The small sample size and limited demographic distribution strongly
suggest that the conclusions be viewed with skepticism.
The study report includes the following:
At T5, the mean age of the index offspring was 17.05 years (SD = .36;
range 16–18 years), and the mean age of the mothers was 52.30 years
(SD =3.99, range 44–61 years). The ethnic and racial composition of
the T5 adolescent sample was 87.1% (n = 68) White or Caucasian, 3.8%
(n = 3) Latino or Latina, 2.6% (n = 2) African American, 2.6% (n = 2)
Asian or Pacific Islander, 1.3% (n = 1) Armenian, 1.3% (n = 1)
Lebanese, and 1.3% (n = 1) Native American.
At T5, the family constellations consisted of 31 continuously
coupled, 40 separated-mother, and 6 single-mother families. Of the
73 couples who were co-parenting when the index offspring were born,
56% had separated, and the average age of the index offspring at the
time of their mothers’ separation was 6.97 years (SD = 4.42 years).
At the time of enrollment, the participating families lived within 200
miles of Boston, Washington, DC, or San Francisco (Gartrell et al.,
1996, 1999), but many have relocated. At T5, the families were
residing in large urban communities, midsized towns, and rural areas
of the northeastern (47%), southern (9%), Midwestern (1%), and western
(43%) regions of the United States (Gartrell &
Bos, 2010). Based on the Hollingshead Index (using the parent with the
highest occupation and education to calculate socioeconomic status),
82% (n =63) of the T5 NLLFS families are middle- or upper-middle class
(Gartrell et al., 2010)
Strengths and Limitations
A strength of the NLLFS is that it is a prospective, longitudinal
study with a very high retention rate. Since the mothers enrolled in
the NLLFS before the index offspring were born, the results of the
present investigation are not skewed by overrepresentation of families
who volunteer because their adolescents are already doing well. In
addition, the data were gathered through confidential adolescent
self-reports, increasing the likelihood of candor on
sensitive topics such as mental health problems. Finally, the use of
qualitative research questions makes it possible to have a broader and
more nuanced perspective on lesbian family life through the narrations
provided by the adolescent offspring.
Along with these strengths, the present study has several limitations.
First, sensitivity to cultural homophobia may have motivated some
NLLFS offspring to be particularly affirming of their mothers when
asked to assess their parenting (Kuvalanka & Goldberg, 2009). Also,
because it is a nonrandom sample, the findings may not be
representative of the population of adolescents with LG parents as a
whole. In addition, this study bears repeating with a larger, more
demographically diverse sample that includes gay fathers and adoptive
LG parents. Finally, despite being the largest, longestrunning
prospective American study of same-sex parent families, the study
would be strengthened by comparing the responses of the NLLFS
adolescents with those of a matched sample of adolescents from
heterosexual-parent households.
http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/nllfs-adolescents-with-lesbian-mothers-2012.pdf