Survey Measurement of Work Disability Summary of a Workshop (2000) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
4 Summary of Workshop Discussions
4 Summary of Workshop Discussions
Pages 53-63
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 53... ...
METHODOLOGICAL RESEARCH ON SURVEY MEASUREMENT OF DISABILITY One of the major challenges related to the measurement of persons with disabilities and persons with work disabilities concerns the translation of the various complex conceptual models into questions that can be comprehended by the general public and that produce both valid and reliable measures. The Social Security Act defines disability (for adults)
|
From page 54... ...
These factors suggest the use of a survey instrument in which multiple questions concerning disability are asked to set the context for the measurement process, clarify terminology, and tap the multiple domains of interest. This conflicts with the desire of the Social Security Administration, as well as numerous other federal agencies, to identify a short battery of questionnaire items that can
|
From page 55... ...
The empirical literature addressing the measurement error properties of disability and work disability, albeit limited, provides evidence of low reliability and questionable validity. For example, questions concerning disability were asked in the 1991 Canadian census; individuals were sampled on the basis of their responses to the census and administered the Health and Activity Limitation Survey (HALS)
|
From page 56... ...
In addition to the meta-analysis and further analyses using existing data, workshop participants noted the need for a program of experimentation to identify the relative contributions of various survey design features to variability among surveys and variabilities in repeated measurements of the same individual. IMPLICATIONS OF DIFFERENT CONCEPTS FOR SURVEY MEASUREMENT The development of valid and reliable measures of persons with work disabilities requires that one identify differences in the various conceptual models and the implications of those differences for survey measurement.
|
From page 57... ...
The disablement process is described in the conceptual models as a continuous, dynamic, interactive process, implying that longitudinal measurement is imperative to understanding the relationship among the individual's characteristics, the environment, and participation in the workforce. Participants stressed the need to develop valid, reliable measures of workforce participation, regardless of the number of questions required to do so.
|
From page 58... ...
. Design decisions related to the mode and method of data collection, usually viewed as decisions that affect measurement error, also potentially affect both coverage error and nonresponse error.
|
From page 59... ...
The phenomena that investigators are interested in measuring will, in some cases, determine noncoverage for particular types of sampling frames and nonresponse for particular modes of data collection. To successfully sample and include the population of interest, one must consider multiple frames for sampling and multiple modes for data collection.
|
From page 60... ...
The question-answer process is most often categorized as a four-stage process involving comprehending the question, retrieving the information, making a judgment concerning whether the retrieved information is relevant, and formulating a response. Given the complexity of the concept of interest, workshop participants indicated that comprehension represented the largest challenge in the development of effective questions to measure disability and work disability.
|
From page 61... ...
The nature of the phenomena of interest implies that information often will be obtained from proxy respondents, that is, one person reporting for another individual. Although there is a small body of empirical literature indicating that responses concerning functional assessments or disabilities obtained by proxy differ from those obtained from a respondent reporting for him- or herself, the direction and magnitude of the response error are not well understood.
|
From page 62... ...
An alternative framework is offered by the ICIDH-2, which can be used to classify the environment on several levels, including the personal level (e.g., the immediate environment of the person including, but not limited to, the home, school, and workplace) , the community level (including economic and social institutions)
|
From page 63... ...
To alleviate these concerns, participants recommended comparison of both self-reports and proxy reports of the environment with unbiased measures of the environment to provide empirical data on the validity of the reports by the two types of respondents. For example, work environments could be sampled by trained observers who rate the environment and by comparisons of those ratings with reports obtained from self-reporters and proxy respondents.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.