How to Measure Field‐of‐Study Mismatch? A Comparative Analysis of the Different Methods

Sana Sellami, Dieter Verhaest and Walter Van Trier

LABOUR, 2018, vol. 32, issue 4, 141-173

Abstract: We compare the different methods used to measure field‐of‐study mismatch. A first part reviews the literature, detailing, and discussing the different approaches. A second part uses a dataset allowing one to investigate whether these different approaches result in differences with respect to the incidence and determinants of field‐of‐study mismatch. As substantial differences do indeed exist, even among variants of similar approaches, we conclude that empirical results should be interpreted with caution. While making several recommendations concerning the measurement of field‐of‐study mismatch, we also call for more focused research on the validity and reliability of field‐of‐study mismatch measures.

Date: 2018
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (4)

Downloads: (external link)
https://doi.org/10.1111/labr.12129

Related works:
Working Paper: How to measure field-of-study mismatch? A comparative analysis of the different methods (2016)
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:bla:labour:v:32:y:2018:i:4:p:141-173

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.blackwell ... bs.asp?ref=1121-7081

Access Statistics for this article

LABOUR is currently edited by Franco Peracchi

More articles in LABOUR from CEIS Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Wiley Content Delivery ().