How to Measure Field‐of‐Study Mismatch? A Comparative Analysis of the Different Methods
Dieter Verhaest () and
Walter Van Trier
LABOUR, 2018, vol. 32, issue 4, 141-173
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.
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (2) Track citations by RSS feed
Downloads: (external link)
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)
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 ().