Skip to main content
. 2018 Jul 13;61(7):1649–1663. doi: 10.1044/2018_JSLHR-S-17-0353

Table 3.

Propensity score matching estimates of the effect of stuttering on labor market outcomes.

Outcome variables Male
Female
Unmatched PSM Unmatched PSM
Panel 1: log hourly earnings
 PWS −10,931* (5,168) −10,766** (3,528) −12,043* (4,836) −18,712** (4,088)
n 2,649 268 1,946 81
n (PWS) 67 67 27 27
Panel 2: employed
 PWS −0.100** (0.035) −0.073 (0.047) −0.114 (0.056) −0.094 (0.073)
n 3,562 400 4,198 228
n (PWS) 100 100 57 57
Panel 3: in the labor force
 PWS −0.082** (0.023) −0.047 (0.035) −0.080 (0.049) −0.076 (0.065)
n 3,562 400 4,197 228
n (PWS) 100 100 57 57
Panel 4: underemployed
 PWS 0.050 (0.047) 0.073 (0.056) 0.126* (0.065) 0.232** (0.074)
n 4,202 440 4,916 236
n (PWS) 110 110 59 59
Panel 5: public assistance receipt
 PWS 0.083* (0.034) 0.071 (0.045) 0.223** (0.054) 0.099 (0.073)
n 4,315 468 5,023 256
n (PWS) 117 117 64 64

Note. Each panel-by-column is a separate analysis. Standard errors (shown in parentheses) are clustered by school of residence in Wave 1. All estimates are based on weighted regression using the Add Health weights. PSM = propensity score matching; PWS = person who stutters.

*

p < .05.

**

p < .01.