There is no standardized method for rating "percentage partial disability" for persons with respiratory impairment of a degree less than totally disabling. Twelve alternative schemes for using results of clinical physiologic testing for "rating" partial respiratory disability are compared by examining their effects on "ratings" of 650 actual asbestos lung disease compensation claimants. The schemes differ by basis (function remaining or function lost), presence of a quantitative "threshold," and "standard" for comparison; some estimate future disability rather than current. Large differences in performance between schemes were noted. The average ratings ranged from 17 to 57 "% Disability." The relative effects on subjects with high versus low degree of physiologic impairment differed between rating schemes. The ratings were different for subjects with different patterns of physiologic abnormality.
