ArticleHealth affairs scholar2025
Disability data: a case study in research limitation transparency.
Article in Health affairs scholar, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Brief Report: State Policy Contexts and Disability Risks Among Midlife Working-Age Latino Adults in the U.S.: Variation by Nativity and Citizenship Status.Population research and policy review · 2026Article
- "Disability data: a case study in research limitation transparency": a response.Health affairs scholar · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Disability measures currently used in U.S. federal surveys fail to identify many disabled people as such. This commentary summarizes empirical evidence regarding the underperformance of the American Community Survey six questions (ACS6) and Washington Group Short Set (WGSS) questions in measuring disability status. Building trust in science is a priority issue and necessitates greater transparency and communication about the limitations of these measures, both within research communities and among the public. Considering the underperformance of the ACS6 and WGSS in measuring disability status, we provide cautionary statements that researchers can use when including these measures in studies to ensure that interpretations of results are not overgeneralized to the disabled population.
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.