Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T18:38:29.379Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An Analysis of Responses on the Earning Capacity Assessment Form-2

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 June 2014

James A. Athanasou
James A. Athanasou*
Affiliation:
Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Sydney, Australia
*
Address correspondence to: James A. Athanasou, Discipline of Rehabilitation Counselling, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Sydney, Lidcombe NSW 2141, Australia. Email: James.Athanasou@sydney.edu.au
Get access

Abstract

The Earning Capacity Assessment Form-2 assesses the factors that inhibit and facilitate an individual's return to work following an acquired disability (e.g., accident, misadventure). The purpose of this article is to provide the first item response analysis of the form. Data on Australian and US accident victims (N = 110) from two vocational assessment practices were used as a basis for evaluation. An item-response analysis was conducted using the Quest package for the 14 category responses. Results indicated that (a) the items function as inhibitors rather than drivers; and (b) they form a coherent underlying dimension of impairment. Problems in cognition and vocational adjustment issues were major markers for work incapacity.

Keywords

Earning Capacity Assessment Form-2Rasch analysisvocational assessmentreturn-to-work
Type
Articles
Information
The Australian Journal of Rehabilitation Counselling , Volume 20 , Issue 1 , July 2014 , pp. 15 - 27
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Australian Academic Press Pty Ltd 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adams, R.J. & Khoo, S.T. (1996). Quest: The interactive test analysis system. Camberwell, Victoria: Australian Council for Educational Research.Google Scholar
Athanasou, J.A. (in press). The use of the Earning Capacity Assessment Form-2 in a medico-legal context: Some Australian data. Journal of Forensic Vocational Assessment.Google Scholar
Beveridge, S., Craddock, S.H., Liesener, J., Stapleton, M., & Hershenson, D. (2002). Income: A framework for conceptualising the career development of persons with disabilities. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 45, 195–206.Google Scholar
Bond, T.G., & Fox, C. M. (2007). Applying the Rasch Model: Fundamental measurement in the human sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Cornes, P. (1990). The Vocational Rehabilitation Index: a guide to accident victims’ requirements for return-to-work assistance. International Disability Studies, 12 (1), 32–36.Google Scholar
Embretson, S.E. (1996). The new rules of measurement. Psychological Assessment, 8, 341–349.Google Scholar
Fox, C.M. & Jones, J.A. (1998). Uses of Rasch modeling in counseling psychology research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 45, 30–45.Google Scholar
Frank, R.G., Rosenthall, M. & Caplan, B. (2010). Handbook of Rehabilitation Psychology (Second edition). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
Fugate, M., Kinicki, A.J., & Ashforth, B.E. (2004). Employability: A psycho-social construct, its dimensions and applications. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 65 (1), 14–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hambleton, R.K., Swaminatham, H. & Rogers, H.J. (1991). Fundamentals of Item Response Theory. Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
Lee, M.N., Abdullah, Y., & Mey, S.C. (2011). Employment of people with disabilities in Malaysia: Drivers and inhibitors. International Journal of Special Education, 26 (1), 112–124.Google Scholar
Madden, R.H., Fortune, N., Cheeseman, D., Mpofu, E., & Bundy, A. (2013). Fundamental questions before recording or measuring functioning and disability. Disability & Rehabilitation, 35 (13): 1092–1096.Google Scholar
Murphy, G.C., & Young, A.E. (2006). Employer-based facilitators of return to work following disabling injury. International Journal of Disability Management, 1 (1), 125–134.Google Scholar
Novack, T.A., Bush, B.A., Meythaler, J.M., & Canupp, K. (2001). Outcome after traumatic brain injury: pathway analysis of contributions from premorbid, injury severity, and recovery variables. Archives of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, 82 (3), 300–305.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pryor, R.G.L., & Hawkins, T.K. (2009). Medico-legal employability assessment: Myths, mistakes and misconceptions. Australian Journal of Career Development, 18 (1), 45–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rasch, G. (1960). Probabilistic Models for Some Intelligence and Attainment Tests. Copenhagen: Danish Institute for Educational Research.Google Scholar
Robinson, R.H. (2013). Forensic rehabilitation and vocational earning capacity models. In Robinson, R.H. (Ed.), Foundations of Forensic Vocational Rehabilitation (pp. 33–61). NY: Springer.Google Scholar
Shahnasarian, M. (2004). Assessment of Earning Capacity (2nd ed.). Tucson, AZ: Lawyers & Judges.Google Scholar
Shahnasarian, M. (2010). Earning Capacity Assessment Form-2nd edition. Professional Manual. Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources Inc.Google Scholar
Shahnasarian, M. (2011). Assessment of Earning Capacity (3rd ed.). Tucson, AZ: Lawyers & Judges.Google Scholar
Sherer, M., Sander, A.M., Nick, T.G., High, W.J., Malec, J.F., & Rosenthal, M. (2002). Early cognitive status and productivity outcome after traumatic brain injury: findings from the TBI model systems. Archives of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, 83 (2), 183–192.Google Scholar
Williams, J.M., Dunn, P.L., Bast, S., & Giesen, J. (2006). Factors considered by vocational rehabilitation professionals in employability and earning capacity assessment. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 50, 24–34.Google Scholar