International Comparisons of Work Disability

J. Banks, A. Kapteyn, J.P. Smith, A.H.O. van Soest

Research output: Working paperDiscussion paperOther research output

259 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Self-reported work disability is analyzed in the US, the UK and the Netherlands.Different wordings of the questions lead to different work disability rates.But even if identical questions are asked, crosscountry differences remain substantial.Respondent evaluations of work limitations of hypothetical persons described in vignettes are used to identify the extent to which differences in self-reports between countries or socio-economic groups are due to systematic variation in the response scales.Results suggest that more than half of the difference between the rates of self-reported work disability in the US and the Netherlands can be explained by response scale differences.A similar methodology is used to analyze the reporting bias that arises if respondents justify being on disability benefits by overstating their work limiting disabilities.
Original languageEnglish
Place of PublicationTilburg
PublisherEconometrics
Number of pages43
Volume2004-36
Publication statusPublished - 2004

Publication series

NameCentER Discussion Paper
Volume2004-36

Fingerprint

international comparison
disability
Netherlands
human being
methodology
trend
evaluation
economics
Group

Keywords

  • Work limiting disability
  • Vignettes
  • Reporting bias
  • Justification bias

Cite this

Banks, J., Kapteyn, A., Smith, J. P., & van Soest, A. H. O. (2004). International Comparisons of Work Disability. (CentER Discussion Paper; Vol. 2004-36). Tilburg: Econometrics.
Banks, J. ; Kapteyn, A. ; Smith, J.P. ; van Soest, A.H.O. / International Comparisons of Work Disability. Tilburg : Econometrics, 2004. (CentER Discussion Paper).
@techreport{61177e195fe1416ca14cb84335cbeec5,
title = "International Comparisons of Work Disability",
abstract = "Self-reported work disability is analyzed in the US, the UK and the Netherlands.Different wordings of the questions lead to different work disability rates.But even if identical questions are asked, crosscountry differences remain substantial.Respondent evaluations of work limitations of hypothetical persons described in vignettes are used to identify the extent to which differences in self-reports between countries or socio-economic groups are due to systematic variation in the response scales.Results suggest that more than half of the difference between the rates of self-reported work disability in the US and the Netherlands can be explained by response scale differences.A similar methodology is used to analyze the reporting bias that arises if respondents justify being on disability benefits by overstating their work limiting disabilities.",
keywords = "Work limiting disability, Vignettes, Reporting bias, Justification bias",
author = "J. Banks and A. Kapteyn and J.P. Smith and {van Soest}, A.H.O.",
note = "Subsequently published in American Economic Review, 2007 (rt) Pagination: 43",
year = "2004",
language = "English",
volume = "2004-36",
series = "CentER Discussion Paper",
publisher = "Econometrics",
type = "WorkingPaper",
institution = "Econometrics",

}

Banks, J, Kapteyn, A, Smith, JP & van Soest, AHO 2004 'International Comparisons of Work Disability' CentER Discussion Paper, vol. 2004-36, Econometrics, Tilburg.

International Comparisons of Work Disability. / Banks, J.; Kapteyn, A.; Smith, J.P.; van Soest, A.H.O.

Tilburg : Econometrics, 2004. (CentER Discussion Paper; Vol. 2004-36).

Research output: Working paperDiscussion paperOther research output

TY - UNPB

T1 - International Comparisons of Work Disability

AU - Banks, J.

AU - Kapteyn, A.

AU - Smith, J.P.

AU - van Soest, A.H.O.

N1 - Subsequently published in American Economic Review, 2007 (rt) Pagination: 43

PY - 2004

Y1 - 2004

N2 - Self-reported work disability is analyzed in the US, the UK and the Netherlands.Different wordings of the questions lead to different work disability rates.But even if identical questions are asked, crosscountry differences remain substantial.Respondent evaluations of work limitations of hypothetical persons described in vignettes are used to identify the extent to which differences in self-reports between countries or socio-economic groups are due to systematic variation in the response scales.Results suggest that more than half of the difference between the rates of self-reported work disability in the US and the Netherlands can be explained by response scale differences.A similar methodology is used to analyze the reporting bias that arises if respondents justify being on disability benefits by overstating their work limiting disabilities.

AB - Self-reported work disability is analyzed in the US, the UK and the Netherlands.Different wordings of the questions lead to different work disability rates.But even if identical questions are asked, crosscountry differences remain substantial.Respondent evaluations of work limitations of hypothetical persons described in vignettes are used to identify the extent to which differences in self-reports between countries or socio-economic groups are due to systematic variation in the response scales.Results suggest that more than half of the difference between the rates of self-reported work disability in the US and the Netherlands can be explained by response scale differences.A similar methodology is used to analyze the reporting bias that arises if respondents justify being on disability benefits by overstating their work limiting disabilities.

KW - Work limiting disability

KW - Vignettes

KW - Reporting bias

KW - Justification bias

M3 - Discussion paper

VL - 2004-36

T3 - CentER Discussion Paper

BT - International Comparisons of Work Disability

PB - Econometrics

CY - Tilburg

ER -

Banks J, Kapteyn A, Smith JP, van Soest AHO. International Comparisons of Work Disability. Tilburg: Econometrics. 2004. (CentER Discussion Paper).