Design of the survey

The LGBTIII survey was an onli ne opt-in survey. That is
to say, unlike surveys using proba bility rando m sam-
ples, respondents were self-selected, as they volun-
teered to participa te in the survey.
This design was ado pted because it would not have
been possible to achi eve arepresentative ra ndom sam-
ple of LGBTI people across t he EU in the absence of sam-
pling frames and reliable, detailed information about
the target popula tion in terms of its size, character istics
and composition in t he survey countries.
Using the traditio nal sampling te chniques would al so
have been challengi ng because of the low preval ence
of the target group in th e population. Fur thermore,
considering different data collection modes, research
has shown that conventional fa ce-to-face surveys suf-
fer from ahighe r level of social desirab ility bias than
web-based surveys, es pecially when ask ing sensitive
questions (4). Because of social stigma, some LGBT I
respondents may cho ose to conceal being LGBTI in con-
ventional face-to-face interviews. The social desirability
bias(5) is ex pected to be lower in web-based surveys,
which are perceived as anonymous and conf‌idential.
To avoid such bias, the LGBTIII survey was desig ned to
ensure conf‌identiality and anonymity.
Given the survey’s desig n, LGBTIII su rvey data are
based on anarrower pop ulation than the who le LGBTI
population of the 30 s urveyed countries. T he survey
population consists of people who:
(4) See Heerweg (2009).
(5) Social desirability bias is the phenomenon describing the
tendency of su rvey respondents to a nswer interview
questions i n away that is socially accep table and received
favourably o r at least not negatively by o thers. In this way,
respondent s tend not to respond hone stly but in away that
they can appea r more likeable to the inter viewer or avoid
negative reactions.
can be reached through t he online means use d, i.e.
those who have access to the interne t; and
became aware of the sur vey, e.g. by visiting aweb-
site/app promoting the sur vey; and
chose to complete the sur vey.
This raises anumb er of issues for consideration:
despite the fact tha t internet penetrati on has in-
creased across the EU (6), the remaini ng internet
non-users are not usual ly ara ndom subsampl e of
the general pop ulation, as elderl y, less educated
and low-income subgrou ps are more likely to be
internet non-users(7);
due to self-selection, t here is no control over the
selection process, a s it is not possible to determ ine
whether targeted respondents complete the sur-
vey because they may have differe nt levels of mo-
tivation and interest in participating;
the propensity to resp ond of the different LGBTI
groups (i.e. the probab ility of the LGBTI groups par-
ticipating in the su rvey) may vary across countri es
and sociodemographic strata because of cultural
and social norms.
To reduce apossible bias, su rvey disseminati on was
targeted as broadly as p ossible. A combination of
(6) A ccording to Eurostat 2018 d ata, the level of interne t access
to household s exceeded 80% in all count ries surveyed
except for Bulga ria (72%), Greece (76%), Lithuania (7 8%),
Portugal (7 9%), North Macedonia (79%) and Ser bia (73%),
where the percentage was slightly lower.
(7) Eurostat off‌i cial statistics, su rvey on ICT (information
communications and technology) usage in households and
by individuals.
Design of the survey

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT