残疾政策会影响人们对工作限制的看法吗?国际视野

IF 1.1 4区 医学 Q3 REHABILITATION Journal of Disability Policy Studies Pub Date : 2021-04-27 DOI:10.1177/10442073211010135
N. Yin, Frank W Heiland
{"title":"残疾政策会影响人们对工作限制的看法吗?国际视野","authors":"N. Yin, Frank W Heiland","doi":"10.1177/10442073211010135","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This study explored the role that cross-country disability policy differences play in shaping individuals’ work limitation reporting styles. We used anchoring vignettes available in comparable U.S. and European survey data to test and adjust for reporting differences in self-reported work limitation measures. We found that disability policy generosity scores showed statistically significant predictive power for respondents’ work limitation classification scales, with the association stronger and more statistically significant at the lower end and the middle of the scale. That is, respondents under more generous disability regimes tended to apply a more inclusive (i.e., lenient) scale in classifying a mild, moderate, or severe work limitation. Because there is no natural interpretation of the magnitude of the correlation, we conducted counterfactual policy simulations to illustrate the strength of the association; for example, if the United States were to adopt more generous disability policies such as those in Sweden, there might be an associated increase of more than 36 percentage points in the proportion of Americans age 50 years and above reporting work limitation (of any severity). This research contributes to a better understanding of the role of disability policy in reporting heterogeneity in comparative disability research, an area that has been seldom studied.","PeriodicalId":46868,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Disability Policy Studies","volume":"33 1","pages":"35 - 45"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2021-04-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/10442073211010135","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Do Disability Policies Shape How People Perceive Work Limitation? An International Perspective\",\"authors\":\"N. Yin, Frank W Heiland\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/10442073211010135\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This study explored the role that cross-country disability policy differences play in shaping individuals’ work limitation reporting styles. We used anchoring vignettes available in comparable U.S. and European survey data to test and adjust for reporting differences in self-reported work limitation measures. We found that disability policy generosity scores showed statistically significant predictive power for respondents’ work limitation classification scales, with the association stronger and more statistically significant at the lower end and the middle of the scale. That is, respondents under more generous disability regimes tended to apply a more inclusive (i.e., lenient) scale in classifying a mild, moderate, or severe work limitation. Because there is no natural interpretation of the magnitude of the correlation, we conducted counterfactual policy simulations to illustrate the strength of the association; for example, if the United States were to adopt more generous disability policies such as those in Sweden, there might be an associated increase of more than 36 percentage points in the proportion of Americans age 50 years and above reporting work limitation (of any severity). This research contributes to a better understanding of the role of disability policy in reporting heterogeneity in comparative disability research, an area that has been seldom studied.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46868,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Disability Policy Studies\",\"volume\":\"33 1\",\"pages\":\"35 - 45\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-04-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/10442073211010135\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Disability Policy Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/10442073211010135\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"REHABILITATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Disability Policy Studies","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10442073211010135","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本研究探讨了跨国残疾政策差异在塑造个人工作限制报告风格方面的作用。我们使用了可比较的美国和欧洲调查数据中的锚定小片段来测试和调整自我报告的工作限制措施的报告差异。研究发现,残障政策慷慨度得分对被调查者的工作限制分类量表具有统计学显著的预测力,且在中低端量表的相关性更强,统计显著性更强。也就是说,在更慷慨的残疾制度下的答复者倾向于在分类轻度、中度或严重的工作限制时采用更具包容性(即宽松)的尺度。由于对相关性的大小没有自然的解释,我们进行了反事实政策模拟来说明这种关联的强度;例如,如果美国像瑞典那样采取更慷慨的残疾政策,那么50岁及以上的美国人报告工作限制(任何严重程度)的比例可能会相应增加36个百分点以上。这项研究有助于更好地理解残疾政策在比较残疾研究报告异质性中的作用,这是一个很少研究的领域。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Do Disability Policies Shape How People Perceive Work Limitation? An International Perspective
This study explored the role that cross-country disability policy differences play in shaping individuals’ work limitation reporting styles. We used anchoring vignettes available in comparable U.S. and European survey data to test and adjust for reporting differences in self-reported work limitation measures. We found that disability policy generosity scores showed statistically significant predictive power for respondents’ work limitation classification scales, with the association stronger and more statistically significant at the lower end and the middle of the scale. That is, respondents under more generous disability regimes tended to apply a more inclusive (i.e., lenient) scale in classifying a mild, moderate, or severe work limitation. Because there is no natural interpretation of the magnitude of the correlation, we conducted counterfactual policy simulations to illustrate the strength of the association; for example, if the United States were to adopt more generous disability policies such as those in Sweden, there might be an associated increase of more than 36 percentage points in the proportion of Americans age 50 years and above reporting work limitation (of any severity). This research contributes to a better understanding of the role of disability policy in reporting heterogeneity in comparative disability research, an area that has been seldom studied.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
25
期刊介绍: The Journal of Disability Policy Studies addresses compelling, variable issues in ethics, policy, and law related to individuals with disabilities. A major focus is quantitative and qualitative policy research. Articles have implications in fields such as education, law, sociology, public health, family studies, medicine, social work, and public administration. Occasional special series discuss current problems or areas needing more in-depth research, for example, disability and aging, policy concerning families of children with disabilities, oppression and disability, school violence policies and interventions, and systems change in supporting individuals with disabilities.
期刊最新文献
Trends in Privacy of Adults With Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities Before and After the Home and Community-Based Services Final Rule Helping the Elderly Live Better With Dementia: Recent Developments in Japan’s Adult Guardianship System and Its Role in Geriatric Social Work Practice A Big Ten Leadership Approach to Service Animal Policy Development in Higher Education Linking Response to Intervention and Identification of a Specific Learning Disability The COVID-19 Impact on Employment for LGBT Individuals With Disabilities: An Examination of the 2021 Household Pulse Survey
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1