Expert employment information helps life insurers to decide total and permanent disability claims. The employability assessment model was developed a decade ago by rehabilitation counselors and has not been critically examined.
OBJECTIVE:
This exploratory descriptive study aims to elicit key issues of employability assessment within Australian life insurance.
METHODS:
Ten rehabilitation advisors with knowledge of employability assessment in the total and permanent disability sector participated in a single focus group. They each nominated issues of concern about employability assessment. These issues were collated then discussed within the group. Qualitative thematic analysis was used to identify key issues.
RESULTS:
The predominant theme was the forensic nature of employment evidence. There were three categories of key issues. First, assessment providers— their training, qualifications, experience, and role. Second, methodology— approaches that provide most realistic information about a claimant’s likelihood of work. Third, policy definitions that illustrate reliance on legal interpretation of employability.
CONCLUSIONS:
To withstand legal scrutiny, the credentials of providers, assessment methodology, and quality of forensic reports are key issues which need to be addressed. This foundational study will contribute to broader research on this topic, with implications particularly for rehabilitation, life insurance, and claimants.
BerrillJ. TPD claims: A consumer’s perspective. 2014 [Handout provided at Australasian Life Underwriting and Claims Association (ALUCA) Claims Management Group Seminar, Sydney, 2014.
StebbinsRA. Exploratory research in the social sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 2011.
8.
LiamputtongP. Qualitative research methods. South Melbourne, Vic: Oxford University Press; 2012.
9.
SturessonM, EdlundC, Fjellman-WiklundA, FalkdalAH, BernspångB. Work ability as obscure, complex and unique: Views of Swedish occupational therapists and physicians. Work. 2013;45(1):117–28.
10.
WebbC, KevernJ. Focus group as research method: A critique of some aspects of their use in nursing research. J Adv Nurs. 2001;33(6):798–805.
11.
BraunV, ClarkeV. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology. 2006;3(2):77–101.
12.
TongA, SainsburyP, CraigJ. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): A 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care. 2007;19(6):349–57.
13.
KreftingL. Rigor in qualitative research: The assessment of trustworthiness. Am J Occup Ther. 1991;45(3):214–22.
14.
LaneP, McKennaH, RyanAA, FlemingP. Focus group methodology. Nurse Res. 2001;8(3):45.
15.
MinichielloV, SullivanG, GreenwoodK, AxfordR. Handbook for research methods in health sciences. Frenchs Forest, N.S.W: Addison-Wesley; 1999.
16.
HolmgrenK, IvanoffSD. Women on sickness absence— views of possibilities and obstacles for returning to work. A focus group study. Disabil Rehabil. 2004;26(4):213–22.
17.
CutcliffeJR, McKennaHP. Expert qualitative researchers and the use of audit trails. J Adv Nurs. 2004;45(2):126–33.
18.
CarcaryM. The research audit trail–enhancing trustworthiness in qualitative inquiry. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods. 2009;7(1):11–24.
19.
LeechN, OnwuegbuzieA. An array of qualitative data analysis tools: A call for data analysis triangulation. Sch Psychol Q. 2007;22(4):557–84.
20.
SleisterS. Separating the wheat from the chaff: The role of the vocational expert in forensic vocational rehabilitation. Journal of Vocational Rehabil. 2000;14(2):119.
21.
CrystalRM, EricksonAS. Forensic assessment. In: MpofuE, editor. Assessment in rehabilitation and health. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill; 2010, pp. 172–91.
American Board of Vocational Experts. About our organization 2015 [cited 2016 Oct 20]. Available from: http://www.abve.net/about.asp.
24.
Barros-BaileyM. History of forensic vocational rehabilitation consulting. In: RobinsonR, editor. Foundations of Forensic Vocational Rehabilitation. New York: Springer; 2013, pp. 13–31.
PryorR, HawkinsT. Medico-legal employability assessment: Myths, mistakes and misconceptions. Australian Journal of Career Development. 2009;18(1):45–53.
27.
FugateM, KinickiAJ, AshforthBE. Employability: A psycho-social construct, its dimensions, and applications. J Vocat Behav. 2004;65(1):14–38.
28.
RobinsonR, PaquetteS. Vocational rehabilitation process and work life. Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am. 2013;24(3):521–38.
29.
World Health Organization. International classification of functioning, disability and health: ICF Short version. Geneva: WHO; 2001.
30.
PaquetteS, LacerteM. Medical Evidence and Residual Functional Capacity. In: RobinsonR, editor. Foundations of Forensic Vocational Rehabilitation. New York: Springer; 2013, pp. 63–86.
31.
HoefsmitN, HoukesI, NijhuisF. Environmental and personal factors that support early return-to-work: A qualitative study using the ICF as a framework. Work. 2014;48(2):203–15.
32.
HeerkensYF, de BrouwerCPM, EngelsJA, van der GuldenJWJ, KantI. Elaboration of the contextual factors of the ICF for Occupational Health Care. WORK. 2017;57(2):187–204.
33.
LedererV, LoiselP, RivardM, ChampagneF. Exploring the diversity of conceptualizations of work (Dis)ability: A scoping review of published definition. Journal of Occupational Rehabil. 2014;24(2):242–67.
34.
FingerM, de BieR, SelbM, EscorpizoR. An examination of concepts in vocational rehabilitation that could not be linked to the ICF based on an analysis of secondary data. Work. 2016;53(4):775–92.
35.
Barros-BaileyM, RobinsonR. Thirty years of rehabilitation forensics: Inclusion of occupational and labor market information competencies in earning capacity models. Rehabil Professional. 2012;20(3):157–66.
36.
PaquetteS, LacerteM. Medical evidence and residual functional capacity. Robinson, Rick H [Ed] (2014) Foundations of forensic vocational rehabilitation (pp 63-86) xiii, 478 pp New York, NY, US: Springer Publishing Co; US, 2014, pp. 63-86.
