National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: 4 Concluding Comments
Suggested Citation:"References." Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. 1999. Review of the Disability Evaluation Study Design: Third Interim Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9706.
×

References

Bassett, S.S., Magaziner, J., and Hebel, J.R. Reliability of Proxy Response on Mental Health Indices for Aged, Community-Dwelling Women. Psychology of Aging 5(1): 127-132, 1990.


Epstein, A.M., Hall, J.A., Tognetti, J., Son, L.H., and Conant, Jr., L. Using Proxies to Evaluate Quality of Life. Can They Provide Valid Information about Patients' Health Status and Satisfaction with Medical Care? Medical Care 27(3 Suppl.):S91-S98, 1989.


Forsyth, B.H., and Lessler, J.T. Cognitive Laboratory Methods: A Taxonomy. In Biemer, P.P., Groves, R.M., Lyberg, L.E., Mathiowetz, N.A., and Sudman, S., eds., Measurement Errors in Surveys. New York: Wiley, 1991.


Grootendorst, P.V., Feeny, D.H., and Furlong, W. Does it Matter Whom and How You Ask? Inter-and Intra-Rater Agreement in the Ontario Health Survey. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 50(2): 127-135, 1997.


Hays, R.D., Vickrey, B.G., Hermann, B.P., Perrine, K., et al. Agreement Between Self-Reports and Proxy Reports of Quality of Life in Epilepsy Patients . Quality of Life Research 4(2): 159-168, 1995.


Institute of Medicine (IOM). Disability Evaluation Study Design: First Interim Report. Institute of Medicine. Washington, D.C., National Academy Press, 1997.

Institute of Medicine (IOM). Measuring Functional Capacity and Work Requirements: Summary of a Workshop. Institute of Medicine. Washington, D.C., National Academy Press, 1999.


Long, K., Sudha, S., and Mutran, E.J. Elder-Proxy Agreement Concerning the Functional Status and Medical History of the Older Person: The Impact of Caregiver Burden and Depressive Symptomology. Journal of the American Geriatric Society 46(9): 1103-1111, 1998.


Magaziner, J., Zimmerman, S.I., Gruber-Baldini, A.L., Hebel, J.R., and Fox, K.M. Proxy Reporting in Five Areas of Functional Status. Comparison with Self-Reports and Observations of Performance. American Journal of Epidemiology 146(5):418-428, 1997.


Sneeuw, K.C., Aaronson, N.K., de Haan, R.J., and Limburg, M. Assessing Quality of Life After Stroke. The Value and Limitations of Proxy Ratings. Stroke 28(8): 1541-1549, 1997.

Sneeuw, K.C., Aaronson, N.K., Sprangers, M.A., Detmar, S.B., Wever, L.D., and Schornagel, J.H. Comparison of Patient and Proxy EORTC QLQ-C30 Ratings in Assessing the Quality of Life of Cancer Patients. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 51 (7):617-631, 1998.

Sudman, S., Bradburn, N.M., and Schwartz, N. Thinking about Answers: The Application of Cognitive Processes to Survey Methodology. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1996.


Westat, Inc. Disability Evaluation Study-Instruments and Procedures: Task 4, Report 1. Submitted to Social Security Administration, Washington, D.C., June 1999a. (Unpublished.)

Suggested Citation:"References." Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. 1999. Review of the Disability Evaluation Study Design: Third Interim Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9706.
×

Westat, Inc. Disability Evaluation Study-Final Sample Design Report: Task 4, Report 2. (Includes Pilot Study Design.) Submitted to Social Security Administration, Washington, D.C., June 1999b. (Unpublished.)

Westat, Inc. Disability Evaluation Study-Plans to Meet Response Rate Goals: Task 4, Report 3. Submitted to Social Security Administration, Washington, D.C., June 1999c. (Unpublished.)

Suggested Citation:"References." Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. 1999. Review of the Disability Evaluation Study Design: Third Interim Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9706.
×
Page 23
Suggested Citation:"References." Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. 1999. Review of the Disability Evaluation Study Design: Third Interim Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9706.
×
Page 24
Next: Appendix: Review of the Social Security Administration's Disability Decision Process Research: Study Mandate »
Review of the Disability Evaluation Study Design: Third Interim Report Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $21.00 Buy Ebook | $16.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

The Social Security Administration (SSA) has been engaged in a major effort to redesign the process for determining disability for cash benefits and medical assistance under its Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI), Title II of the Social Security Act and the Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Title XVI of the Social Security Act. Because of the complexity and far-reaching impact of its efforts, SSA concluded that the redesign effort requires extensive research, testing, and validation, as well as further development of some of its components before national implementation. The effect of the new determination process on the number and characteristics of future beneficiaries also needs further study. The agency asked the National Academies to provide ongoing independent and unbiased review of, and recommendations on, its current and proposed research as it relates to the development of a revised disability decision process including the approach, survey design, and content of the complex multiyear Disability Evaluation Study (DES).

The present report is the third in a series of short interim reports of the National Academies' Committee to Review the SSA's Disability Decision Process. This third interim report relates directly to one of the contract tasks—review of the design, approach, and content of the DES, as proposed by SSA's contractor for the survey, Westat, Inc. This report is limited to a brief review of the sample design (including that of the pilot study), instruments and procedures, and response rates goals developed by Westat and provided by SSA in June 1999 to the committee for its review and recommendations. It also comments on the proposed timeline for initiation of each phase of the survey.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!