Skip to main content
Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Is transition support a hurdle to getting a job? Cover

Is transition support a hurdle to getting a job?

Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research
Volume 18 (2016): Issue 1
By: ,   and    
Open Access
|Oct 2016
Figures & tables

Figures & Tables

Table 1.

Percentage of young disabled adults who are in ordinary full-time or part-time employment according to background characteristics and transition support (n = 245).

ValuesEmployed (%)NBackground variablesGender0. Man71971. Woman78148Age0. 19–2472501. 25–3574195Educational level***0. Not higher education651401. Higher education86105Mental illness*0. No mental problems/illness81941. Mental problems/illness69151Physical impairment**0. No physical/functional difficulties811621. Physical/functional difficulties6083Everyday limitations***0. Moderate everyday limitations851681. Major everyday limitations4977Sickness during transition***0. No sickness/medical treatment period during transition911741. Sickness/medical treatment period during transition3271Transition support variablesOrdinary transition support0. No ordinary support (teachers, parents, etc.)711401. Ordinary support (teachers, parents, etc.)77105Special transition support0. No special support (NAV, etc.)762161. Special support (NAV, etc.)6229LMP participation during transition***0. No LMP participation during transition832011. LMP participation during transition3444

[i] *Significant at least at 0.05; **Significant at least at 0.01; ***Significant at least at 0.001.

Table 2.

Logistic regression: how ordinary employment of young disabled adults co-varies with background and transition support variables (n = 245).

LogitStandard errorOdds ratio95% CIBackground variablesWomen−0.2320.4700.7930.316–1.991Age (continuous)0.0550.0531.0570.953–1.172Higher education0.6510.4971.9170.724–5.079Mental illness−0.7920.4810.4530.177–1.163Physical impairment−0.9160.4790.4000.156–1.023Major everyday limitations**−1.5000.4520.2230.092–0.541Sickness during transition***−2.9450.4570.0530.021–0.129Transition support variablesOrdinary transition support0.0580.4481.060.440–2.550Special transition support−0.8040.6080.4470.136–1.474LMP participation during transition**−1.8550.5500.1560.053–0.460Constant2.61

[i] **Significant at least at 0.01; ***Significant at least at 0.001.

[ii] Note: The regression model is checked for multicollinearity. The highest correlation in-between two independent variables is at Pearson’s R 0.311 (LMP participation/sickness during transition). This is considered a weak correlation, and therefore does not constitute a problem for the model. A Nagelkerke’s R2 of 0.613 indicates a moderately strong relationship in-between prediction and grouping, and the model has a good fit according to a Hosmer–Lemeshow test of 0.369.

Figure 1.

Predicted probability: how employment probabilities co-vary with participation in the LMP during transition from school to work (n = 245). Probabilities are predicted for individuals with the following features being kept as constant: Women, no higher education, no mental illness, and neither special nor ordinary transition support.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/15017419.2014.959046 | Journal eISSN: 1745-3011
Journal RSS Feed
Language: English
Page range: 17 - 31
Submitted on: Nov 22, 2012
Accepted on: Aug 15, 2014
Published on: Oct 1, 2016
Published by: Stockholm University Press
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Keywords:
disability,
employment,
transition,
transition support,
welfare services

© 2016 Sveinung Legard, Sigtona Halrynjo, Kristin Elisabeth Danielsen Floer, published by Stockholm University Press
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Volume 18 (2016): Issue 1
Previous article