IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ant/wpaper/2016009.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

How to measure field-of-study mismatch? A comparative analysis of the different methods

Author

Listed:
  • SELLAMI, Sana
  • VERHAEST, Dieter
  • VAN TRIER, Walter

Abstract

We make a comparative analysis of the different methods used for the measurement of field-of-study mismatch. A first part of the paper reviews the literature, detailing and discussing the different approaches (worker assessments, job analysis, realized matches). In the second part, based on a data-set allowing us to use various measures, we investigate whether these different approaches result in differences with respect to the incidence and the determinants of field-of-study mismatch. Since substantial differences do indeed exist, even among variants of similar approaches, we conclude that empirical results with respect to field-of-study mismatch should be interpreted with great caution. While making several recommendations concerning the measurement of field-of-study mismatch, we also make a plea for more focused research on the validity and reliability of field-of-study mismatch measures in order to develop a more generally-accepted and uniform measure.

Suggested Citation

  • SELLAMI, Sana & VERHAEST, Dieter & VAN TRIER, Walter, 2016. "How to measure field-of-study mismatch? A comparative analysis of the different methods," Working Papers 2016009, University of Antwerp, Faculty of Business and Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:ant:wpaper:2016009
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://repository.uantwerpen.be/docman/irua/0f7908/133872.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Anneleen Vandeplas & Anna Thum-Thysen, 2019. "Skills Mismatch and Productivity in the EU," European Economy - Discussion Papers 100, Directorate General Economic and Financial Affairs (DG ECFIN), European Commission.
    2. Dieter Verhaest & Stijn Baert, 2018. "The effects of workplace learning in higher education on employment and match quality: is there an early-career trade-off?," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 55(3), pages 1229-1270, November.
    3. Leighton, Margaret & Speer, Jamin D., 2020. "Labor market returns to college major specificity," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 128(C).
    4. Sellami Sana & Verhaest Dieter & Nonneman Walter & Van Trier Walter, 2017. "The Impact of Educational Mismatches on Wages: The Influence of Measurement Error and Unobserved Heterogeneity," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 17(1), pages 1-20, February.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ant:wpaper:2016009. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Joeri Nys (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ftufsbe.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.