Disability methodology redesign: Considerations for a new approach to disability determination

Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation

Volumn 11, Issue 3, 2001, Pages 135-142

  Matheson, Leonard N ^a  

^a WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

Disability; Disability determination; Functional assessment; Rehabilitation science; Work disability

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; DISABILITY; HUMAN; THEORETICAL MODEL; WORK CAPACITY;

DISABILITY EVALUATION; HUMANS; MODELS, THEORETICAL; WORK CAPACITY EVALUATION;

EID: 0035468749     PISSN: 10530487     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1023/a:1013052709858     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Matheson L, Kane M, Rodbard D. Development of new methods to determine work disability in the United States. J Occup Rehab 2001; 11(3): 143-154.
2. Gaudino E, Matheson L, Mael F. Development of the functional assessment taxonomy. J Occup Rehab 2001; 11(3): 155-175.
3. Matheson L, Kaskutas V, McCowan S, Shaw H, Webb C. Development of a database of functional assessment measures related to work disability. J Occup Rehab 2001; 11(3): 177-199.
4. Halpern M. Functional assessment taxonomy relevant to low back impairments. J Occup Rehab 2001 ; 11 (3): 201-215.
5. MacDonald-Wilson K, Rogers E, Anthony W. Unique issues in assessing work function among individuals with psychiatric disabilities. J Occup Rehab 2001; 11(3): 217-232.
6. Innes E, Straker L. Reliability of work-related assessments. Work 1999; 13: 107-124.
7. Innes E, Straker L. Validity of work-related assessments. Work 1999; 13: 125-152.
8. Rucker K, Wehman P, Kregel J. Analysis of functional assessment instruments for disability/rehabilitation programs. Richmond, VA: Virginia Commonwealth University, 1996.
9. United States Census Bureau. Persons with work disability by selected characteristics. In: Statistical abstract of the United States: 2000. Washington, DC: US Census Bureau, 2000, Table no. 619.
10. Office of Workers' Compensation Programs. State workers' compensation laws. United States Department of Labor Employment Standards Administration, 2001.
11. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Employee benefits survey (Report no. 2517). Washington, DC: United States Department of Labor, Sept. 1999.
12. Social Security Advisory Board. Agenda for social security: Challenges for the new congress and the new administration. Washington, DC: Social Security Advisory Board, Feb. 2001.
13. United States Census Bureau. Workers' compensation payments: 1980 to 1998. In: Statistical abstract of the United States: 2000. Washington, DC: US Census Bureau, 2000, Table no. 621.
14. Matheson L, Gaudino E, Mael F, Hesse B. Improving the validity of the impairment evaluation process: A proposed theoretic framework. J. Occup Rehab 2000; 10(4): 311-320.
15. Social Security Advisory Board. Charting the future of social security's disability programs: The need for fundamental change. Washington, DC: Social Security Advisory Board, Jan. 2001.
16. Social Security Administration. Plan for a new disability claim process. Washington, DC: Social Security Administration, Sept. 1994.
17. Dwyer D, Hu J, Vaughan D, Wixon B. Counting the disabled: Using survey self-reports to estimate medical eligibility for social security's disability programs. Washington, DC: Social Security Administration, Jan. 2001.
18. Institute of Medicine. The Social Security Administration's disability determination process, a framework for research: Second interim report. Washington, DC: National Research Council, 1998.
19. Pincus H, Kennedy C, Simmens S, Goldman H, Sirovatka P, Sharfstein S. Determining disability due to mental impairment: APA's evaluation of social security administration guidelines. Am J Psychiatry 1991; 148(8): 1037-1043.
20. American Medical Association, ed. Guides to the evaluation of permanent impairment. Chicago, IL: American Medical Association, 1971.
21. American Medical Association, ed. Guides to the evaluation of permanent impairment, 2nd edn. Chicago, IL: American Medical Association, 1984.
22. American Medical Association, ed. Guides to the evaluation of permanent impairment, 3rd edn. Chicago, IL: American Medical Association, 1988.
23. American Medical Association. Guides to the evaluation of permanent impairment, 4th edn. Chicago, IL: American Medical Association, 1993.
24. American Medical Association. Guides to the evaluation of permanent impairment, 5th edn. Chicago, IL: American Medical Association, 2001.
25. Spieler E, Barth P, Burton J, Himmelstein J, Rudolph L. Recommendations to guide revision of the Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment. JAMA 2000; 283(4): 519-523.