Table A21: Multivariate analyses of positive and negative work–family spillover according to employment and sociodemographic characteristics, Waves 2 to 4 showing disability indicators only 1 2 3 1 2 3 0.02 0.02 0.02 –0.04 –0.03 –0.04 0.14** 0.13** 0.13** –0.11** –0.09* –0.09* 0.16** 0.15** 0.16** –0.05 –0.05 –0.05 13,262 12,355 12,371 13,260 12,347 12,361 6,608 6,450 6,454 6,611 6,451 6,455 Note: All models include sociodemographic controls. Model 1 also has key employment characteristics. Model 2 adds in job conditions but excludes Wave 1, as working time intensity was not captured at this wave. Model 3 is the same as 2 but excludes working time intensity so includes Wave 1. Random effects regression models were estimated. Excludes mothers who were not employed or employed but away from work and mothers who did not respond to the relevant questions. * p<0.05; ** p<0.01; *** p<0.001. Source: LSAC Waves 2–4, B and K cohorts.
Table A21: Multivariate analyses of positive and negative work–family spillover according to employment and sociodemographic characteristics, Waves 2 to 4 showing disability indicators only 1 2 3 1 2 3 0.02 0.02 0.02 –0.04 –0.03 –0.04 –0.11** –0.09* –0.09* 0.14** 0.13** 0.13** –0.05 –0.05 –0.05 0.16** 0.15** 0.16** 13,262 12,355 12,371 13,260 12,347 12,361 6,608 6,450 6,454 6,611 6,451 6,455 Note: All models include sociodemographic controls. Model 1 also has key employment characteristics. Model 2 adds in job conditions but excludes Wave 1, as working time intensity was not captured at this wave. Model 3 is the same as 2 but excludes working time intensity so includes Wave 1. Random effects regression models were estimated. Excludes mothers who were not employed or employed but away from work and mothers who did not respond to the relevant questions. * p<0.05; ** p<0.01; *** p<0.001. Source: LSAC Waves 2–4, B and K cohorts.
accessible_word_mums_in_lsac.docx