The American Psychiatric Association (APA) has updated its Privacy Policy and Terms of Use, including with new information specifically addressed to individuals in the European Economic Area. As described in the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use, this website utilizes cookies, including for the purpose of offering an optimal online experience and services tailored to your preferences.

Please read the entire Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. By closing this message, browsing this website, continuing the navigation, or otherwise continuing to use the APA's websites, you confirm that you understand and accept the terms of the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use, including the utilization of cookies.

×

Abstract

Objective:

This study’s objective was to determine the efficacy of benefits counseling in a clinical trial. There has been concern that disability payments for psychiatric disorders reduce incentives for employment and rehabilitation. Benefits counseling, with education about opportunities to work and the financial implications of work on receipt of disability benefits, may counter these disincentives.

Methods:

This single-blind, six-month randomized clinical trial enrolled 84 veterans who had applied for service-connected compensation for a psychiatric condition. Veterans were randomly assigned to either four sessions of benefits counseling or of a control condition involving orientation to the U.S Department of Veterans Affairs health care system and services. Days of paid work and work-related activities were assessed at follow-up visits by using a timeline follow-back calendar.

Results:

Veterans assigned to benefits counseling worked for pay for significantly more days than did veterans in the control group (effect size=.69, p<.05), reflecting an average of three more days of paid employment during the 28 days preceding the six-month follow-up. Benefits counseling was associated with increased use of mental health services, but this correlation did not mediate the effect of benefits counseling on working.

Conclusions:

Barriers to employment associated with disability payments are remediable with basic counseling. More research is needed to understand the active ingredient of this counseling and to strengthen the intervention.

As of 2012, a total of 572,612 veterans were receiving service-connected disability payments for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) that was caused or was worsened by their military service (1), and it has been estimated that approximately 100,000 veterans are evaluated each year for PTSD claims (2). Recent increases in applications are controversial because of concerns that some veterans apply for benefits in lieu of working (3) or because of transient difficulties transitioning from military service to civilian employment (4,5) The claims process is typically stressful for veterans, and the financial and emotional stakes are high (6,7).

Veterans who receive service-connection benefits for psychiatric conditions have better outcomes than applicants whose claims are denied (2,8). However, the salutary effects of benefits must be weighed against evidence from both veteran (9) and nonveteran disability programs (10,11) that receipt of disability payments is associated with reduced employment. Working is associated with better quality of life and other benefits (12,13), so underemployment is a health as well as a public policy problem.

Regulations that terminate disability payments for people who work are strong disincentives for working (14,15). Disability ratings are not intended to be reduced for an individual who copes well with a condition that is usually disabling (38 CFR Section 4.15). However, for some veterans, the loss of disability benefits—even if offset by employment income—puts them at risk of severe financial hardship if the employment ends. Recognizing the stagnation associated with disincentives for work, the Social Security Administration has developed programs that allow disabled people to retain earned income (16,17).

Benefits counseling interventions have been developed to foster employment by providing encouragement to work, minimizing the risk of losing benefits, and making vocational opportunities available (18,19). Benefits counseling has shown promise in two large studies of disabled nonveterans. In an observational cohort study, 364 people with psychiatric illnesses and Social Security benefits received an average of eight hours of benefits counseling; subsequently, they earned an average of $1,256 more per year compared with a matched control group (18). A large, randomized controlled trial of the use of benefits counseling as part of a bundled intervention—including supported employment services, case management, and amelioration of disincentives to work—showed the possibility of transitioning people with psychiatric disabilities into employment. The results showed that 61% of participants in the experimental group were working at two-year follow-up compared with only 41% of participants in the control group (19).

Because earlier studies suggest that many people who apply for disability would like to be employed and active (6,20), it has been argued that veterans who apply for disability should be engaged in educational, motivational, therapeutic, and rehabilitative activities (21). Part of the difficulty in promoting work among veterans with a service-connected disability, however, may be attributed to the process of applying for service connection. A process that focuses only on what a veteran cannot do—the disability—does not support a veteran's engagement in work. Veterans' productive activity might be facilitated by coupling the disability evaluation with an assessment of what the veteran can do productively and steering the veteran to available treatment and vocational supports (22).

In this study, we tested the efficacy of a four-session benefits counseling intervention designed to foster engagement in work and related activities among veterans who applied for service-connected compensation benefits for psychological conditions. This study extends prior research by being the first prospective randomized controlled trial of a benefits counseling intervention that is not delivered with coordinated adjunct supports. It is also the first trial of such a program among veterans whose application for disability benefits was currently under review.

Methods

Participants

Veterans were identified by three criteria: they were scheduled to be evaluated by a psychologist or a psychiatrist for a service-connected disability, they were not already receiving disability benefits for a psychological condition, and they were receiving no more than 30% of the full benefit for a general medical condition. At the appointment for the evaluation, veterans were referred by posted advertisements or by clinic staff to meet with a research assistant for study screening. Veterans who answered “yes” to any of the questions on the 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) (23) indicating that emotional problems had interfered with work in the past 28 days were enrolled in the study.

Study design and procedures

The study was approved by the Yale and Veterans Affairs (VA) Connecticut Healthcare System institutional review boards. After a brief assessment was conducted to determine eligibility, the study was described to the veterans, and those who agreed to participate provided written informed consent. For assessment purposes, all of the veterans completed a comprehensive questionnaire at baseline that assessed demographic characteristics and history and incorporated material from other sources (2328). Psychiatric diagnoses were obtained subsequently from electronic medical record review.

Veterans were selected at random to receive four sessions of benefits counseling or four sessions of VA orientation. Participants were then contacted by a counselor who scheduled the sessions and explained the assigned counseling. Follow-up assessments were completed one, three, and six months after randomization by a research assistant who was blind to group assignment. Veterans in both conditions were paid up to $260 in divided amounts for attending data collection visits.

Interventions

Benefits counseling consists of four 50-minute sessions of individual counseling using a motivational interviewing framework and techniques to increase veterans’ desire to engage in work and related activities (29). The counselor begins the first session by discussing the veteran’s experience of the claims process, the possible impact of working on the claim, and the veteran’s relative valuation of work vis-à-vis other concerns. In the second session, the counselor directs discussion toward the veteran’s feelings about work and other vocational activities, exploring the veteran’s ambivalence with structured exercises, such as listing the pros and cons of working. The third session focuses on the financial implications of working (or not); for veterans receptive to suggestions, counselors provide information about work, vocational rehabilitation, and education opportunities that are available. The first three sessions were conducted weekly when possible; the fourth session was conducted after the disability determination to allow the veteran and the counselor to discuss the impact of the claim decision on the veteran’s plans.

The control condition was four sessions of VA orientation that taught veterans about the VA health care system generally and about the specific general medical and mental health services available to veterans.

Four master’s-level clinicians delivered both interventions (a crossed design). Fidelity to the interventions was verified by the use of therapy manuals, veterans’ confidential ratings of topics covered during counseling (data not reported), audiotapes of selected sessions, and supervision. The counseling manuals for benefits counseling and VA orientation and the nonproprietary measures that were developed for this study are posted on our group’s Web site (www.behaviorchange.yale.edu) and are briefly described below.

Measures

The primary outcome measure was based on a timeline follow-back calendar describing whether the veteran was involved in paid work, volunteer work, school, and vocational or rehabilitative activities on each day. The timeline follow-back calendar has been a standard way to assess recent employment (30) and has been a sufficiently sensitive outcome measure of between-group differences in other clinical trials of employment-focused interventions (31). A secondary outcome was the number of days spent working for pay in the past 28 days. Veterans were also asked how much income they had earned in the past 28 days.

To test hypotheses that benefits counseling fostered working by convincing veterans that receipt of benefits was compatible with working, veterans were asked to rate their agreement with three statements asserting a relationship between work and receipt of disability payments (32). Agreement was rated on a 4-point, forced-choice Likert scale anchored by strongly disagree, somewhat disagree, somewhat agree, and strongly agree. The meaning of work to the participant, a second possible mediator of work history, was assessed with the Meaning of Work Scale (33), which yields a summed score (range 12–48) reflecting the importance of various aspects of work to the respondent.

To test the hypothesis that benefits counseling acted by fostering engagement in VA mental health services, participants’ use of VA services was extracted from national databases by using codes to identify in-person outpatient mental health or substance abuse treatment encounters. Each week during the 26 weeks before or after randomization was assigned a dichotomous value (yes or no) reflecting treatment attendance.

Statistical analyses

Data analysis proceeded in several stages. First, t tests and chi square tests were conducted to determine if there were any differences in baseline characteristics of the veterans who had been randomly assigned to the benefits counseling or the control group.

The primary outcome measure was the number of days in the past 28 spent engaged in any kind of work or related activity (including going to school or vocational rehabilitation), as derived from the timeline follow-back calendar, and a secondary outcome was number of days of paid work. The effect of group assignment (benefits counseling or VA orientation) on the primary and secondary outcomes over time was the primary effect of interest. This interaction was included in a hierarchical, mixed Poisson regression model with fixed effects, including baseline value of the dependent variable, month, and group assignment.

The analyses tested whether three processes targeted by benefits counseling mediated the relationship between benefits counseling and paid work: the belief that work is compatible with receiving disability benefits, increased valuation of employment, and attending more weeks of in-person mental health or substance abuse treatment at VA facilities, thus improving veterans’ employment readiness. The effects of change in the proposed mediators on the treatment-work relationship were tested in latent growth curve mediation models (34), estimating the indirect effects of benefits counseling on work through the mediators.

Results

Sampling

Recruitment was conducted from December 2008 to December 2011. Of the 425 veterans who expressed interest in participating, 195 were eligible to participate. As shown in the CONSORT diagram (Figure 1), 92 were randomly assigned to one of the interventions, but only 84 (42 in each group) completed at least one follow-up assessment. The statistical analyses apply to the participants who completed at least one follow-up assessment. Both groups participated in roughly the same number of treatment encounters (2.6±1.1, benefits counseling, versus 2.2±1.1, control group; Mann-Whitney U test=740, p=.19). The groups did not differ significantly in the number of follow-up assessments completed.

Figure 1

Figure 1 CONSORT flow diagram for a randomized controlled trial of benefits counseling for veterans who had applied for service connection for a psychiatric condition

Baseline characteristics

A majority of veterans were male, were Caucasian, and had had some treatment for a psychiatric or substance use disorder at the VA within a year of enrollment (Table 1). There were no significant differences in any demographic characteristics between the veterans assigned to benefits counseling and the control group (Table 1).

Table 1 Characteristics at baseline of veterans who received benefits counseling or a VA orientation after applying for service connection for a psychiatric condition

Benefits counseling (N=42)VA orientation (N=42)
CharacteristicN%N%Statisticdfp
Age (M±SD)37±440±14t=.9182.37
OEF/OIFa12291945χ2=2.261.13
Male32763891χ2=3.11.08
Race-ethnicityχ2=1.13.78
 White25602867
 African American614512
 Latino819512
 Other37410
Days drank to intoxication (past 28 days)10241536t=1.421.23
Days of illicit drug use (past 28 days)37614t=1.121.29
Use of VA services in past year
 Medical25611742χ2=3.121.08
 Mental health or substance abuse23562049χ2=.441.51
Employment pattern
 Work20481742χ2=.321.57
 Student1212χ2=.001.99
 Military service16381024χ2=1.811.18
 Unemployed5121127χ2=2.971.09
 Retired0025χ2=2.11.15
Income in past 28 days (M±SD $)2,022±2,2671,522±1,183U=785b1.49
Psychiatric diagnosis
 Major depression15401027χ2=1.311.25
 PTSD9241541χ2=2.451.12
 Traumatic brain injury1338χ2=1.111.29
 Schizophrenia type or bipolar disorder3825χ2=.191.67
 Substance abuse and dependence1129616χ2=1.731.19
Service-connected general medical problem821923χ2=.021.88
Attitudes and beliefs (M±SD score)c
 “If person is receiving VA benefits and starts working for pay, income benefits will be reduced or stopped”3.4±1.43.5±1.2t=.5178.61
 “If person is receiving VA benefits and starts working for pay, medical benefits will remain the same”3.1±1.42.8±1.3t=–1.0778.29
 “I would rather turn down a job offer than lose monthly financial benefits”3.3±1.03.6±1.0t=1.3878.17

aOperation Enduring Freedom/Operation Iraqi Freedom

bMann-Whitney U test

cAttitudes and beliefs were rated on a Likert scale from 1 to 4, with 1 indicating strongly disagree and 4 indicating strongly agree.

Table 1 Characteristics at baseline of veterans who received benefits counseling or a VA orientation after applying for service connection for a psychiatric condition

Enlarge table

At baseline, veterans strongly agreed that working would lead to loss of benefits, and most agreed that they would turn down a job if it entailed a loss of disability payments (Table 1). Despite the importance of retaining disability payments, veterans’ ratings of work’s importance were relatively high. Work was ranked the second most important activity, after family, among five choices (leisure, community, work, religion, and family) (2.9±1.0 on a 5-point scale). The mean±SD score for the sum of all scales on the Meaning of Work Scale was 33.8±7.1. Both the ranking of work’s importance and the mean score on the Meaning of Work Scale reflected that work was at least moderately important to most participants.

Work outcomes

Veterans assigned to the control group were engaged in work-related activities during 8.7 of the 28 days preceding the baseline assessment and during 10.5 days of the 28 days preceding the six-month follow-up. Among the veterans assigned to benefits counseling, days of work-related activity in the past 28 days increased from 8.3 at baseline to 12.7 at month 6 (Table 2). Although the standardized effect size of the group × time interaction was .89, the group × time effect was not statistically significant (Table 2).

Table 2 Mean days engaged in work-related activities at baseline and follow-up among veterans who received benefits counseling or VA orientation after applying for service connection for a psychiatric conditiona

BaselineMonth 1Month 3Month 6Group × timebEffect sizec
ActivityMSDMSDMSDMSDp95% CI
Any work activity.08.1.89–.11 to 1.89
 Benefits counseling8.38.18.69.111.68.912.78.4
 VA orientation8.79.49.810.011.69.510.59.4
Work for pay.09.01.69.15 to 1.2
 Benefits counseling6.68.87.09.39.39.310.59.6
 VA orientation9.010.18.410.010.310.37.89.6
Work for no pay–.04.43–.12–.45 to .19
 Benefits counseling.31.2.41.41.75.22.66.1
 VA orientation.1.2.63.3.52.11.44.7
Classes.16.21.27–.09 to .41
 Benefits counseling2.66.21.13.73.77.04.88.5
 VA orientation1.64.91.94.61.03.12.55.9
Vocational rehabilitation–.75<.01–1.09–1.62 to –.56
 Benefits counseling.1.3.74.5.42.1.63.0
 VA orientation.0.2.0.0.42.5.31.7

aAll outcomes reflect the number of days engaged in work-related activities in the past 28 days.

bPositive coefficients reflect greater value over time among veterans in benefits counseling relative to those in VA orientation.

cMean difference in group slope estimates divided by SD of individual unconditional slopes

Table 2 Mean days engaged in work-related activities at baseline and follow-up among veterans who received benefits counseling or VA orientation after applying for service connection for a psychiatric conditiona

Enlarge table

Veterans who received benefits counseling showed a large increase in days worked for pay in the past 28 days, from an average of 6.6 days at baseline to 10.5 days six months later (Table 2), compared with negligible changes in days worked for pay during the same period among veterans in the control group (Table 2). The effect of time on days worked for pay was significantly more positive for the benefits counseling group (group × time effect, p=.01). The effect size after accounting for covariates (.69) reflected an average of .5 more days of paid work for every month that veterans received benefits counseling versus the VA orientation intervention.

The greater number of days worked by veterans who received benefits counseling was largely accounted for by an increase in the proportion who worked rather than by a greater number of hours of work among those who worked at all. The percentage of veterans who were assigned to benefits counseling and who worked at all increased from 43% at baseline to 66% at month 6, whereas the percentage of veterans in the control group who worked did not change significantly from the baseline level (52%).

Veterans spent relatively few days in activities other than competitive work. Veterans assigned to benefits counseling spent more days in vocational rehabilitation over time compared with the control group, although the absolute number of days of vocational rehabilitation was small, equal to having attended less than one day of vocational rehabilitation in the past 28.

The difference in earnings between the two groups were in the expected direction (more among benefits counseling participants), but they were not statistically significant.

Sensitivity analysis of missing values and work outcomes

To characterize veterans who stopped coming to the data assessment visits, a proportional-hazards regression was conducted. Dropouts were significantly more likely to have been younger, unemployed at baseline, and assigned to benefits counseling. However, only two recipients of benefits counseling who did not complete follow-ups had been unemployed at baseline, compared with three of five VA orientation participants who dropped out.

The main outcome analysis was rerun with multiple imputation of missing values for days worked by using the data augmentation algorithm in NORM 2.03 software (35). The measures used to model missing values were days worked (at nonmissing timepoints), time (days) spent in other ways (volunteer work, classes, or vocational rehabilitation), and measures associated with missing values (benefits counseling group assignment and unemployment at baseline). After imputation, the effect of benefits counseling in increasing paid work over time remained significant (p<.01).

These analyses suggest that selective loss to follow-up did not account for the greater number of days of paid work among veterans assigned to benefits counseling.

Potential mediators: attitudes, work’s importance, and service use

Beliefs about work or benefits (Table 1) were stable, with minimal changes over time and no differences between the two treatment groups at baseline or over time.

Benefits counseling participants attended in-person mental health or substance abuse treatment an average of 25%±30% of the weeks after randomization, compared with 19%±27% weeks for the control group. In a longitudinal model, a significant phase × group interaction reflected that the proportion of veterans who attended treatment after randomization increased more among recipients of benefits counseling than among members of the control group (β=8.44, p<.01).

None of the three putative mediators of the effect of benefits counseling on working were supported by the mediation models.

Discussion

This study tested an intervention to facilitate employment among veterans who had applied for service-connected compensation. Veterans assigned to benefits counseling worked significantly more days for pay over time than those assigned to the control condition. This effect did not appear to reflect greater missing data among veterans assigned to benefits counseling. The effect was large, in that by month 6, recipients of benefits counseling were working an average of three more days for every 28 days compared with participants in the control group (Cohen’s d=.69).

The greater increase in treatment engagement among benefits counseling participants versus the control group is noteworthy, although it did not mediate the increased employment of the benefits counseling recipients. The relationship between evaluations for service-connected disability and mental health treatment attendance has been controversial, marked by conflicting claims about whether veterans tend to increase treatment attendance before mental health claims are evaluated and reduce attendance after the claims are processed (36,37) Our finding that treatment engagement can be fostered after the evaluation interview is consistent with an earlier observation that applications for disability are often accompanied by considerable psychological distress (20), which may lead to more treatment seeking and utilization.

Another implication of our findings is that at least before service connection has been awarded, veterans often feel able to start a job despite concerns that working might lead to a reduction in service-connected benefits. In this study, the potential impact of employment on service connection did not determine whether a veteran sought employment. Whether one looks for and finds a job is influenced by a host of biological, psychological, and social factors (38), and financial issues other than disability income affect decisions to work (39,40). It is also possible that concerns about losing benefits if one works are more strongly held by people who already have benefits than by veterans who are newly applying for them. For veterans who already have benefits, the prospect of a loss of benefits would be expected to arouse loss aversion, the cognitive tendency to avoid the risk of future losses more than is warranted by objective risk-reward considerations (41).

One limitation of this study was that, as is typical for employment studies in this population, work data were self-reported. It is possible that participants might have reported the socially desirable answer of working more because working is socially valued. However, when instruments are chosen appropriately, self-report measures of work-related constructs, such as days of absence from work, have generally had good agreement with administrative measures (42,43).

Conclusions

These findings buttress the case for public policies that provide support services to help veterans who have applied for service-connected compensation to stay in the workforce and obtain paid employment. The public policy benefits are potentially substantial, given that sustained disability income reduces labor force participation among veterans and their families (44). Benefits counseling might help veterans who have applied for disability because of a service connection to obtain other evidence-based services that help them successfully find and maintain employment, such as supported employment (45,46).

The literature has suggested that people who apply for Social Security (20) and veterans (47) disability have considerable ambivalence about imagining themselves as unable to work. Our findings suggest that attempts to steer applicants toward employment can be effective if begun early, around the time veterans first apply for service-connected disability.

Dr. Rosen, Ms. Ablondi, Dr. Black, Ms. Serowik, and Dr. Martino are with the Department of Psychiatry, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, and with the Department of Psychiatry, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Connecticut Healthcare System, West Haven (e-mail: ). Dr. Rosenheck is with the Department of Psychiatry, Yale University School of Medicine, and with the Mental Illness Research, Education and Clinical Center, VA New England Healthcare System, where Dr. Mueller is affiliated. Dr. Mueller is also with the Edith Nourse Rogers Memorial Veterans Hospital, Bedford, Massachusetts. Dr. Mobo is with the Christiana Care Health System, Newark, Delaware.

Acknowledgments and disclosures

The authors acknowledge the contributions of Rani Hoff, Ph.D., to the VA service use analyses in this study. This work was supported by VA Rehabilitation Research and Development grant D6432 to Dr. Rosen, National Institute of Mental Health grant R25 DA026636 to Dr. Martino, and the Veterans Integrated Service Network 1 Mental Illness Research, Education and Clinical Center.

The authors report no competing interests.

References

1 Annual Benefits Report Fiscal Year 2012. Washington, DC, US Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Benefits Administration, 2013. Available at www.benefits.va.gov/reports/abr/2012_abr.pdfGoogle Scholar

2 Murdoch M, Sayer NA, Spoont MR, et al.: Long-term outcomes of disability benefits in US veterans with posttraumatic stress disorder. Archives of General Psychiatry 68:1072–1080, 2011Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

3 Autor D, Duggan M, Lyle D: Battle scars? The puzzling decline in employment and rise in disability receipt among Vietnam era veterans. American Economic Review, 2011; doi 10.1257/aer.101.3.339Google Scholar

4 Ostovary F, Dapprich J: Challenges and opportunities of Operation Enduring Freedom/Operation Iraqi Freedom veterans with disabilities transitioning into learning and workplace environments. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 2011; doi 10.1002/ace.432Google Scholar

5 Bello M: Veterans face tough job market. USA Today, Nov 10, 2011. Available at usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/military/story/2011-11-10/veterans-face-tough-job-market/51159930/1Google Scholar

6 Sayer NA, Spoont M, Nelson D: Veterans seeking disability benefits for post-traumatic stress disorder: who applies and the self-reported meaning of disability compensation. Social Science and Medicine 58:2133–2143, 2004Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

7 Sayer NA, Spoont M, Nelson DB: Post-traumatic stress disorder claims from the viewpoint of veterans service officers. Military Medicine 170:867–870, 2005Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

8 Frisman LK, Rosenheck R: The relationship of public support payments to substance abuse among homeless veterans with mental illness. Psychiatric Services 48:792–795, 1997LinkGoogle Scholar

9 Rosen MI, McMahon TJ, Lin H, et al.: Effect of Social Security payments on substance abuse in a homeless mentally ill cohort. Health Services Research 41:173–191, 2006Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

10 Rosenheck R, Frisman L, Sindelar J: Disability compensation and work among veterans with psychiatric and nonpsychiatric impairments. Psychiatric Services 46:359–365, 1995LinkGoogle Scholar

11 Drew D, Drebing CE, Van Ormer A, et al.: Effects of disability compensation on participation in and outcomes of vocational rehabilitation. Psychiatric Services 52:1479–1484, 2001LinkGoogle Scholar

12 Burns T, Catty J, White S, et al.: The impact of supported employment and working on clinical and social functioning: results of an international study of individual placement and support. Schizophrenia Bulletin 35:949–958, 2009Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

13 Drake RE, Skinner JS, Bond GR, et al.: Social Security and mental illness: reducing disability with supported employment. Health Affairs 28:761–770, 2009Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

14 Tremblay T, Smith J, Xie HY, et al.: The impact of specialized benefits counseling services on Social Security Administration disability beneficiaries in Vermont. Journal of Rehabilitation 70:5–11, 2004Google Scholar

15 Bond GR, Xie H, Drake RE: Can SSDI and SSI beneficiaries with mental illness benefit from evidence-based supported employment? Psychiatric Services 58:1412–1420, 2007LinkGoogle Scholar

16 Plan to Achieve Self-Support (PASS). Baltimore, Social Security Administration. Accessed Nov 5, 2012. Available at www.socialsecurity.gov/disabilityresearch/wi/pass.htmGoogle Scholar

17 Golden TP, O'Mara S, Ferrell C, et al.: A theoretical construct for benefits planning and assistance in the Ticket to Work and Work Incentive Improvement Act. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation 14:147–152, 2000Google Scholar

18 Tremblay T, Smith J, Xie HY, et al.: Effect of benefits counseling services on employment outcomes for people with psychiatric disabilities. Psychiatric Services 57:816–821, 2006LinkGoogle Scholar

19 Drake RE, Frey W, Bond CR, et al.: Assisting Social Security Disability Insurance beneficiaries with schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, or major depression in returning to work. American Journal of Psychiatry 170:1433–1441, 2013Google Scholar

20 Estroff SE, Patrick DL, Zimmer CR, et al.: Pathways to disability income among persons with severe, persistent psychiatric disorders. Milbank Quarterly 75:495–532, 1997Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

21 Rosen MI: Compensation examinations for PTSD—an opportunity for treatment? Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development 47:xv–xxii, 2010Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

22 Adler DA, Possemato K, Mavandadi S, et al.: Psychiatric status and work performance of veterans of Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom. Psychiatric Services 62:39–46, 2011LinkGoogle Scholar

23 Ware JE, Jr, Sherbourne CD: The MOS 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): I. conceptual framework and item selection. Medical Care 30:473–483, 1992Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

24 Morrissey JP, Calloway MO, Thakur N, et al.: Integration of service systems for homeless persons with serious mental illness through the ACCESS program. Psychiatric Services 53:949–957, 2002LinkGoogle Scholar

25 McLellan AT, Luborsky L, Woody GE, et al.: An improved diagnostic evaluation instrument for substance abuse patients: the Addiction Severity Index. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease 168:26–33, 1980Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

26 Kubany ES, Haynes SN, Leisen MB, et al.: Development and preliminary validation of a brief broad-spectrum measure of trauma exposure: the Traumatic Life Events Questionnaire. Psychological Assessment 12:210–224, 2000Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

27 Blanchard EB, Jones-Alexander J, Buckley TC, et al.: Psychometric properties of the PTSD Checklist (PCL). Behaviour Research and Therapy 34:669–673, 1996Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

28 Derogatis LR: Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI): Administration, Scoring, and Procedures Manual, 2nd ed. Baltimore, Clinical Psychometric Research, 1992Google Scholar

29 Miller WR, Rollnick S: Motivational Interviewing: Preparing People for Change, 2nd ed. New York, Guilford, 2002Google Scholar

30 Foley K, Pallas D, Forcehimes AA, et al.: Effect of job skills training on employment and job seeking behaviors in an American Indian substance abuse treatment sample. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation 33:181–192, 2010MedlineGoogle Scholar

31 Morgenstern J, Neighbors CJ, Kuerbis A, et al.: Improving 24-month abstinence and employment outcomes for substance-dependent women receiving temporary assistance for needy families with intensive case management. American Journal of Public Health 99:328–333, 2009Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

32 Rosenheck RA, Mares AS: Implementation of supported employment for homeless veterans with psychiatric or addiction disorders: two-year outcomes. Psychiatric Services 58:325–333, 2007LinkGoogle Scholar

33 Mor-Barak ME: The meaning of work for older adults seeking employment: the generativity factor. International Journal of Aging and Human Development 41:325–344, 1995Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

34 Selig JP, Preacher KJ: Mediation models for longitudinal data in developmental research. Research in Human Development 6:144–164, 2009CrossrefGoogle Scholar

35 Software for Multiple Imputation, Version 2 (JL S NORM). University Park, Pa, Pennsylvania State University, 2000. Available at www.stat.psu.edu/~jls/misoftwa.htmlGoogle Scholar

36 Review of State Variances in VA Disability Compensation Benefits. Report 05-00765-137. Washington, DC, Department of Veterans Affairs Office of Inspector General, 2005. Available at www.va.gov/oig/52/reports/2005/VAOIG-05-00765-137.pdfGoogle Scholar

37 Sayer NA, Spoont M, Nelson DB, et al.: Changes in psychiatric status and service use associated with continued compensation seeking after claim determinations for posttraumatic stress disorder. Journal of Traumatic Stress 21:40–48, 2008Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

38 Kanfer R, Wanberg CR, Kantrowitz TM: Job search and employment: a personality-motivational analysis and meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology 86:837–855, 2001Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

39 Burkhauser RV, Stapleton D: A review of the evidence and its implications for policy change; in The Decline in Employment of People With Disabilities. Edited by Burkhauser RV, Stapleton DC. Kalamazoo, Mich, WE Upjohn Institute for Employment Research, 2003CrossrefGoogle Scholar

40 Drebing CE, Van Ormer EA, Krebs C, et al.: The impact of enhanced incentives on vocational rehabilitation outcomes for dually diagnosed veterans. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 38:359–372, 2005Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

41 Kahneman D: Thinking, Fast and Slow. New York, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2011Google Scholar

42 Johns G: How often were you absent? A review of the use of self-reported absence data. Journal of Applied Psychology 79:574–591, 1994CrossrefGoogle Scholar

43 Voss M, Stark S, Alfredsson L, et al.: Comparisons of self-reported and register data on sickness absence among public employees in Sweden. Occupational and Environmental Medicine 65:61–67, 2008Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

44 Duggan M, Rosenheck R, Singleton P: Federal policy and the rise in disability enrollment: evidence for the Veterans Affairs’ disability compensation program. Journal of Law and Economics 53:379–398, 2010Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

45 Bond GR, Drake RE, Becker DR: An update on randomized controlled trials of evidence-based supported employment. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal 31:280–290, 2008Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

46 Davis LL, Leon AC, Toscano R, et al.: A randomized controlled trial of supported employment among veterans with posttraumatic stress disorder. Psychiatric Services 63:464–470, 2012LinkGoogle Scholar

47 Sayer NA, Spoont M, Nelson DB, et al.: Development and psychometric properties of the Disability Application Appraisal Inventory. Psychological Assessment 16:192–196, 2004Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar