Chapter 4

PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS, AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA

This study aimed at comparing the quality of life among gay men and lesbians

under four different domains: physical, psychological, social, and environmental, as

well as determining their overall quality of life. The steps undertaken involved

administration and scoring of a standardized test questionnaire, Quality of Life or

WHOQOL-BREF.

I. Profile of Gay and Lesbian Youth Respondents in terms of Personal-Related

Variables

Table 1 presents the profile of gay and lesbian youth in terms of personal-

related variables. These variables include: sexual identity, age, educational

attainment and marital status.

Table 1 shows the personal-related variable among the respondents. In terms

of sexual identity, majority of the respondents are gay, 166 or 54.07%. While 141 or

45.93% were lesbians. In terms of age, majority of gay respondents are in ages of

22 to 30, 71 or 42.8% of them belong to that group. 70 or 42.2% of the gay

respondents are aged 18 to 21, and 24 or 14.5% of the gay respondents are aged

31 to 40.

For the lesbian youth respondents, majority of them are aged 22 to 30. This

group is comprised of 67 or 47.5% of lesbian respondents. 53 or 37.6% of the

lesbian youth respondents belong to the group of 18 to 21 years of age and, 21 or

2

14.9% of lesbian youth respondents are among the age group of 31 to 40 years of

age.

Table 1

Profile of Respondents in Terms of Personal-Related Variables

PROFILE OF THE GAY

RESPONDENTS IN
TERMS OF FREQUENCY RATING FREQUENCY
PERSONAL-RELATED (N) (%) (N)
VARIABLES
AGE 18-21 70 42.2% 53 37.6%
GROUP 22-30 71 42.8% 67 47.5%
31-40 24 14.5% 21 14.9%
Missing 1 0.6% 0 0
Total 166 100% 141 100%

EDUCATIO Primary 5 3.0% 0 0

NAL Seconda 38 22.9% 29 20.6%
ATTAINME ry
NT Tertiary 119 71.7% 111 78.7%
Missing 4 2.4% 1 0.7%
Total 166 100% 141 100%

In terms of educational attainment of gay youth respondents, majority of them

reached tertiary level. 119 or 71.7% of them had tertiary level of education, 38

or22.9% reached secondary level of educational attainment and only 5 or 3% of the

gay youth respondents attained primary level of education.

 On the other hand, majority of the lesbian youth respondents, 111 or 78.7% of

them attained tertiary level of education. 29 or 20.6% reached secondary level of

education and none was recorded to have only reached primary level of education.

Based on the findings, it can be concluded that majority of the gay and

lesbian youth respondents are aged 22-30 and that majority of the 307 respondents,

have reached the tertiary level of educational attainment.

II. Quality of Life of Gay and Lesbian Youth in terms of Physical Health

Domain, Psychological Domain, Social Relationship Domain, and Environment

Domain

The quality of life of gay and lesbian youth in terms of physical, psychological,

social and environment domains identified in the WHOQOL-BREF instrument (WHO,

1998) is demonstrated in tables 2 to 5.

Table 2.1

Quality of Life of Gay and Lesbian Youth in terms of

Physical Health domain

Indicators of Gay
Quality of Life Weig Verbal Rank Weighted Verbal Rank
in the area of hted Interpretation Mean Interpretation
Physical Mean
Health
Domain

Continuation of Table 2.1

Indicators Gay
4

of Quality Weighte Verbal Rank Weighted Verbal Rank

of Life in d Mean Interpretation Mean Interpretation
the area of
Physical
Health
Domain
f3. To what 2.87 A moderate - 2.87 A moderate am -
extent do amount ount
you feel
that
physical
pain
prevents
you from
what you
need to
do?
f10. Do 3.66 Mostly 1 3.60 Mostly 1
you have
enough
energy for
everyday
life?
f16. How 3.25 Neither satisfied 5 3.31 Neither satisfied 5
satisfied nor dissatisfied nor dissatisfied
are you
with your
sleep?
f15. How 3.49 Neither poor nor 2.5 3.43 Neither poor 3
well are good nor good
you able to
go
around?
f17. How 3.49 Neither satisfied 2.5 3.59 Satisfied 2
satisfied nor dissatisfied
are you
with your
ability to
perform
your daily
activities?

Continuation of Table 2.1

f4. How 3.00 A moderate - 2.96 A moderate -
much do Amount amount
 you need
any
medical
treatment
to function
in your
daily life?
f18. How 3.39 Neither satisfied 4 3.43 Neither satisfied 4
satisfied nor dissatisfied nor dissatisfied
are you
with your
capacity
for work?
Legend:
4.50-5.00 Very good/Very Satisfied/An extreme
amount/Extremely/Completely/Always
3.50-4.49 Good/Satisfied/Very much/Mostly/Very often
2.50-3.49 Neither poor nor good/Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied/A
moderate amount/Moderately/Quite often
1.50-2.49 Poor/Dissatisfied/A little/Seldom
1.00-1.49 Very poor/Very dissatisfied/Not at all/Never

Table 2.1 shows that gay and lesbian youth are generally satisfied with the

quality of their physical daily living. Data revealed that both gay and lesbian youth

have enough energy for their daily activities ( for gay youth respondents, for lesbian

youth respondents, both were ranked first). Gay youth respondents were neither

satisfied nor dissatisfied with their ability to go around and their ability to perform

daily activities ( 3.49, ranked second) while lesbian youth respondents were satisfied

with their ability to perform daily activities ( but they were neither satisfied nor

dissatisfied with their ability to go around (, ranked third). For their capacity for work

and sleep satisfaction, both gay and lesbian youth respondents were neither

satisfied nor dissatisfied ( ranked fourth and fifth for gay youth respondents and,

ranked fourth and fifth for lesbian youth respondents accordingly)

6

In addition, gay youth respondents feel that physical pain moderately prevent

them from what they need to do () and that they think that they seek medical

treatment in a moderate amount (). For the lesbian youth respondents, they also feel

that physical pain moderately prevent them from what they need to do () and they

also think that they seek for medical treatment in a moderate amount (.

Findings revealed that both gay and lesbian youth respondents have enough

energy to perform day-to-day activities but they were neither satisfied nor

dissatisfied with the amount of sleep they get every day.

Table 2.2

Quality of Life of Gay and Lesbian Youth in terms of

Psychological domain

Indicators of Quality Gay

of Life in the area of Weight Verbal Ra Weig Verbal Rank
Psychological ed Interpretation nk hted Interpretation
Domain Mean Mea
 n
f5. How much do you 3.69 Very much 1 3.68 Very much 1
enjoy life?
f7. How well are you 3.34 A moderate 5 3.36 A moderate 5
able to concentrate? amount amount
f19. How satisfied are 3.61 Satisfied 3 3.54 Satisfied 3
you with yourself?
f11. Are you able to 3.55 Mostly 4 3.45 Moderately 4
accept your bodily
appearance?
f26. How often do 2.99 Quite often - 2.94 Quite often -
you have negative
feelings such as blue
mood, despair,
anxiety, depression?
f6. To what extent do 3.67 Very much 2 3.62 Very much 2
you feel life to be
meaningful?

Legend:
4.50-5.00 Very good/Very Satisfied/An extreme
amount/Extremely/Completely/Always
3.50-4.49 Good/Satisfied/Very much/Mostly/Very often
2.50-3.49 Neither poor nor good/Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied/A
moderate amount/ moderately/quite often
1.50-2.49 Poor/Dissatisfied/A little/Seldom
1.00-1.49 Very poor/Very dissatisfied/Not at all/Never

Table 2.2 above shows the quality of life of gay and lesbian youth in terms of

psychological domain. Data obtained showed that gay and lesbian youth

respondents mostly responded positively with the way they examine their life

psychologically. Both gay and lesbian youth respondents enjoy their lives very much

(for gay youth, and for lesbian youth, both were ranked first). Both gay and lesbian

youth respondents feel that life is very much meaningful, which is why they ranked it

second (for gay youth and for lesbian youth). Third in the rank is their self-

satisfaction. Both gay and lesbian youth are satisfied (for gay youth and for lesbian
8

youth). For their bodily appearance acceptance, both gay and lesbian youth ranked

it fourth. Gay youth mostly accepts their bodily appearance ( than lesbian youth

(moderately at . Lastly, Both gay and lesbian youth were able to concentrate well in

a moderate amount ( for gay youth and for lesbian youth) which they both ranked

fifth.

In addition, both gay and lesbian youth quite often feel negatively such as

having a blue mood, despair, etc. ( for gay youth and for lesbian youth).

Findings revealed that gay and lesbian youth respondents view their lives

positively. They both see life as enjoyable and meaningful to live for. They also see

their bodily appearance in a positive manner.

Table 2.3

Quality of Life of Gay and Lesbian Youth in terms of

Social relationship domain

Indicators of Gay
Quality of Life
in the area of Weighte Verbal Ran Weighte Verbal Rank
Social d Mean Interpretatio k d Mean Interpretatio
Relationships n n
Domain
f20. How 3.50 Satisfied 2 3.44 Neither 2
satisfied are satisfied
you with your nor
personal dissatisfied
relationships
?
 f22. How 3.61 Satisfied 1 3.60 Satisfied 1
satisfied are
you with the
support you
get from your
friends?
f21. How 3.24 Neither 3 3.16 Neither 3
satisfied are satisfied satisfied
you with your nor nor
sex life? dissatisfied dissatisfied
Legend:
4.50-5.00 Very good/Very Satisfied/An extreme amount/ Extremely/
Completely /Always
3.50-4.49 Good/Satisfied/Very much/Mostly/Very often
2.50-3.49 Neither poor nor good/Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied/A
moderate amount/ Moderately/Quite often
1.50-2.49 Poor/Dissatisfied/A little/Seldom
1.00-1.49 Very poor/Very dissatisfied/Not at all/Never

Table 2.3 shows the quality of life of gay and lesbian youth respondents in

terms of their social relationships. These include: personal relationships, social

support and sexual activity (WHO, 1998). The data in table 4 revealed that both gay

and lesbian youth are satisfied with the amount of support they get from their friends

( for gay youth and for lesbian youth). They ranked social support first, while they

ranked their personal relationships satisfaction second. Gay youth was satisfied ()

while lesbian youth was neither satisfied nor dissatisfied with their personal

relationships (). Lastly, both gay and lesbian youth respondents were neither

satisfied nor dissatisfied with their sex life (for gay youth and for lesbian youth).

Findings revealed that gay and lesbian youth respondents were mostly

satisfied with the support they get from their friends and also their personal

relationship with others.

10

Table 2.4

Quality of Life of Gay and Lesbian Youth in terms of

Environment Domain

Indicators of Gay
Quality of Life Wei Verbal Rank Weig Verbal Rank
in the area of ghte Interpretation hted Interpretation
Environment d Mean
Domain Mea
n
f8. How safe do 3.16 A moderate 5 3.17 A moderate 6
you feel in your amount amount
daily life?
f23. How 3.39 Neither 2 3.45 Neither 1
satisfied are satisfied satisfied
you with the nor nor
conditions of dissatisfied dissatisfied
your living
place?
f12. Have you 3.12 Moderately 7 3.19 Moderately 5
enough money
to meet your
needs?
f24. How 3.18 Neither 4 3.23 Neither 4
satisfied are satisfied satisfied
you with your nor nor
 access to dissatisfied dissatisfied
health
services?
f13. How 3.48 Moderately 1 3.38 Moderately 2
available to you
is the
information that
you need in
your day-to-day
life?
Continuation of Table 2.4

Indicators of Gay
Quality of Life Wei Verbal Rank Weig Verbal Rank
in the area of ghte Interpretation hted Interpretation
Environment d Mean
Domain Mea
n
f14. To what 3.36 Moderately 3 3.35 Moderately 3
extent do you
have the
opportunity for
leisure
activities?
f9. How healthy 3.14 A moderate 6 3.14 A moderate 8
is your physical amount amount
environment?
f25. How 3.08 Neither 8 3.16 Neither 7
satisfied are satisfied satisfied
you with your nor nor
transport? dissatisfied dissatisfied
Legend:
4.50-5.00 Very good/Very Satisfied/An extreme amount / Extremely
/Completely/Always
3.50-4.49 Good/Satisfied/Very much/Mostly/Very often
2.50-3.49 Neither poor nor good/Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied/A
moderate
amount/ Moderately/Quite often
1.50-2.49 Poor/Dissatisfied/A little/Seldom
1.00-1.49 Very poor/Very dissatisfied/Not at all/Never
12

Table 2.4 shows the quality of life of gay and lesbian youth respondents in

terms of environmental factors. These include: safety, home, finance, services,

information, leisure, environment and transportation (WHO, 1998).

The data of gay youth in table 5 revealed that availability of information was

ranked first because they think that information was moderately available for them ().

They ranked their living condition’s satisfaction as second since they find it neither

satisfied nor dissatisfied (). Leisure activities were ranked third as gay youth have a

moderate amount of time for it (. In 4 th rank is their access tto health services, gay

youth was neither satisfied nor dissatisfied (. Gay youth ranked their safety fifth

because they feel safe in a moderate amount in their daily life (. Environment was

given a moderate amount (, ranked 6 th), finance was interpreted as moderately

(ranked 7th) and lastly, transport was neither satisfied nor dissatisfied (, ranked 8 th).

On the other hand, lesbian youth ranked their quality of life in terms of

environment domain under certain indicators. Home was neither satisfied nor

dissatisfied (, ranked 1st), moderate information (, ranked 2nd), leisure was given a

moderate amount (35, ranked 3rd), services was neither satisfied nor dissatisfied (,

ranked 4th), finance was ranked 5th (, safety was in moderate amount (, ranked 6 th),

transport was neither satisfied nor dissatisfied (ranked 7 th) and lastly, environment

was ranked 8th (14).

Findings revealed that gay and lesbian youth respondents were neither

satisfied nor dissatisfied with their environment such as their safety, living conditions,
financial resources, transport system, health services they receive, and the amount

of time they have for leisure activities.

III. Difference in the Quality of Life between Gay and Lesbian Youth

Table 3 shows the difference in the quality of life between gay and lesbian

youth. The researchers compared the means of Gay and Lesbian youth for each

domain including; physical health, psychological, social relationship and

environment, using T-test.

Table 3

Comparison of Means between Gay and Lesbian Youth for each Domain

Sex N Mean Std. Std. Error

Deviation Mean
Physical Health Domain Gay 16 23.4096 3.15858 0.24515
6
Lesbian 14 23.5214 2.80408 0.23699
0
Psychological Domain Gay 16 20.4036 2.63307 0.20437
6
Lesbian 14 20.3191 2.58379 0.21759
1
Social Relationship Gay 16 10.3494 1.70158 0.13207
Domain 6
Lesbian 14 10.2057 1.65839 0.13966
1
Environment Domain Gay 16 22.83 2.991 0.232
6
Lesbian 14 22.92 3.149 0.265
1
14

Independent Samples T-Test for Mean Comparison

Levene’
s Test
for
Equality
of
Varianc
e
F Si t Df Sig. Mean Std.
g. (2- Differe Error Low
taile nce Differe er
d) nce
Physica Gay . . -.32 304 .746 -.11179 .34444 -.78 .
l Health 60 43 5 957 5659
Domain 5 7 9
Les -.32 303. .743 -.11179 .34097 -.78 .
bian 8 185 277 5591
9
Psychol Gay . . .283 305 .778 .08447 .29898 -.50 .
ogical 04 82 386 6727
Domain 8 7 9
Les .283 298. .777 .08447 .29852 -.50 .
bian 711 300 6719
3
Social Gay . . .746 305 .456 .14372 .19262 - .
Relation 01 91 2.35 5227
ship 2 2 31 6
Domain Les .748 299. .455 .14372 .19222 -.23 .
bian 277 454 5219
9
Environ Gay . . -.27 305 .783 -.097 .351 -.78 .594
 ment 00 96 5 7
Domain 2 6
Les -.27 291. .784 -.097 .352 -.79 .597
bian 4 523 0

Table 3 shows independent-samples t-test was conducted to compare the

means physical health, psychological, social relationship and environment domains

of gay and lesbian youth respondents. We use the four domains as the determining

factor in measuring the quality of life. In doing so, we can compare the significance

of each domain to the quality of life of gay and lesbian youth. Results show that

there was no significant difference in the scores for gay (M=23.4096, SD=3.15858)

and lesbian (M=23.5214, SD=2.80408); t(304)= -0.325, p= 0.746 in physical domain,

no significant difference in the scores for gay (M=20.4036, SD=2.63307) and lesbian

(M=20.3191, SD=2.58379); t(305)= 0.283, p= 0.778 in psychological domain, no

significant difference in the scores of gay ( M=10.3494, SD=1.70158); t(305)= 0.746,

p= 0.456 in the social relationship domain, no significant difference in the scores for

gay (M= 22.83, SD=2.991) and lesbian (M= 22.92, SD=3.149); t(305)= -0.275, p=

0.783 in the environment domain.

Results show that there are no significant differences in the quality of life of

gay men and lesbian in the four domains. It can be concluded that the overall quality

of life of these gay and lesbian youth are the same. Both gay and lesbian youth have

the same perception on their quality of life based on physical, psychological, social

and environmental factors.

16

IV. Difference in the Quality of Life between Gay and Lesbian Youth when

Grouped According to Age

Table 4.1

Quality of Life of Gay Youth when grouped according to Age

Sum of df Mean f Sig.

Square Square (p)
Physical Between 29.578 2 14.789 1.94 .147 NS
Health Groups 0
Domain Within 1235.003 162 7.623
Groups
Total 1264.582 164
Psychologica Between 22.629 2 11.315 1.51 .223 NS
l Domain Groups 6
Within 1208.946 162 7.463
Groups
Total 1231.576 164
Social Between .577 2 .289 .098 .907 NS
Relationship Groups
Domain Within 477.035 162 2.945
Groups
Total 477.612 164
Environment Between 30.684 2 15.342 1.35 .261 NS
Domain Groups 4
Within 1835.292 162 11.329
Groups
Total 1865.976 164
Legend (Sig.)
p<0.05 = S / Significant
p>0.05 = NS/ Not Significant
 Table 4.1 shows the Quality of Life of Gay Youth when grouped according to

age. Results have shown that there are no significant differences (p < 0.05) between

physical health, psychological, social relationship, and environment domain and age

group of gays (18-21, 22-30, 31-40).

Table 4.2

Quality of Life of Lesbian Youth when Grouped According to Age

Sum of df Mean f Sig.

Square Square (p)
Physical Between 19.406 2 9.703 1.940 .306 NS
Health Groups
Domain Within 1112.480 137 8.120
Groups
Total 1131.886 139
Psychological Between 9.270 2 4.635 1.516 .557 NS
Domain Groups
Within 1086.872 138 7.876
Groups
Total 1096.142 140
Social Between 1.602 2 .801 .098 .750 NS
Relationship Groups
Domain Within 383.433 138 2.779
Groups
Total 385.035 140
Environment Between 37.619 2 18.809 1.354 .224 NS
Domain Groups
Within 1715.672 138 12.432
Groups
Total 1753.291 140
Legend (Sig.)
p<0.05 = S / Significant
p>0.05 = NS/ Not Significant
18

Table 4.2 shows the Quality of Life of Lesbian Youth when grouped according

to age. Results have shown that there are no significant differences (p < 0.05)

between physical health, psychological, social relationship, and environment domain

and age group of lesbian (18-21, 22-30, 31-40).

Comparing the results from Table 4.1 and Table 4.2, results have shown that

there are no significant differences in the quality of life between gay and lesbian

Youth when grouped according to age. It can be concluded based on the tables that

age does not have a significant effect on the quality of life of gay and lesbian youth.

Though, most of the respondents are aged 22-30, their overall quality of life has no

significant difference from the two other age groups.

V. Difference in the Quality of Life between Gay and Lesbian Youth when

Grouped According to Educational Attainment

Table 5.1

Quality of Life of Gay Youth when Grouped According to

Educational Attainment

Sum of df Mean f Sig.

Square Square (p)
Physical Between 95.717 2 47.858 6.590 .002 S
Health Domain Groups
Within 1154.783 159 7.263
Groups
Total 1250.500 161
Continuation of Table 5.1
Psychological Between 46.578 2 23.289 3.24 .042 S
 Domain Groups 2
Within 1142.212 159 7.184
Groups
Total 1188.790 161
Social Between 49.590 2 24.795 9.33 .000 S
Relationship Groups 8
Domain Within 422.188 159 2.655
Groups
Total 471.778 161
Environment Between 97.665 2 48.833 4.43 .013 S
Domain Groups 2
Within 1751.718 159 11.017
Groups
Total 1849.383 161
Legend (Sig.)
p<0.05 = S / Significant
p>0.05 = NS/ Not Significant

Table 5.1 shows the quality of life of gay youth when grouped according to

educational attainment. We compute the significance by using One-way ANOVA. We

use the four domains as the dependent list and the educational attainment as the

factor in determining the quality of life. Results have shown that there are significant

differences (p > 0.05) between physical health, psychological, social relationship,

environment domain and educational attainment of gays (Primary, Secondary,

Tertiary).

Table 5.2
20

Quality of Life of Lesbian Youth when Grouped According to

Educational Attainment

Sum of Df Mean f Sig.

Square Square (p)
Physical Between 10.590 1 10.590 1.298 .257 NS
Health Groups
Domain Within 1117.928 137 8.160
Groups
Total 1128.518 138
Psychologica Between 8.010 1 8.010 1.021 .314 NS
l Domain Groups
Within 1082.275 138 7.843
Groups
Total 1090.286 139
Social Between 1.182 1 1.182 .427 515 NS
Relationship Groups
Domain Within 382.389 138 2.771
Groups
Total 383.571 139
Environment Between 70.559 1 70.559 5.791 .017 S
Domain Groups
Within 1681.576 138 12.185
Groups
Total 1752.135 139

Legend (Sig.)
p<0.05 = S / Significant
p>0.05 = NS/ Not Significant

Table 5.2 shows the Quality of Life of Gay Youth when grouped according to

educational attainment. . We compute the significance by using One-way ANOVA.

We use the four domains as the dependent list and the educational attainment as

the factor in determining the quality of life. Results have shown that there is a

significant difference in the quality of life of lesbian youth in the environment domain

when grouped according to educational attainment (Primary, Secondary, Tertiary).

 Comparing the results obtained in Table 5.1 and Table 5.2, we can see that

there is a significant difference in the quality of life between gay and lesbian youth

when grouped according to educational attainment only in the environment domain.

It shows that educational attainment is significant in determining the quality of life of

gay in all of four domains but is only significant in determining the quality of life of

lesbian in environment domain.

Gay youth’s educational attainment affects how they perceive their lives

physically, psychologically, and mentally and how they see their environment.

Lesbian youth’s educational attainment, on the other hand, affects how they view

their quality of life under environmental factors. Therefore, quality of life of these gay

and lesbian youth respondents is greatly affected by their educational attainment.