How to measure field-of-study mismatch? A comparative analysis of the different methods
Dieter Verhaest and
Walter van Trier
Working Papers from University of Antwerp, Faculty of Business and Economics
We make a comparative analysis of the different methods used for the measurement of field-of-study mismatch. A first part of the paper reviews the literature, detailing and discussing the different approaches (worker assessments, job analysis, realized matches). In the second part, based on a data-set allowing us to use various measures, we investigate whether these different approaches result in differences with respect to the incidence and the determinants of field-of-study mismatch. Since substantial differences do indeed exist, even among variants of similar approaches, we conclude that empirical results with respect to field-of-study mismatch should be interpreted with great caution. While making several recommendations concerning the measurement of field-of-study mismatch, we also make a plea for more focused research on the validity and reliability of field-of-study mismatch measures in order to develop a more generally-accepted and uniform measure.
Keywords: Mismatch; Horizontal mismatch; Measurement; Field of study (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Pages: 38 pages
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (3) Track citations by RSS feed
Downloads: (external link)
Journal Article: How to Measure Field‐of‐Study Mismatch? A Comparative Analysis of the Different Methods (2018)
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:ant:wpaper:2016009
Access Statistics for this paper
More papers in Working Papers from University of Antwerp, Faculty of Business and Economics Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Joeri Nys ().