Attorneys hear “transferable skills analysis” (TSA) all the time in vocational matters—but the term can mean very different things depending on the methodology, the data used, and how the conclusions are framed.
A well-done TSA can be a powerful tool. It can clarify realistic work options, identify vocational pathways, and support opinions related to employability and earning capacity. A poorly supported TSA, on the other hand, can overstate what someone can do, rely on unrealistic assumptions, or blur the line between “possible on paper” and “probable in the real labor market.”
This guide breaks down what a TSA actually shows, how the analysis is typically built, what it does well, and where legal teams should apply extra scrutiny.
What is a Transferable Skills Analysis?
A Transferable Skills Analysis is a vocational method used to identify occupations a person may be able to perform based on skills and abilities they have already developed—often from prior work, education, training, or military experience.
At its core, a TSA asks:
- What skills does this person bring from their past?
- Which occupations use similar skill sets?
- Are those occupations realistic given the person’s limitations, credentials, and the labor market?
A TSA is commonly used in cases involving disputed employability, earning capacity, or work capacity—often alongside other vocational components such as labor market research, job access analysis, and (when appropriate) vocational testing.
Related: See our overview of vocational litigation support and services for additional context on how vocational opinions are developed and supported.
How a TSA is typically built
Different experts may approach TSAs differently, but most defensible analyses draw on the same building blocks.
Step 1: Establish a reliable vocational baseline
Before an expert can “transfer” skills, they must have an accurate picture of what the individual has actually done.
This typically includes:
- Work history (job titles, duties, timeframes, progression)
- Education and training
- Certifications and licenses
- Technical and interpersonal skills used on the job
- The complexity level of prior work (not just the title)
Caution: Job titles alone are not enough. A “manager” in one environment may have very different duties and skill demands than a “manager” in another.
Step 2: Identify vocationally relevant skills
The expert translates job history into measurable skill categories—often including:
- Tools/technology and systems knowledge
- Communication and customer-facing skills
- Administrative and organizational skills
- Supervisory and leadership skills
- Problem-solving and judgment demands
- Physical tolerances and task demands (where relevant)
This step is where detail matters. Overly broad skills like “communication” or “teamwork” can be used to justify almost any job unless they’re anchored to specific work tasks and performance history.
Step 3: Match skills to occupational options
The expert then identifies occupations that appear to align with the person’s skill set, often using recognized vocational resources and job classification systems.
This is where methodology can diverge:
- Some TSAs are very narrow and conservative.
- Others produce a wide list of theoretically possible occupations.
Both can be legitimate—if the assumptions are transparent and the analysis is defensible.
Step 4: Apply real-world screens
This is the step that separates “paper matches” from realistic vocational conclusions.
Real-world screens typically include:
- Transferability barriers (credentials, licensure, new training requirements)
- Wage and earning considerations
- Physical/cognitive limitations and medical restrictions
- Labor market availability and job access
- Time needed to transition (retraining, onboarding, competitiveness)
In many cases, a TSA should be paired with labor market research to confirm whether the identified jobs actually exist in meaningful numbers and are realistically attainable.
If you’re building a damages theory, TSAs are often one part of a broader vocational foundation. (KWVRS frequently combines TSA with labor market research and employability analysis to support opinions in litigation matters—see our services and process.)
What a TSA does well
When done properly, TSAs are extremely useful. Here’s what they do best.
They clarify vocational direction
A TSA can help articulate a clear answer to a common question:
“What kinds of work could this person realistically move into based on their background?”
This can be especially helpful when work history is specialized, and the pathway to other employment isn’t obvious.
They help identify the “skill anchors” in a person’s work history
A strong TSA shows why certain roles are plausible based on specific transferable skills—not vague traits.
This can make the vocational opinion easier to explain in reports, depositions, and trial testimony.
They support (or challenge) claims of unemployability
A TSA may show:
- There are realistic alternatives the person could pursue, or
- The person’s background does not transfer in a meaningful way given the constraints
Either finding can be case-critical—depending on the litigation posture.
They provide structure for further vocational analysis
A TSA can serve as the foundation for next-step work such as:
- Wage analysis and earning capacity opinions
- Labor market surveys
- Job access analysis
- Employability opinions under specific restrictions
Where attorneys should be cautious
A TSA is not a magic wand. Here are the most common pressure points that can undermine it.
“Transferable” doesn’t mean “attainable”
A TSA may identify jobs that use similar skills, but that does not automatically mean the individual can secure them.
Attorneys should look for:
- Credential barriers (degrees, certifications, licensure)
- “Experience required” screens that exclude career switchers
- Unrealistic assumptions about hiring or accommodations
- Lack of labor market validation
If the TSA lists jobs requiring new credentials, the report should clearly describe the time and feasibility of obtaining them—not simply list them as options.
Overbroad or inflated skills can drive unrealistic matches
A TSA can look impressive on paper while being built on soft assumptions.
Examples to scrutinize:
- Prior job duties described at a much higher complexity level than supported
- Inflated supervisory scope (e.g., “managed a department” vs. “oversaw scheduling”)
- Generic skill labeling (“customer service”) used to justify a wide range of occupations
A defensible TSA is specific: what tasks were performed, how often, at what level, and with what responsibility.
Wage assumptions can quietly distort damages issues
A TSA might identify jobs that exist—but at significantly lower wages than implied. Or it may rely on wage estimates that don’t match the region, the individual’s competitiveness, or entry-level reality.
If earning capacity is central, confirm whether the wage data:
- Reflects the correct geography
- Reflects realistic entry points
- Accounts for part-time vs full-time feasibility (if relevant)
It can ignore the “job access” question
Sometimes the missing piece isn’t skills. It’s whether the person can access jobs given:
- Transportation limits
- Gaps in work history
- Language barriers
- Functional restrictions that matter in real hiring contexts
If the TSA doesn’t address job access at all, be careful about how much weight you give its conclusions.
It may not reflect the claimant’s actual restrictions
A TSA can become unreliable if it doesn’t reconcile occupational demands with the restrictions that govern the case.
Attorneys should confirm:
- What restrictions were assumed (and the source)
- Whether they’re temporary vs permanent
- Whether cognitive, behavioral, or stamina limits were included—not just lifting limits
If restrictions are disputed, it’s often helpful to frame TSAs under alternative restriction sets (e.g., “Scenario A” vs “Scenario B”), rather than present a single, overly confident conclusion.
How to evaluate the strength of a TSA in a legal matter
If you’re reviewing a TSA, here’s a practical checklist.
Questions to ask about the inputs
- Is the work history detailed, accurate, and supported?
- Are skills tied to specific tasks and responsibilities?
- Are education and credentials correctly reflected?
Questions to ask about the occupational matches
- Are the identified occupations plausible without significant retraining?
- Are the assumptions clearly stated and defensible?
- Is there validation beyond “this job exists in a database”?
Questions to ask about the real-world layer
- Did the expert address labor market availability in New Jersey (or the relevant region)?
- Did they address wage realism and entry-level competitiveness?
- Did they address job access barriers?
If you need a TSA that is defensible, transparent, and supported by labor market context, it’s usually best handled as part of a broader vocational methodology rather than as a standalone list of job titles.
Learn more about KWVRS’s vocational evaluation and litigation support approach.
When a TSA is most persuasive
In litigation, TSAs tend to hold up best when they:
- Are grounded in a fully developed vocational history
- Make conservative, clearly explained occupational matches
- Are paired with labor market research (especially for NJ-specific matters)
- Address restrictions explicitly and consistently
- Communicate limitations and uncertainty honestly
In other words: the best TSAs don’t oversell. They explain.
