Same-Sex Marriage and the Boundaries of Diversity: Will Marriage and Family Therapy Remain Inclusive of Religious and Social Conservatives?

Rosik, Christopher H.

doi:10.1080/01494929.2014.938796

Cited by 5 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 83 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Schumm found subsequent citation rates to favor the supportive studies over the less supportive study by a 28 and 37 to 2 ratio. Follow-up analysis in 2014 found the ratio stood at 67 and 88 to 6 (Rosik 2014).…”

Section: Gay Parentingmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Response to the Academy of Science of South Africa's Diversity in Human Sexuality Report

Integrity¹

2015

Linacre Q

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Gay Parentingmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Response to the Academy of Science of South Africa's Diversity in Human Sexuality Report

Integrity¹

2015

Linacre Q

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Between 2000 and 2009, MFR featured publication of 306 articles, excluding biographies and brief editorials, with one article published that contained information on same-sex marriage in Canada (Schlesinger, 2007). Between 2010 and 2017, MFR featured several reviews of LGBT-related literature or commentaries on such reviews, with reviews focusing on family interventions (Rosik, 2014;Whitton & Buzzella, 2012), research literature (Allen, 2015;Cameron & Cameron, 2012;Cameron, Cameron, & Proctor, 2017;Kulik, 2011;Schumm, 2010Schumm, , 2012a, and commentary on research literature (Schumm, Crawford, Childs, Ateeq, Koochel, & Alshalan, 2017) as well as five empirical articles (Bong, 2011;Edwards, 2011;Negy, Pearte, & Lacefield, 2013;Sutphin, 2010), of which one concerned family life education program evaluation (Skogrand, Mendez, & Higginbotham, 2013) out of 250 published articles. The difference in rates between the early and later periods of MFR was statistically significant, with an odds ratio = 18.1 (95% CI, 2.36 to 138.6, p = .005), despite the small number of LGBT-related articles published in either time frame.…”

Section: Relative Percentages Of Lgbt-related Articlesmentioning

confidence: 99%

How Have Other Journals Compared to “The Top Seven” Journals in Family Social Science with Respect to LGBT-Related Research and Reviews? A Comment on “A Content Analysis of LGBT Research in Top Family Journals 2000–2015”? An Editorial Analysis

Schumm

Crawford

2018

Marriage & Family Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Van Eeden-Moorefield, Few-Demo, Benson, Bible, and Lummer (2018) recently reviewed the content of seven family social science journals with respect to theory and methods used in 153 articles featuring LGBT research or reviews of LGBT research. They concluded that less than three percent of 6,832 articles published in those journals between 2000 and 2015 were LGBT-related and that most had not used explicit theory and had used purposive cross-sectional samples consisting mostly of White and middle-class participants. During the tenure of the present editor, between 2010 and 2017, Marriage & Family Review featured 14 research reports, reviews, or commentary on LGBT-related issues out of 250 articles, not counting brief editorials or biographies between 2010 and 2017, an odds ratio of over 2.0 compared to the other "top-tier" journals. Likewise, the Journal of Family Theory & Review published at least 15 articles, mainly reviews or commentaries, on LGBT-related issues between 2009 and 2017. Articles in Marriage & Family Review and Journal of Family Theory & Review were more likely to be reviews of the literature, or feature explicit theory, to be qualitative in methodology, or to involve interviews or surveys, while other characteristics were similar to those in the other seven journals. Thus, even if some mainstream family journals did not publish often on LGBTrelated issues, other important family science journals have done so. Furthermore, there are numerous scholarly journals that welcome LGBT-related research and reviews almost exclusively.

show abstract

“…Hawkins & Ooms, 2012; Lewton & Nievar, 2012;Reck, Higginbotham, Skogrand, & Davis, 2012;Schrannn & Gomez-Scott, 2012; Whitton & Buzzella, 2012), or clinical/ethical issues (Bailey, 2012;Rosik, 2014) and would not normally be expected to have included demographic data on…”

mentioning

confidence: 98%

Does Dividing the Range by Four Provide an Accurate Estimate of a Standard Deviation in Family Science Research? A Teaching Editorial

Schumm

Higgins

Lockett

et al. 2016

Marriage & Family Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Occasionally, scientific reports have omitted information on standard deviations, making estimates of effect sizes very difficult to impossible. In such situations, several scholars have recommended obtaining an estimate of the standard deviation of distributions by dividing the range of the distribution (highest value minus lowest value) by four. However, there appears to be little evidence to confirm the validity of this approach. Articles from 2012 to 2015 in the journal Marriage & Family Review were surveyed to find instances where demographic variables (age, education, duration of relationship, number of children) were reported with both standard deviations and ranges. Ratios between range and standard deviations were calculated by several rules of thumb or more complex formulas and compared to the actual ratios obtained.Results indicated that dividing by 5 in general provided a more accurate estimate of actual standard deviations but accuracy in predicting the true ratio between range and standard deviation was substantially related to the position of the mean score within the range of scores with larger divisors needed as the mean approached either the minimum or the maximum values of the demographic variable (skew). Other recent formulae for estimating the standard deviation were also evaluated, but the skew-based approach appeared to be more accurate than the others.However, further investigation in other samples is needed because the skew-based approach was derived from observation of the data here, which might not replicate in different sets of data.

show abstract

Same-Sex Marriage and the Boundaries of Diversity: Will Marriage and Family Therapy Remain Inclusive of Religious and Social Conservatives?

Cited by 5 publications

References 83 publications

A Response to the Academy of Science of South Africa's Diversity in Human Sexuality Report

A Response to the Academy of Science of South Africa's Diversity in Human Sexuality Report

How Have Other Journals Compared to “The Top Seven” Journals in Family Social Science with Respect to LGBT-Related Research and Reviews? A Comment on “A Content Analysis of LGBT Research in Top Family Journals 2000–2015”? An Editorial Analysis

Does Dividing the Range by Four Provide an Accurate Estimate of a Standard Deviation in Family Science Research? A Teaching Editorial

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About