Sampling Strategies of Parents of Sexual and Gender Minority Youth: A Systematic Review

Background & Purpose: Parents of Sexual and gender minorities (SGM) are crucial to their child’s mental health. Researchers know little about the parents of SGM, which might be due to the barriers in sampling this population. Studies of parents of SGM youth often rely on convenience sampling, reducing scientific rigor, particularly through introducing threats to validity and generalizability. More rigorous sampling is not always possible when prioritizing the safety of the SGM children. The two aims include: assessing sampling and recruitment strategies of studies that include parents of SGM youth and, secondly, examining whether these sampling strategies lead to bias in terms of parental acceptance in these studies, which included a sample of just parents and parents and SGM child. Hence, we conducted a systematic review with two research questions: 1) what are sampling strategies for parents of SGM youth? and 2) to what extent are convenience-sampled parents of SGM more likely to report acceptance of their child’s disclosure?

Methods: This systematic review included qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-method studies identified through seven electronic databases for peer-reviewed articles. Search terms included “parents of sexual minority youth,” “coming out,” “sexual identity disclosure,” “gay or lesbian or LGBT.” Inclusion criteria were that the study was 1) published in the English language; 2) participants identified as a parent of a SGM youth; 3) focused on the reactions of parents to their child disclosing as GSM; 4) detailed parental recruitment strategies; 5) published after 1980 to capture the shifts in GSM research; and 6) published peer-reviewed empirical research article.

Results: A total of 600 studies were identified, 39 studies were included for full-text review, and 29 articles met the inclusion criteria. Twenty-seven articles used convenience sampling to access parents of SGM youth, and two used purposive sampling. Most recruited participants through advocacy organizations such as Parents, Families, and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG). We found that 55% of included quantitative studies, 31% were qualitative, and 14% were mixed methods. Parent sample sizes ranged from 5 to 1,193; the median sample size was 36 parents. Studies’ findings differed based on where and how the samples were drawn. For example, studies drawing samples from LGBTQ+ advocacy organizations appear to be biased toward parental acceptance. Mothers and non-Hispanic white subjects are overrepresented in the literature.

Conclusion & Implications: Accessing and studying hidden populations such as parents of SGM youth will continue to be difficult, and convenience sampling is often necessary in order to gather meaningful information. Future research should put more effort into accessing families of SGM youth utilizing more scientifically rigorous techniques to strengthen research. Drawing on the same recruitment strategies through advocacy organizations reproduces limited findings that do not capture more diverse populations; future research should engage different organizations to involve racially, ethnically, and economically minoritized families. Future research must focus on parents to understand how SGM youth are vulnerable to various adverse outcomes compared to non-SGM peers.