” Journal of Bisexuality 14: 433–456. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/15299716.2014.933466.10.1080/15299716.2014.933466]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[Garbarski, D. 2014. “Comparing Self and Maternal Reports of Adolescents’ General Health Status: Do Self and Proxy Reports Differ in Their Relationships with Covariates?” Quality of Life Research 23: 1953–1965. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-014-0649-0.10.1007/s11136-014-0649-0430527724599508]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[Gates, G. 2011. “How Many People are Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender?” Los Angeles, CA: The Williams Institute. Available at: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/09h684x2 (accessed September 2018).]Search in Google Scholar
[GenIUSS Group. 2014. “Best Practices for Asking Questions to Identify Transgender and Other Gender Minority Respondents on Population-Based Surveys.” Los Angeles, CA: The Williams Institute.]Search in Google Scholar
[Grieco, E.M. and D.M. Armstrong. 2014. “Assessing the ‘Year of Naturalization’ Data in the American Community Survey: Characteristics of Naturalized Foreign Born Who Report – and Don’t Report – the Year They Obtained Citizenship.” Presentation at the Applied Demography Conference, San Antonio, TX.]Search in Google Scholar
[Holzberg, J., R. Ellis, M. Virgile, D. Nelson, J. Edgar, P. Phipps, and R. Kaplan. 2017. “Assessing the Feasibility of Asking about Gender Identity in the Current Population Survey: Results from Focus Groups with Members of the Transgender Population.” Technical Report, Center for Survey Measurement, U.S. Census Bureau; Office of Survey Methods Research, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Available at: https://www.bls.gov/osmr/pdf/cps_sogi_focus_group_report.pdf (accessed February 2018).]Search in Google Scholar
[Horwitz, R. and J. Finamore. 2017. “Do Focus Group Participants Mean What They Say? A Field test of Mailing Materials Updated Based on Qualitative Feedback.” Presentation at the Conference of the European Survey Research Association: Lisbon, Portugal.]Search in Google Scholar
[Jäger, A. 2005. “Explaining the ‘Accuracy’ of Proxy-Reports on Attitudes Towards Immigrants in Germany: Two Approaches Compared.” Advances in Methodology and Statistics 2: 27–57.10.51936/elmr1013]Search in Google Scholar
[Joloza, T., J. Traynor, and L. Haselden. 2009. “Developing Survey Questions on Sexual Identity: Report on the General Lifestyle (GLF) Split-Sample Pilot.” Newport: for National Statistics (Household, Labour Market and Social Wellbeing Division).]Search in Google Scholar
[Joloza, T., J. Evans, and R. O’Brien. 2010. “Measuring Sexual Identity: An Evaluation Report.” Office for National Statistics, United Kingdom. Available at: https://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/ethnicity/measuring-sexual-identity–-evaluation-report/2010/sexual-identity.pdf (accessed February 2018).]Search in Google Scholar
[Jones, E.E. and R.E. Nisbett. 1971. “The Actor and the Observer: Divergent Perceptions of Behavior.” In Attribution: Perceiving the Causes of Behavior, edited by E.E. Jones, D.E. Kanouse, H.H. Kelley, R.E. Nisbett, S. Valins, and B. Weiner, 79–94. Hillsdale, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.]Search in Google Scholar
[King, T., S. Cook, and J.H. Childs. 2012. “Interviewing Proxy versus Self-Reporting Respondents to Obtain Information Regarding Living Situations.” In Proceedings for the Joint Statistical Meetings, Survey Research Methods Section, 5667–5677. Alexandria, VA: American Statistical Association. Available at: https://www.amstat.org/sections/srms/proceedings/y2012/files/400243_500698.pdf (accessed February 2018).]Search in Google Scholar
[Kojetin, B.A. and L. Miller. 1993. “The Intrahousehold Communications Study: Estimating the Accuracy of Proxy Responses at the Dyadic Level.” In Proceedings of the Section on Survey Research Methods, 1095–1100. Alexandria, VA: American Statistical Association. Available at: http://www.asasrms.org/Proceedings/papers/1993_188.pdf (accessed October 2019).]Search in Google Scholar
[Kojetin, B.A. and P. Mullin. 1995. “The Quality of Proxy Reports on the Current Population Survey (CPS).” In Proceedings of the Section on Survey Research Methods, 1110–1115. Alexandria, VA: American Statistical Association. Available at: http://www.asasrms.org/Proceedings/papers/1995_193.pdf (accessed October 2019).]Search in Google Scholar
[Kojetin, B.A. and J.M. Tanur. 1996. “Proxies for Youths and Adults: Communication and Reports of Job Search.” In Proceedings of the Section on Survey Research Methods, 254–259. Alexandria, VA: American Statistical Association. Available at: http://ww2.amstat.org/sections/srms/Proceedings/papers/1996_039.pdf (accessed February 2018).]Search in Google Scholar
[Kreuter, F., S. Presser, and R. Tourangeau. 2008. “Social Desirability Bias in CATI, IVR, and Web Surveys: The Effects of Mode and Question Sensitivity.” Public Opinion Quarterly 72: 847–865. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfn063.10.1093/poq/nfn063]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[Krosnick, J.A., S. Presser, K. Husbands, S. Fealing, S. Ruggles, and D.L. Vannette. 2015. “The Future of Survey Research: Challenges and Opportunities.” The National Science Foundation Advisory Committee for the Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences Subcommittee on Advancing SBE Survey Research. Available at: http://www.nsf.gov/sbe/AC_Materials/The_Future_of_Survey_Research.pdf (accessed February 2018).]Search in Google Scholar
[Kvale, S. and S. Brinkmann. 2015. InterViews: Learning the Craft of Qualitative Research Interviewing (3rd edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.]Search in Google Scholar
[Lavtar, D., M. Zaletel, and A. Rogelj. 2016. “Proxy Responses to Subjective Questions: The Influence on the Results of the Health Expectancy Indicator.” European Conference on Quality in Official Statistics, Madrid. Available at: http://www.ine.es/q2016/docs/q2016Final00147.pdf (accessed September 2018).]Search in Google Scholar
[Lee, S., N.A. Mathiowetz, and R. Tourangeau. 2004. “Perceptions of Disability: The Effect of Self-and Proxy Response.” Journal of Official Statistics 20: 671–686.]Search in Google Scholar
[Lombardi, E. and S. Banik. 2016. “The Utility of the Two-Step Gender Measure within Trans and Cis Populations.” Sexuality Research and Social Policy 13: 288–296. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13178-016-0220-6.10.1007/s13178-016-0220-6869957134956416]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[Magaziner, J., S.S. Bassett, J.R. Hebel, and A. Gruber-Baldini. 1996. “Use of Proxies to Measure Health and Functional Status in Epidemiologic Studies of Community-Dwelling Women Aged 65 years and Older.” American Journal of Epidemiology 143: 283–292.10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a0087408561163]Search in Google Scholar
[McCabe, S.E., T.L. Hughes, W. Bostwick, M. Morales, and C.J. Boyd. 2012. “Measurement of Sexual Identity in Surveys: Implications for Substance Abuse Research.” Archives of Sexual Behavior 41: 649–657. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-011-9768-7.10.1007/s10508-011-9768-7323365121573706]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[Mellow, W. and H. Sider. 1983. “Accuracy of Response in Labor Market Surveys: Evidence and Implications.” Journal of Labor Economics 1: 331–344.10.1086/298016]Search in Google Scholar
[Mingay, D.J., S.K. Shevell, N.M. Bradburn, and C. Ramirez. 1994. “Self and Proxy Reports of Everyday Events.” In Autobiographical Memory and the Validity of Retrospective Reports, edited by N. Schwarz and S. Sudman, 235–250. New York: Springer.10.1007/978-1-4612-2624-6_16]Search in Google Scholar
[Moore, J.C. 1988. “Miscellanea, Self/Proxy Response Status and Survey Response Quality: A Review of the Literature.” Journal of Official Statistics 4: 155–172.]Search in Google Scholar
[Moore, J.C. and E.J. Welniak. 2000. “Income Measurement Error in Surveys: A Review.” Journal of Official Statistics 16: 331–361.]Search in Google Scholar
[Ortman, J.M., N. Bates, A. Brown, and R.C. Sawyer. 2017. “Optimizing Self and Proxy Response to Survey Questions on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity.” Presentation at the Annual Meeting of the Population Association of America, Chicago, IL, April, 2017. Available at https://paa.confex.com/paa/2017/mediafile/ExtendedAbstract/Paper13962/Ortman%20Bates%20Brown%20Sawyer%20PAA%202017.pdf (accessed February 2018).]Search in Google Scholar
[Pascale, J. 2016. “Modernizing a Major Federal Government Survey: A Review of the Redesign of the Current Population Survey Health Insurance Questions.” Journal of Official Statistics 32: 461–486. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/JOS-2016-0024.10.1515/JOS-2016-0024]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[Park, J.E. 2015. “Proxy Reporting of Sexual Orientation Information in Household Surveys.” Internal Presentation, Office of Statistical and Science Policy, Office of Management and Budget.]Search in Google Scholar
[Pierce, J.P., A. Farkas, N. Evans, C. Berry, W. Choi, B. Rosbrook, M. Johnson, and D.G. Bal. 1993. “Tobacco Use in California: A Focus on Preventing Uptake in Adolescents.” Sacramento, CA: California Department of Health Services.]Search in Google Scholar
[Reynolds, J. and J.B. Wenger. 2012. “He Said, She Said: The Gender Wage Gap According to Self and Proxy Reports in the Current Population Survey.” Social Science Research 41: 392–411. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2011.10.005.10.1016/j.ssresearch.2011.10.00523017760]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[Robertson, R.E., F.W. Tran, L.N. Lewark, and R. Epstein. 2018. “Estimates of Non-Heterosexual Prevalence: The Roles of Anonymity and Privacy in Survey Methodology.” Archives of Sexual Behavior 47: 1069–1084. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-017-1044-z.10.1007/s10508-017-1044-z28785920]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[Saldaña, J. 2015. The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.]Search in Google Scholar
[Schwarz, N. and T. Wellens. 1997. “Cognitive Dynamics of Proxy Responding: The Diverging Perspectives of Actors and Observers.” Journal of Official Statistics 13: 159–179.]Search in Google Scholar
[SMART (Sexual Minority Assessment Research Team). 2009. Best Practices for Asking Questions about Sexual Orientation on Surveys. Los Angeles, CA: The Williams Institute, UCLA School of Law. Available at: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/706057d5 (accessed November 2019).]Search in Google Scholar
[Sudman, S., B. Bickart, J. Blair, and G. Menon. 1994. “The Effect of Participation Level on Reports of Behavior and Attitudes by Proxy Reporters.” In Autobiographical Memory and the Validity of Retrospective Reports, edited by N. Schwarz and S. Sudman, 251–265. New York: Springer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-2624-6_17.10.1007/978-1-4612-2624-6_17]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[Tamborini, C.R. and C. Kim. 2013. “Are Proxy Interviews Associated with Biased Earnings Reports? Marital Status and Gender Effects of Proxy.” Social Science Research 42: 499–512. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2012.11.004.10.1016/j.ssresearch.2012.11.00423347491]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[Todorov, A. 2003. “Cognitive Procedures for Correcting Proxy-Response Biases in Surveys.” Applied Cognitive Psychology 17: 215–224.10.1002/acp.850]Search in Google Scholar
[Todorov, A. and C. Kirchner. 2000. “Bias in Proxies’ Reports of Disability: Data from the National Health Interview Survey on Disability.” American Journal of Public Health 90: 1248–1253. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acp.850.10.1002/acp.850]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[Tourangeau, R. 1984. “Cognitive Sciences and Survey Methods.” In Cognitive Aspects of Survey Methodology: Building a Bridge Between Disciplines, edited by T. Jabine, M.L. Straf, J.M. Tanur, and R. Tourangeau, 73–100. Washington, D.C. National Academy Press.]Search in Google Scholar
[Tourangeau, R. and T. Yan. 2007. “Sensitive Questions in Surveys.” Psychological Bulletin 133: 859–883. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.133.5.859.10.1037/0033-2909.133.5.85917723033]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[Westgate, E., R. Riskind, and B. Nosek. 2015. “Implicit Preferences for Straight People over Lesbian Women and Gay Men Weakened from 2006 to 2013.” Collabra: Psychology 1: 1–10. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.10.1525/collabra]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[Willis, G.B. 2015. Analysis of the Cognitive Interview in Questionnaire Design. New York: Oxford University Press.]Search in Google Scholar