, Volume 53, Issue 3, pp 749–776 | Cite as

Understanding the Disability Dynamics of Youth: Health Condition and Limitation Changes for Youth and Their Influence on Longitudinal Survey Attrition

  • David R. MannEmail author
  • Todd Honeycutt


Disability status—experiencing a functional limitation caused by a health condition—is dynamic throughout the life cycle, even during adolescence and young adulthood. We use data from the 1997 cohort of the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth to better understand these dynamics, examining how health condition and limitation statuses evolve during adolescence and young adulthood as well as how changes in these characteristics are related to survey nonresponse and attrition. Health condition and limitation dynamics are evident in our data: the proportion of sample members who reported having a limitation in their activities for any interview increased from approximately 12 % during the initial interview (when sample members were 12 to 17 years old) to almost 25 % 13 years later. Multivariate analyses revealed that women are more likely than men to report changes in health condition or limitation status. Those with mild limitations were relatively less likely than those without limitations or with severe limitations to experience changes in limitation status. Somewhat surprisingly, a survival analysis of survey participation outcomes found limited correlation among health conditions, limitations, and either missing a survey interview for the first time or permanently leaving the survey sample.


Youth Transition to adulthood Disability changes Longitudinal surveys Survey attrition 



The authors appreciate the assistance of Nora Paxton for programming support, Jody Schimmel Hyde for helpful comments on the analysis, and Jane Nelson for production support. Funding for this study was provided by the Research and Training Center on Disability Statistics and Demographics (StatsRRTC) at the University of New Hampshire, which is funded by the U.S. Department of Education, National Institute for Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR) (Grant No. H133B100015). The contents do not necessarily represent the policy of the U.S. Department of Education and you should not assume endorsement by the federal government (Edgar, 75.620 (b)).


  1. Ahern, K., & Le Brocque, R. (2005). Methodological issues in the effects of attrition: Simple solutions for social scientists. Field Methods, 17, 43–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allison, P. D. (2001). Missing data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  3. Bethell, C. D., Read, D., Blumberg, S. J., & Newacheck, P. W. (2008). What is the prevalence of children with special health care needs? Toward an understanding of variations in findings and methods across three national surveys. Maternal and Child Health Journal, 12, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brault, M. W. (2012). Americans with disabilities: 2010 (Current Population Report P70-131). Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.Google Scholar
  5. Currie, J., & Kahn, R. (2012). Children with disabilities: Introducing the issue. Future of Children, 22(1), 3–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Davey, A., Shanahan, M. J., & Schafer, J. L. (2001). Correcting for selective nonresponse in the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth using multiple imputation. Journal of Human Resources, 36, 500–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. de Graaf, R., van Dorsselaer, S., Tuithof, M., & ten Have, M. (2013). Sociodemographic and psychiatric predictors of attrition in a prospective psychiatric epidemiological study among the general population. Result of the Netherlands Mental Health Survey and Incidence Study-2. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 54, 1131–1139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Grambsch, P. M., & Therneau, T. M. (1994). Proportional hazards tests in diagnostics based on weighted residuals. Biometrika, 81, 515–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Halfon, N., & Newacheck, P. W. (2010). Evolving notions of childhood chronic illness. Journal of the American Medical Association, 303, 665–666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hemmeter, J., & Gilby, E. (2009). The age-18 redetermination and postredetermination participation in SSI. Social Security Bulletin, 69(4), 1–25.Google Scholar
  11. Honeycutt, T., & Wittenburg, D. (2012). Identifying transition-age youth with disabilities using existing surveys. Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research.Google Scholar
  12. Jamoom, E., Horner-Johnson, W., Suzuki, R., Andresen, E. M., & Campbell, V. A. (2008). Age at disability onset and self-reported health status. BMC Public Health, 8, 10. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-8-10 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jeličić, H., Phelps, E., & Lerner, R. M. (2010). Why missing data matter in the Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Development: Using the 4-H Study to understand the uses of different missing data methods. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 39, 816–835.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Little, R. J., & Rubin, D. B. (1987). Statistical analysis with missing data. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  15. Loprest, P. J., & Maag, E. (2007). The relationship between early disability onset and education and employment. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 26, 49–62.Google Scholar
  16. Macurdy, T., Mroz, T., & Gritz, R. M. (2001). An evaluation of the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth. Journal of Human Resources, 33, 345–436.Google Scholar
  17. Mann, D. R., & Honeycutt, T. (2014). Is timing everything? Disability onset of youth and their outcomes as young adults. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 25, 117–129.Google Scholar
  18. Nagi, S. (1965). Some conceptual issues is disability and rehabilitation. In M. Sussman (Ed.), Sociology and rehabilitation (pp. 100–113). Washington, DC: American Sociological Association.Google Scholar
  19. Osgood, W., Foster, M., & Courtney, M. E. (2010). Vulnerable populations and the transition to adulthood. Future of Children, 20(1), 209–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Rubin, D. B. (1976). Inference and missing data. Biometrika, 63, 581–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Rubin, D. B. (1987). Multiple imputation for nonresponse in surveys. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Schoeni, R. F., Stafford, F., McGonagle, K. A., & Andreski, P. (2013). Response rates in national surveys. ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 645, 60–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Shandra, C. L. (2011). Life course transitions among adolescents with and without disabilities: A longitudinal examination of expectations and outcomes. International Journal of Sociology, 41, 67–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Shandra, C. L., & Hogan, D. P. (2008). School-to-work program participation and the post-high school employment of young adults with disabilities. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 29, 117–130.Google Scholar
  25. Torvik, F. A., Rognmo, K., & Tambs, K. (2012). Alcohol use and mental distress as predictors of non-response in a general population health survey: The HUNT Study. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 47, 805–816.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. U.S. Government Accountability Office (U.S. GAO). (2012). Students with disabilities: Better federal coordination could lessen challenges in the transition from high school (Publication No. GAO-12-594). Washington, DC: U.S. GAO.Google Scholar
  27. Verbugge, L. M., & Jette, A. M. (1994). The disablement process. Social Science & Medicine, 38, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Weathers, R. R., II. (2009). The disability data landscape. In A. Houtenville, D. C. Stapleton, R. R. Weathers II, & R. V. Burkhauser (Eds.), Counting working-age people with disabilities (pp. 27–68). Kalamazoo, MI: Upjohn Institute.Google Scholar
  29. World Health Organization (WHO). (2001). International classification of functioning, disability and health. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO.Google Scholar
  30. Zhivan, N. A., Ang, A., Amaro, H., Vega, W., & Markides, K. S. (2012). Ethnic/race differences in the attrition of older American survey respondents: Implications for health-related research. Health Services Research, 47, 241–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Population Association of America 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Mathematica Policy ResearchPrincetonUSA

Personalised recommendations