BACKGROUND: No research has been undertaken about employability assessment of total and permanent disability (TPD) insurance claims. Employability assessment provides vocational information to life insurers to help decide claims. To determine how helpful employability assessment is, a new measure was needed to survey insurers. OBJECTIVE: To generate survey items by harnessing the knowledge and agreement of rehabilitation advisors with expertise in employability assessment. METHODS: A panel of 10 (89% of eligible Australian rehabilitation advisors) participated in an adapted three-round Delphi process. Rounds 2 and 3 were incorporated into a novel real-time card sort format. RESULTS: From 94 potential items submitted for first round qualitative analysis, 36 items in four domains-quality, content, utility, and claims-were generated. Two quantitative ranking rounds in one face-to-face session produced a 21-item prototype. The final electronic survey instrument contained 11 sections seeking insurer demographics and feedback on: external providers; employability assessment concepts, components, quality, and usefulness; functional, occupational, labor market items; and finally, cost and type. Our Delphi process was anonymous, completed in four weeks with 100% response rate and 75% agreement. More time between Rounds 2 and 3 would enhance statistical analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Our adapted Delphi methodology for survey item generation is generalizable for any panel able to meet in person.
BACKGROUND: No research has been undertaken about employability assessment of total and permanent disability (TPD) insurance claims. Employability assessment provides vocational information to life insurers to help decide claims. To determine how helpful employability assessment is, a new measure was needed to survey insurers. OBJECTIVE: To generate survey items by harnessing the knowledge and agreement of rehabilitation advisors with expertise in employability assessment. METHODS: A panel of 10 (89% of eligible Australian rehabilitation advisors) participated in an adapted three-round Delphi process. Rounds 2 and 3 were incorporated into a novel real-time card sort format. RESULTS: From 94 potential items submitted for first round qualitative analysis, 36 items in four domains-quality, content, utility, and claims-were generated. Two quantitative ranking rounds in one face-to-face session produced a 21-item prototype. The final electronic survey instrument contained 11 sections seeking insurer demographics and feedback on: external providers; employability assessment concepts, components, quality, and usefulness; functional, occupational, labor market items; and finally, cost and type. Our Delphi process was anonymous, completed in four weeks with 100% response rate and 75% agreement. More time between Rounds 2 and 3 would enhance statistical analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Our adapted Delphi methodology for survey item generation is generalizable for any panel able to meet in person.
Entities:
Keywords:
Life insurance; forensic; lump sum benefit; medicolegal; vocational zzm321990rehabilitation; vocational expert