IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0126218.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Anchoring Vignettes in the Health and Retirement Study: How Do Medical Professionals and Disability Recipients Characterize the Severity of Work Limitations?

Author

Listed:
  • Frank Heiland
  • Na Yin

Abstract

Purpose: Recent studies report systematic differences in how individuals categorize the severity of identical health and work limitation vignettes. We investigate how health professionals and disability recipients characterize the severity of work limitations and whether their reporting patterns are robust to demographic, education, and health characteristics. We use the results to illustrate the potential impact of reporting heterogeneity on the distribution of work disability estimated from self-reported categorical health and disability data. Method: Nationally representative data on anchoring disability vignettes from the 2004 Health and Retirement Study (HRS) are used to investigate how respondents with an occupation background in health and Social Security disability beneficiaries categorize work limitation vignettes. Using pain, cardiovascular health, and depression vignettes, we estimate generalized ordered probit models (N = 2,660 individuals or 39,681 person-vignette observations) that allow the severity thresholds to vary by respondent characteristics. Results: We find that health professionals (excluding nurses) and disability recipients tend to classify identical work limitations as more severe compared to non-health professional non-disabled respondents. For disability recipients, the differences are most pronounced and particularly visible in the tails of the work limitations distribution. For health professionals, we observe smaller differences, affecting primarily the classification of mildly and moderately severe work limitations. The patterns for health professionals (excluding nurses) are robust to demographics, education, and health conditions. The greater likelihood of viewing the vignette person as more severely work limited observed among disability recipients is mostly explained by the fact that these respondents also tend to be in poorer health which itself predicts a more inclusive scale. Conclusions: Knowledge of reporting scales from health professionals and disabled individuals can benefit researchers in a broad range of applications in health and disability research. They may be useful as reference scales to evaluate disability survey data. Such knowledge may be beneficial when studying disability programs. Given the increasing availability of anchoring vignette data in surveys, this is a promising area for future evaluation research.

Suggested Citation

  • Frank Heiland & Na Yin, 2015. "Anchoring Vignettes in the Health and Retirement Study: How Do Medical Professionals and Disability Recipients Characterize the Severity of Work Limitations?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(5), pages 1-17, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0126218
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0126218
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0126218
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0126218&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0126218?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0126218. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.