Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2016 Jan 13.
Published in final edited form as: Ind Labor Relat Rev. 2015 Jun 1;68(4):916–954. doi: 10.1177/0019793915586974

Table A1.

Instrumental Variable Estimates, Employment and Weekly Hours Worked at Nine-Month Interview as Function of Accommodations at Two-Month Interview, Women Employed at Two-Month Interview

(1)
 (2)
 (3)
Employment Hours, unconditional Hours, conditional
Any accommodation 0.266
(0.632)		 −7.356
(31.325)		 −24.340
(33.599)
Weak identification test:a F-statistic p-value 0.69
0.561		 0.69
0.561		 1.61
0.186
Underidentification testb 0.528 0.528 0.142
Weak-instrument robust inferencec 0.549 0.976 0.051

Notes: The first stage estimates the likelihood of receiving any accommodation, and the second stage estimates labor supply (employment and unconditional and conditional hours worked). The instruments are firm-size category dummy variables (< 25, 25 to 49, 50 to 99, 100 or more). Robust standard error estimates appear in parentheses.

a

Weak identification test using the Kleibergen-Paap Wald F-statistic to test if the equation is weakly identified.

b

Kleibergen-Paap LM statistic to test underidentification based on whether the matrix of reduced-form coefficients has a rank of Kt - 1 (underidentified), where Ki is the number of endogenous regressors and is equal to 1 in this model.

c

Anderson-Rubin Wald statistic to test whether joint significance of endogenous regressors and orthogonality conditions are valid.

*

Indicates p < .1;

**

p<.05,

***

p<.01.