Measuring Precarious Employment: Type of Contract Can Lead to Serious Misclassification Error

20Citations
Citations of this article
37Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

This study aims to assess the accuracy of temporary employment as indicator or proxy measure of precarious employment. Using sensitivity and specificity analysis, we compared type of contract (temporary versus permanent) with the Chilean version of the multidimensional Employment Precariousness Scale. Temporary employment exhibited very low sensitivity (<30%) (specificity >90%), resulting in roughly 38% of false negative results. Different EPRES-Ch cut-off scores produced similar results. The main implication of these findings is that the public health relevance of precarious employment is being underestimated both in terms of prevalence and of its association with health, making it critical that valid multidimensional measures of precarious employment be implemented.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Vives, A., Gonzalez Lopez, F., & Benach, J. (2020). Measuring Precarious Employment: Type of Contract Can Lead to Serious Misclassification Error. Annals of Work Exposures and Health, 64(9), 1035–1038. https://doi.org/10.1093/annweh/wxaa089

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free