TABLE 3.
Estimation of propensity score: probit regression of the likelihood of children belonging to the intervention group in the 2003–2005 follow-up of the Hyderabad Nutrition Trial1
| School enrollment | Schooling grade completed | Academic performance | |
| Age | 0.020 (−0.064, 0.104) | 0.022 (−0.064, 0.107) | 0.065 (−0.024, 0.162) |
| Birth order | −0.038 (−0.086, 0.011) | −0.039 (−0.089, 0.011) | −0.045 (−0.102, 0.009) |
| Male child | −0.005 (−0.162, 0.151) | 0.048 (−0.111, 0.207) | −0.157 (−0.342, 0.021) |
| Scheduled caste/scheduled tribe | 0.088 (−0.195, 0.371) | 0.043 (−0.248, 0.333) | 0.180 (−0.122, 0.495) |
| Other backward caste | −0.203 (−0.47, 0.064) | −0.264 (−0.538, 0.010) | −0.207 (−0.492, 0.081) |
| Non-Hindu household | −0.341 (−0.755, 0.073) | −0.390 (−0.807, 0.028) | −0.576 (−1.074, −0.075) |
| Wealth quintile 2 | 0.168 (−0.079, 0.416) | 0.196 (−0.059, 0.451) | 0.117 (−0.163, 0.39) |
| Wealth quintile 3 | 0.160 (−0.061, 0.381) | 0.134 (−0.093, 0.361) | 0.076 (−0.174, 0.326) |
| Wealth quintile 4 | 0.175 (−0.066, 0.417) | 0.164 (−0.082, 0.409) | 0.086 (−0.172, 0.373) |
| Wealth quintile 5 | 0.458 (0.196, 0.721) | 0.451 (0.184, 0.718) | 0.429 (0.14, 0.724) |
| Father literate | 0.002 (−0.218, 0.223) | −0.034 (−0.256, 0.188) | −0.059 (−0.297, 0.173) |
| Father’s education: primary | −0.261 (−0.507, −0.015) | −0.285 (−0.532, −0.038) | −0.314 (−0.592, −0.046) |
| Father’s education: secondary and above | −0.259 (−0.538, 0.02) | −0.284 (−0.566, −0.003) | −0.345 (−0.647, −0.051) |
| Mother literate | 0.067 (−0.333, 0.468) | 0.039 (−0.362, 0.44) | 0.085 (−0.329, 0.495) |
| Mother’s education: primary and above2 | −0.238 (−0.596, 0.121) | −0.255 (−0.615, 0.104) | −0.293 (−0.676, 0.089) |
| Constant | −0.025 (−1.338, 1.287) | 0.022 (−1.312, 1.356) | −0.434 (−1.922, 0.957) |
| P value for χ2 | 0.003 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Sample size, n | 1096 | 1059 | 904 |
1
Values are estimated regression coefficients with 95% CIs in parentheses, unless stated otherwise. The number of observations differs across regression models because of some missing values of the outcome variables.
2
Because very few mothers have a secondary or higher level of education, we combined them with the category “primary and above.”