Vocational Economics Inc.
Vocational Economics Inc. staff
 

Articles Pertaining to the New Worklife Expectancy Tables


These articles deal specifically with the worklife tables.

Clauretie, Terrence M.  “Book Review: The New Worklife Expectancy Tables: 2002 Edition.”  Journal of Legal Economics, Fall 2001, 105-108.

The author favorably reviews the 2002 version of The New Worklife Expectancy Tables.  He notes the added value in this version of discussion related to court cases dealing with the tables and the fact that the publication deals directly with controversy surrounding the tables and the data underlying them.

Clauretie, Terrence M.  "Response:  Response to Tom Ireland's Comment on My Book Review of the New Work Life Expectancy Tables."  Journal of Legal Economics, Spring/Summer 2003 (published May 2005), 129-130.

The author responds to Ireland's criticism of his book review by noting that Ireland criticized a point that was not in his review, and that Ireland's expectations are not in the domain of a book review.

Clauretie, Terrence M.  "Review:  The New Worklife Expectancy Tables:  1998."  Journal of Legal Economics, Winter 1997/1998, 75-76.  

The author favorably reviews the 1998 version of The New Worklife Expectancy Tables, noting the added value in this edition of worklife expectancies for persons with severe and nonsevere disabilities.  See the responses below by Gluck (1996) and Gibson (1998).

Corcione, Frank P.  "Book Review:  The New Worklife Expectancy Tables:  Revised 1995 For Persons With and Without Disability By Gender and Level Of Education."  Journal of Forensic Economics, Fall 1995, 295-297.  

The author reviews the 1995 version of The New Worklife Expectancy Tables.  He objects to the use of multi-year averaging, the explanation of the calculation of life expectancy, and the static nature of work disability status.  In addition, he objects to the absence of data on those with a severe or nonsevere work disability (these were added in the 1998 edition).

Corcione, Frank P.  "Response to Andrew Gluck Regarding the New Worklife Expectancy Tables."  Journal of Forensic Economics, Fall 1996, 339-342.  

The author responds to Gluck (1996), continuing to object to the use of multi-year averaging of past rates to estimate future worklife, feeling that what is needed are predicted annual employment rates.  In addition, he continues to object to the absence of severe and nonsevere disability statistics in the 1995 edition, while also objecting to the continuum placement noted in Gluck (1996) that is intended to adjust for this absence.

Gamboa, A. M., Jr.  "Under Examination:  New Worklife Tables:  The Final Word."  Medical Malpractice Law and Strategy, March 2001. (Includes a response by Jerome Staller)  

In answering Staller’s response in Gluck & Sachnin (2000), the author points out that The New Worklife Expectancy Tables have withstood Daubert challenges.  He also notes that the segregation of severely and nonseverely disabled data in The Tables pulls out of the nonsevere statistic many of the persons with chronic disability that Staller is concerned about.  Staller responds by stating his continued belief that it is not possible to apply the data to a specific plaintiff.

Gamboa, A. M., Jr. and Gwendolyn H. Holland.  "Worklife and Disability:  Confronting the Myths."  Paper presented at the International Association of Rehabilitation Professionals Annual Conference, Orlando, Florida, April 2005.  A copy of the handout distributed at the conference is also available. 

The paper addresses issues raised about The New Worklife Expectancy Tables and the U.S. Census Bureau data underlying them and responds to each individually.

Gamboa, A. M., Jr., John P. Tierney, and Gwendolyn H. Holland.  "Worklife Expectancy and Disability."  Journal of Forensic Economics, April 1989, 29-32.  

The authors point out the importance of considering disability when addressing worklife expectancy.  They discuss the value of the U.S. Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey data for estimating the worklife expectancy of people with and without work disability.

Gibson, David S.  “Daubert, Disability, and Worklife Expectancies,” Monograph, Vocational Econometrics, Inc., 2001.  

This monograph is an extended version of Gibson & Tierney (2000).  It adds a section specifically applying to The New Worklife Expectancy Tables the reliability and relevancy requirements of expert witness testimony from the Daubert and Kumho decisions.  In addition, it presents statistical evidence supporting the reliability of data from the Current Population Survey.

Gibson, David S.  "Gamboa Worklife Tables, 1995 and 1998 Versions:  A Comment.Journal of Forensic Economics, Fall 1998, 267-268.  

The author responds to Corcione (1996), specifically addressing Corcione's concern over the static nature of the nondisabled statistic and the use of statistical averages.

Gibson, David S. and Andrew L. Gluck.  "Vocational Economic Analyses:  A Response to Staller, Sullivan, and Friedman."  Paper presented to the 26th Annual Conference of the Eastern Economics Association, March 2000. 

After pointing out some basic errors in the paper by Staller, Sullivan, and Friedman (2000), the authors discuss the role of the vocational expert and defend the validity of data from the Current Population Survey for estimating the employment and earnings experience of people with a work disability.

Gibson, David S. and John P. Tierney.  "Disability and Worklife Expectancy Tables:  A Response.Journal of Forensic Economics, Fall 2000, 309-318.   

This article addresses the critiques discussed by Skoog & Toppino (1999) regarding The New Worklife Expectancy Tables.  In it, they defend the use of a multi-year average and the validity of data from the Current Population Survey regarding the employment experience of people with a work disability. 

Gluck, Andrew.  "Regarding the New Worklife Tables.Journal of Forensic Economics, Fall 1996, 335-337.  

The author responds to the critique of The New Worklife Expectancy Tables by Corcione (1995).  He discusses the benefit of multi-year averaging and the use of a continuum placement by vocational experts to adjust the average disability statistic for a specific plaintiff.

Gluck, Andrew and Stuart Sachnin.  "'New Worklife Tables' Meet the Challenge of the Daubert Standard."  Medical Malpractice Law and Strategy, December 2000.  (Includes a reply by Jerome M. Staller and Edward A. Friedman)  

In this article, the authors point out errors in the critique by Staller (2000; Medical Malpractice) and note the importance of considering the effect of work disability on a person’s future work experience.  In addition, they note that the definition of work disability was created and is used by the U.S. Census Bureau and that the Current Population Survey (CPS) data, which uses the definition, are validated through their use by nonforensic researchers.  The article contains a brief response by Staller and Friedman, who continue to assert that it is not possible to use the CPS data to evaluate a specific plaintiff.

Ireland, Thomas R.  "Comment:  Terrence Clauretie's Review of The New Worklife Expectancy Tables, 2002 EditionJournal of Legal Economics, Fall 2002, 101-106. 

The author criticizes Clauretie's review of the 2002 edition of The Tables by stating that he was not objective and did not respond adequately to criticisms of the tables and the methodology behind them. 

Johnson, John R. "Assessing Risk in Enhanced Earnings Valuations."  Family Law Monthly, August 2001.

The author discusses the value of The New Worklife Expectancy Tables and of the Life, Participation, Employment method of calculating worklife expectancy for calculation of enhanced earnings in matrimonial litigation. 

McCollister, George M. and Christopher C. Pflaum.  "Predicting Reduced Worklife from Disabilities."  Paper presented at the National Association for Forensic Economics sessions of the Allied Social Science Association meeting, San Diego, CA, January 3, 2004.

The authors discuss the use of data from the National Health Interview Survey to estimate worklife expectancies for individuals with varying health conditions.  The article presents worklife expectancies by education level and age for individuals with no injury and individuals with back pain.  They find that the disability does negatively affect the probability of being employed and that this drop becomes more profound with age, a finding similar to data from the Current Population Survey used in The New Worklife Expectancy Tables.

McNeil, John.  "Comment on Skoog and Toppino."  Unpublished manuscript, 2002.  

The author corrects points made in the article by Skoog and Toppino (S&T).  In particular, contrary to S&T statements, he notes that he believes that the CPS is an important data source when studying the relationship between disability and worklife.  In addition, he notes the importance of understanding the differences in definitions of disability when applying disability data.  This article was submitted to the Journal of Forensic Economics as a response to the comments made by S&T, correcting the use of McNeil's research in the S&T article.  The Journal of Forensic Economics rejected the article due to "severe space limitations."

Misra, Sita, Pisnu Bua-lam, and Ranjit K. Majumder.  "A Realistic Assessment of Economic Benefits of the Rehabilitation Program Using Worklife Expectancy Tables."  Journal of Rehabilitation Administration, February 1992, 15-20.  

The authors discuss the value of The New Worklife Expectancy Tables when performing benefit-cost analyses of rehabilitation programs.

Pflaum, Christopher C., George M. McCollister, David J. Strauss, Robert M. Shavelle, and Michael J. DeVivo.  “Worklife Following Traumatic Spinal Cord Injury.”  Journal of Spinal Cord Medicine, forthcoming.   http://www.spectrumeconomics.com/specpdfs/sci.pdf

Using data from the National Spinal Cord Injury Database, the authors developed a model of worklife expectancy specific to persons with spinal cord injury.  They compare their results with The New Worklife Expectancy Tables, finding their estimates to be sometimes higher, sometimes lower than those found in The Tables.

Skoog, Gary R. and David C. Toppino.  "Disability and the New Worklife Expectancy Tables from Vocational Econometrics, 1998:  A Critical Analysis."  Journal of Forensic Economics, Fall 1999, 239-254.  

The authors critique the 1998 edition of The New Worklife Expectancy Tables, questioning in particular the validity of data from the Current Population Survey and the use of multi-year averaging.  See the responses above by Gibson (2001), Gibson and Tierney (2000) and McNeil (2002).

Skoog, Gary R. and David C. Toppino.  "The New Worklife Expectancy Tables' Critique:  A Rejoinder."  Journal of Forensic Economics, 2002, 81-97.

The authors respond to the Gibson and Tierney (2000; above) response to their first critique of the worklife tables.  Some of the issues addressed include heterogeneity, sample selection bias, and endogeneity. 

Staller, Jerome M.  "Criticism Mounts of 'New Worklife Tables' As Estimate of Lost Time."  Medical Malpractice Law and Strategy, June 2000, 1-3.  

The author questions the ability of the Current Population Survey data used in The New Worklife Expectancy Tables to capture reliably the employment rates for people with a work disability.  In addition, he questions the ability of vocational experts to apply the data to individuals with a work disability.  See the responses above by Gluck and Sachnin (2000) and Gamboa (2001).

Staller, Jerome M., Brian P. Sullivan, and Edward A. Friedman.  "Vocational Economic Analyses Have Neither a Vocational nor an Economic Basis."  Paper presented to the 26th Annual Conference of the Eastern Economics Association, March 2000.  

In this paper, the authors object to elements of a typical Vocational Economic Assessment, especially elements using Current Population Survey data and assessment of post-injury earning capacity using a full range of the plaintiff’s capabilities.  See the response above by Gibson and Gluck (2000).

 

Home | Markets | Experts | Services | Articles/Blog | Resources | Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Sitemap
Copyright © - 2008-2012 Vocational Economics, Inc. All rights reserved.