ArticleWork (Reading, Mass.)2015
Do claimants over-report behavioral health dysfunction when filing for work disability benefits?
Article in Work (Reading, Mass.), 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Aligning metrics with meaning: considerations for measurement selection in disability evaluation.Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences · 2025Article
- exploring counselor-client agreement on clients' work capacity in established and consultative dyads.Journal of employment counseling · 2020Article
- Measuring Work Related Physical and Mental Health Function: Updating the Work Disability Functional Assessment Battery (WD-FAB) Using Item Response Theory.Journal of occupational and environmental medicine · 2019Article
- Improving Assessment of Work Related Mental Health Function Using the Work Disability Functional Assessment Battery (WD-FAB).Journal of occupational rehabilitation · 2018Article
- Concordance of assessments of clients' mental and behavioral health with in vivo assessment of work performance.Work (Reading, Mass.) · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgrondQuestions exist related to the best way to use medical evidence relative to self-report as part of the SSA disability determination process.
objectiveTo examine concordance between provider and claimant responses along the four dimensions of work related behavioral health functioning: Social Interactions, Mood and Emotions, Behavioral Control, and Self-Efficacy.
methodsUsing secondary data from a larger study, which collected data on individuals reporting difficulties with work (claimants) due to mental conditions, 39 items were completed by claimants and their healthcare provider. Inter-rater agreement was assessed using three techniques: Cohen's kappa, percent absolute agreement, and folded mountain plots.
resultsA sample of 65 dyads was obtained. Inter-rater agreement was low for most items (k=0.0-0.20) with a minority of items having fair agreement (k=0.21-0.40) Percent agreement was fair: Mood and Emotions (46%), Self-Efficacy (44%), Behavioral Control (39%) and Social Interactions (38%). Overall, providers reported lower functioning compared to claimants for the Behavioral Control and Self-Efficacy scales; the reverse trend held for the Mood and Emotions scale.
conclusionsResults indicate discordance between provider and claimant report of behavioral health functioning. Understanding reasons for and approaches to reconciling the inconsistencies between claimant and provider perspectives is a complex task. These findings have implications for how best to assess mental and behavioral-health related work disability in the absence of an established gold standard measure.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.