Labour market outcomes for people with a spinal cord injury
The consequences of spinal cord injury are profound and extend well beyond the immediate loss of mobility and sensation. Employment is a well-recognised rehabilitation goal. In this study, we examine the impact of a publicly funded "package" of services that is designed to enable people with a spinal cord injury to return to the workplace. Specifically, this package of services provided client directed assistance for assisting the recipient with the activities of daily living (e.g., bathing, food preparation, etc.). We combine primary data collection methods well developed in other scientific disciplines, but less frequently utilised within economics, with traditional econometric techniques, to present a novel approach to this methodological issue. The Spinal Injuries Survey Instrument was developed and administered using a matched sampling approach. Collected data included, labour market outcomes, exposure to the packages, as well as clinical and demographic covariates commonly identified by the spinal cord injury literature. Concern for endogeneity was addressed by collecting data on several variables that might serve as suitable instruments for the econometric work and measures of otherwise-unobserved sources of heterogeneity. For example, a psychological measure of "attributional style was adapted from the field of psychology in order to control for a potentially confounding source of latent individual heterogeneity, viz. "motivation". While our results find zero marginal effect of support packages on labour market outcomes, we find that training undertaken post-injury and age are both positively correlated with labour market participation.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- E. J. Working, 1927. "What Do Statistical "Demand Curves" Show?," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 41(2), pages 212-235.
- Heckman, James, 2013.
"Sample selection bias as a specification error,"
Publishing House "SINERGIA PRESS", vol. 31(3), pages 129-137.
- Heckman, James J, 1979. "Sample Selection Bias as a Specification Error," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 47(1), pages 153-161, January.
- Douglas Staiger & James H. Stock, 1997. "Instrumental Variables Regression with Weak Instruments," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 65(3), pages 557-586, May.
- Douglas Staiger & James H. Stock, 1994. "Instrumental Variables Regression with Weak Instruments," NBER Technical Working Papers 0151, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Laura Greene Knapp & Terry Seaks, 1998. "A Hausman test for a dummy variable in probit," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 5(5), pages 321-323.
- Alan Krueger & Douglas Kruse, 1995. "Labor Market Effects of Spinal Cord Injuries in the Dawn of the Computer Age," NBER Working Papers 5302, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Alan B. Krueger & Douglas Kruse, 1995. "Labor Market Effects of Spinal Cord Injuries in the Dawn of the Computer Age," Working Papers 728, Princeton University, Department of Economics, Industrial Relations Section..
- H. Shelton Brown & José A. Pagán & Elena Bastida, 2005. "The impact of diabetes on employment: genetic IVs in a bivariate probit," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(5), pages 537-544.
- Dranove, David & Wehner, Paul, 1994. "Physician-induced demand for childbirths," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 61-73, March. Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ehbiol:v:8:y:2010:i:2:p:223-232. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu)
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.