Grandmothers at Work: Juggling Families and Jobs

Appendix: Grandmas at Work Survey

>> 239 Appendix Grandmas at Work Survey To assess how working grandmothers balance work and care for grandchildren , including the types and intensities of care provided, and the impact of that care on financial, emotional, social, and physical wellbeing , I conducted in-depth interviews with 48 working grandmothers who care for their grandchildren. The women’s aliases and sociodemographic information are listed in table A.1. Sample Recruitment. To be eligible for the sample, grandmothers had to be working for pay and caring for their grandchildren but both measures were allowed to vary. Because there was no way to draw a random sample, this is a nonrandom convenience sample. I used snowball sampling beginning in several locations. I asked people I knew to recommend a grandmother who met my criteria. Then I used a snowball method of asking each respondent to name at least two other respondents that did not know each other. My response rate was 100 percent; everyone I actually managed to ask to do an interview agreed to do one. Some phones and email messages were never answered, so those grandmothers were never asked to participate. Sample Characteristics. I emphasized variation in race, age, marital status, class, and geographic location. Ages ranged from 42 to 73, and the mean age was 57.4. The number of children ranged from 1 to 7, and the mean number of children was 2.9. The number of grandchildren ranged from 1 to 14 and the mean was 3.8. The grandmother’s race, marital status, education, and region of the country, work hours, and parent care hours are displayed in table A.2. The sample is predominantly white and married, moderately educated, living in the northeast, and working full-time. 240 > 241 Alias Age Race Marital status Children Grandchildren Deanne 57 white married 2 6 Patty 63 white married 2 4 Betty 59 black not married 4 14 Marta 54 white married 3 2 Calista 54 black not married 3 4 Candi 43 black not married 3 3 Molly 50 black not married 3 5 Annie 48 black not married 5 5 Connie 50 white married 4 3 Toni 48 white married 4 4 Pauline 61 white married 4 8 Dana 48 white not married 3 4 Lee 60 white married 2 2 Lynn 59 white married 4 3 Carol 48 black married 2 1 Meryl 54 white married 3 1 Vanna 53 white married 3 2 Madeline 53 white married 3 1 Cherry 67 white married 2 4 Belle 51 white not married 2 2 Estelle 63 white not married 3 6 Ally 56 white married 5 9 Cally 65 white not married 6 1 Sarah 67 white married 2 4 Tara 42 Nat Amer married 7 8 Amelia 51 white married 4 3 Corey 57 white not married 3 4 Lucinda 52 white married 2 1 Maryann 58 white married 2 3 Blake 68 white married 1 2 Jamica 49 black not married 4 3 Bennie 53 white married 3 3 Table A.1. Alias, age, race, marital status, and numbers of children and grandchildren for each of 48 women interviewed in the Grandmas at Work Survey 242 > 243 were not yet 51. Thus, we are failing to capture those who are most likely to be employed and the youngest grandparents who, one might argue, might be providing the most intensive support. Second, the HRS asks respondents to estimate the number of hours they have cared for their grandchildren in the preceding two years. As table A.3 shows, we have used those responses by dividing them into groups by those who provide no care, those who provide fewer than 100 hours, and those who provide more than 100 hours. In the first few qualitative interviews I asked the respondents to estimate the number of hours of grandchild Race White 77 Black 21 Native American 2 Marital Status Married 67 Not married 33 Education Completed high school 19 Some college 38 BA 29 MA 8 PhD 6 Region Northeast 79 Midwest 11 West coast 8 Southeast 2 Employment hours/week 40+ 81 20–39 15 1–19 4 Table A.2. Percentage of working grandmothers in each category, Grandmas at Work Survey, 2009–2012. Source: Grandmas at Work Survey, Madonna Harrington Meyer, Syracuse University. 244 << Appendix care and they simply were not able to do it. Every week was different, every year was different, and the numbers tended to be enormous. It is difficult to decide, as well: Should they count the hours the grandchildren are asleep? And should we count the hours their parents are there but not actually caring for them? It is a difficult number to determine. In the HRS, many (13 percent) said they could not calculate the figure. We handled these responses two ways: by assigning them the median of 200 hours in two years, and by assigning them the value of 100 hours. The results were the same, regardless of which way we handled those who did not know the hours of grandchild care. HRS 2010 Data Set For these analyses we used the HRS 2010 wave core file and the RAND income and wealth imputation file, as well as the 2010 RAND fat file for weighting. We began with 15,372 respondents. Once we removed those in a nursing home or institution, and those below 51 or above 70, and those who were custodial grandparents, 7,327 remained. Then, because the book focuses on grandmothers, we reran all analyses for only the women, N = 1,158. Unweighted Weighted Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage No grandchildren 1,773 24 1,808 27 Didn't care for grandchildren 3,286 45 2,638 41 Don't know 988 13 825 13 Fewer than 100 hours 326 4 304 5 100 hours or more 954 13 911 14 Total 7,327 100 6,486 100 Table A.3. HRS 2010 subset: Percentage for each number of hours cared for grandchildren in the preceding two years; sample narrowed to men and women, ages 51–70, noninstitutional and noncustodial. Note: N = 7,327. Numberofhoursrespondentspentcaringforgrandchildrenintheprecedingtwoyears Total No (0) Yes 1–99 or Don’t know* 100+ Age Total 54 46 20 26 100 100 100 100 100 100 55–59 50 50 21 29 100 33 38 37 39 36 60–62 54 46 21 25 100 29 29 30 28 29 63–64 52 49 19 30 100 13 14 12 15 13 65–68 61 39 18 21 100 19 14 15 14 17 69–70 59 41 21 20 100 6 5 6 4 6 Association(ordinal) Chi2 = 12 ASE = 0.165 Race/ethnicity Total 54 46 20 26 100 100 100 100 100 100 White 53 47 20 27 100 78 80 79 81 79 Black 54 46 22 24 100 12 12 13 11 12 Hispanic 60 40 18 22 100 8 6 6 6 7 Other 57 43 18 25 100 2 2 2 2 2 Association(nominal) Chi2 = 3 ASE = 0.848 Education Total 54 46 20 26 100 100 100 100 100 100 Less than high school 64 36 20 16 100 12 8 11 6 10 Table A.4. Percentage of working grandmothers in each category, weighted, noninstitutional and noncustodial. Table A.4. (Continued) Numberofhoursrespondentspentcaringforgrandchildrenintheprecedingtwoyears Total No (0) Yes 1–99 or Don’t know* 100+ Education High school 51 49 25 24 100 33 36 42 32 34 Some college 51 49 20 29 100 29 33 31 35 31 B.A. 58 42 14 28 100 14 12 9 14 13 Postgraduate 55 45 15 30 100 12 11 8 13 11 Association(ordinal) Chi2 = 25 ASE = 0.002** Total income in the past year Total 54 46 20 26 100 100 100 100 100 100 0 56 44 17 27 100 18 16 14 17 17 1–30,000 55 45 20 25 100 46 44 45 44 45 30,001–60,000 51 49 22 27 100 24 26 27 26 25 60,001+ 52 48 22 26 100 13 13 14 13 13 Association(ordinal) Chi2 = 4 ASE = 0.739 Health insurance through current employer or own business Total 54 46 20 26 100 100 100 100 100 100 Yes 52 48 21 27 100 44 46 46 46 45 No 55 45 20 25 100 56 54 54 54 55 Association(nominal) Chi2 = 1 ASE = 0.603 Marital status Total 54 46 20 26 100 100 100 100 100 100 Currently married 53 47 23 24 100 63 65 73 59 64 Widowed 55 45 20 25 100 12 11 11 11 11 Currently not 55 45 13 32 100 married 25 23 15 30 24 Association(nominal) Chi2 = 19 ASE = 0.001** Number of grandchildren Total 54 46 20 26 100 100 100 100 100 100 1–2 54 47 16 31 100 28 28 21 33 28 3–5 51 49 24 25 100 36 40 45 36 38 6–10 56 43 19 24 100 26 23 24 23 25 11+ 55 46 22 24 100 9 9 10 8 9 Association(ordinal) Chi2 = 13 ASE = 0.041* Self-rated health status (n = 8,461) Total 54 46 20 26 100 100 100 100 100 100 Excellent 54 46 14 32 100 16 15 11 19 15 Very good 54 46 21 25 100 41 41 42 40 41 Good 54 46 21 25 100 30 30 32 29 30 Fair 51 49 25 24 100 11 12 14 11 12 Numberofhoursrespondentspentcaringforgrandchildrenintheprecedingtwoyears Total No (0) Yes 1–99 or Don’t know* 100+ Self-rated health status (n = 8,461) Poor 60 40 12 28 100 2 2 1 2 2 Association(ordinal) Chi2 = 11 ASE = 0.220 Living within 10 miles of a child Total 54 46 20 26 100 100 100 100 100 100 Yes 46 54 26 28 100 47 62 68 58 54 No 62 38 14 24 100 53 38 32 42 46 Association(nominal) Chi2 = 41 ASE = 0.000*** Hours working per week Total 54 46 20 26 100 100 100 100 100 100 1–19 48 52 22 30 100 14 18 17 18 15 20–34 57 43 19 24 100 25 22 22 22 24 35+ 54 47 21 26 100 61 61 61 61 61 Association(ordinal) Chi2 = 4 ASE = 0.363 Mental health problem Total 54 46 20 26 100 100 100 100 100 100 Yes 57 43 19 24 100 19 16 16 16 17 No 53 48 21 27 100 81 84 84 84 83 Association(nominal) Chi2 = 2 ASE = 0.403 Table A.4. (Continued) Care for parents Total 54 46 20 26 100 100 100 100 100 100 Yes 47 53 22 31 100 5 7 7 7 6 No 54 46 20 26 100 95 93 93 93 94 Association(nominal) Chi2 = 2 ASE = 0.446 Hours cared for parents Total 54 46 20 26 100 100 100 100 100 100 0 54 46 20 26 100 95 93 93 93 94 1–99 or DN 61 39 28 11 100 3 2 3 1 2 100+ 38 62 19 43 100 3 5 3 6 4 Association(ordinal) Chi2 = 12 ASE = 0.015* Hours spouse cared for parents Total 54 46 20 26 100 100 100 100 100 100 0 54 46 20 26 100 90 88 87 89 89 1–99 or Don’t know 51 49 24 25 100 7 7 8 7 7 100+ 49 50 25 25 100 4 4 5 4 4 Association(ordinal) Chi2 = 2 ASE = 0.719 Multigenerational Total 54 46 20 26 100 100 100 100 100 100 Yes 26 74 26 48 100 7 23 18 27 15 No 58 41 19 22 100 93 77 82 73 86 Numberofhoursrespondentspentcaringforgrandchildrenintheprecedingtwoyears Total No (0) Yes 1–99 or Don’t know* 100+ Multigenerational Association(nominal) Chi2 = 80 ASE = 0.000*** Smoking Total 54 46 20 26 100 100 100 100 100 100 Yes 59 40 18 22 100 16 13 13 13 14 No 53 47 21 26 100 84 87 87 87 86 Association(nominal) Chi2 = 3 ASE = 0.203 Drinking problem Total 54 46 20 26 100 100 100 100 100 100 Yes 56 44 19 25 100 17 15 16 15 16 No 53 47 21 26 100 83 85 84 85 84 Association(nominal) Chi2 = 0.6 ASE = 0.755 Physical exercise Total 54 46 20 26 100 100 100 100 100 100 Yes 54 46 15 31 100 24 24 18 28 24 No 53 47 22 25 100 76 76 82 72 76 Association(nominal) Chi2 = 9 ASE = 0.010* Obese Total 54 46 20 26 100 100 100 100 100 100 Table A.4. (Continued) Yes 52 48 21 27 100 40 42 42 42 41 No 55 45 20 25 100 60 58 58 58 59 Association(nominal) Chi2 = 1 ASE = 0.630 Depression Total 54 46 20 26 100 100 100 100 100 100 Yes 53 47 21 26 100 50 51 51 51 51 No 54 46 20 26 100 50 49 49 49 49 Association(nominal) Chi2 = 0.1 ASE = 0.932 Chronic illness Total 54 46 20 26 100 100 100 100 100 100 Yes 53 48 21 27 100 58 61 60 61 59 No 55 45 20 25 100 42 39 40 39 41 Association(nominal) Chi2 = 0.6 ASE = 0.724 Functional limitations Total 54 46 20 26 100 100 100 100 100 100 Yes 52 48 23 25 100 55 59 65 54 57 No 55 45 17 28 100 45 41 35 46 43 Association(nominal) Chi2 = 9 ASE = 0.008** *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001. * “Don't know” indicates that a respondent cared for his or her grandchildren but did not know the number of hours spent on caring during the preceding two years. We combined this category with “caring for grandchildren for 0–99 hours”; therefore, we would not overestimate the number of hours. Note: N = 1,158 if not specified. Source: HRS 2010. Table A.5. Number of hours cared for grandchildren in the preceding two years, working grandmothers, noninstitutional and noncustodial, linear regression models. Weighted Unweighted Variables Imputation Option 1 Imputation Option 2 Imputation Option 1 Imputation Option 2 Black -61.37 -64.70 -72.67* -77.51** (42.66) (42.85) (38.89) (39.01) Hispanic 45.96 42.88 38.45 34.56 (88.73) (89.11) (50.24) (50.39) Other -163.1*** -169.6*** -153.7 -154.8 (50.47) (47.66) (110.1) (110.4) Education 14.17* 14.25* 14.29** 14.37** (7.237) (7.264) (6.000) (6.018) Married -22.56 -25.51 -27.10 -30.81 (46.47) (46.61) (34.88) (34.98) Widowed -80.90* -92.11** -45.86 -50.83 (43.73) (43.85) (47.24) (47.38) # of grandkids -2.607 -2.407 0.290 0.381 (6.564) (6.602) (4.970) (4.985) Work hours -1.640 -1.667 0.757 0.745 (1.724) (1.733) (1.047) (1.050) Proximity 74.32** 67.08* 57.86** 51.24* (36.72) (36.85) (28.24) (28.32) Mental -32.29 -33.35 -18.52 -19.24 (45.78) (46.16) (38.05) (38.16) Excellent 114.8 106.4 79.68 72.51 (104.7) (104.8) (116.6) (117.0) Very good 61.76 52.55 80.75 72.54 (99.37) (99.46) (110.8) (111.1) Good 41.28 34.28 57.65 52.67 (81.81) (81.72) (106.9) (107.2) Fair 78.80 66.19 87.33 77.89 (89.71) (90.00) (106.7) (107.0) Smoking 53.56 56.63 54.57 55.24 (71.60) (71.81) (38.54) (38.66) Multigenerational 152.2*** 119.3** 148.1*** 117.6*** (56.35) (56.81) (40.47) (40.59) Drinking -103.8*** -108.7*** -35.36 -37.46 (38.63) (38.69) (42.04) (42.17) Exercise 33.81 38.16 36.22 38.92 (47.84) (48.02) (33.31) (33.41) BMI -1.331 -1.520 0.610 0.533 (3.198) (3.217) (2.551) (2.558) Depression -8.885 -8.147 -10.63 -10.29 (10.79) (10.84) (8.541) (8.566) Chronic 18.68 18.75 15.62 15.50 (19.94) (20.09) (15.98) (16.03) ADL limitations 4.386 4.407 6.867 6.988 (11.85) (11.88) (7.898) (7.922) Constant 6.967 11.99 -173.2 -171.4 (178.2) (179.3) (163.5) (164.0) Observations 1,067 1,067 1,305 1,305 R-squared 0.030 0.028 0.027 0.023 Robust standard errors in parenthesis. *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1 Source: HRS 2010. Imputation Option 1: Missing values in dependent variable replaced by the median (200). Imputation Option 2: Missing values in dependent variable replaced by 100. Table A.6. Number of working hours per week among working grandmothers , noninstitutional and noncustodial, linear regression models. Weighted Unweighted Variables Imputation Option 1 Imputation Option 2 Imputation Option 1 Imputation Option 2 Black 2.709** 2.705** 0.351 0.353 (1.122) (1.123) (1.038) (1.039) Hispanic -2.137 -2.139 -1.665 -1.663 (1.717) (1.716) (1.339) (1.339) Other 4.896 4.888 3.051 3.049 (3.957) (3.953) (2.937) (2.937) Education 0.211 0.211 0.202 0.202 (0.204) (0.205) (0.160) (0.160) Weighted Unweighted Variables Imputation Option 1 Imputation Option 2 Imputation Option 1 Imputation Option 2 Married -2.134** -2.137** -1.302 -1.300 (1.057) (1.057) (0.930) (0.930) Widowed -1.757 -1.769 -2.059 -2.056 (1.483) (1.484) (1.259) (1.259) # of grandkids -0.239 -0.239 -0.198 -0.198 (0.177) (0.177) (0.132) (0.132) Proximity -0.461 -0.468 -0.161 -0.157 (0.908) (0.909) (0.754) (0.754) Mental -1.514 -1.515 -1.241 -1.241 (1.280) (1.281) (1.014) (1.014) Excellent 4.389 4.381 2.769 2.774 (4.373) (4.376) (3.110) (3.110) Very good 0.832 0.823 0.495 0.501 (4.160) (4.164) (2.955) (2.955) Good 1.843 1.836 1.271 1.274 (4.088) (4.092) (2.850) (2.850) Fair 1.978 1.966 1.249 1.255 (3.996) (3.999) (2.846) (2.846) Smoking 1.099 1.102 1.648 1.649 (1.234) (1.234) (1.027) (1.027) Multigenerational -0.0876 -0.120 1.077 1.095 (1.357) (1.355) (1.084) (1.082) Drinking -2.070 -2.076 -2.129* -2.129* (1.544) (1.544) (1.120) (1.120) Exercise -3.668*** -3.663*** -2.924*** -2.925*** (1.218) (1.219) (0.885) (0.885) BMI -0.0442 -0.0444 0.0585 0.0585 (0.0937) (0.0937) (0.0680) (0.0680) Depression -0.151 -0.150 -0.173 -0.173 (0.278) (0.278) (0.228) (0.228) Chronic -0.541 -0.540 -0.328 -0.328 (0.533) (0.533) (0.426) (0.426) Table A.6. (Continued) ADL limitations -0.215 -0.215 -0.322 -0.322 (0.276) (0.276) (0.210) (0.210) Care hour 1 -0.00100 0.000538 (0.00102) (0.000745) Care hour 2 -0.00101 0.000527 (0.00102) (0.000742) Constant- 35.23*** 35.24*** 31.33*** 31.33*** (5.452) (5.454) (4.274) (4.274) Observations 1,067 1,067 1,305 1,305 R-squared 0.054 0.054 0.034 0.034 Robust standard errors in parentheses. *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1. Source: HRS 2010. Imputation Option 1: Missing values in dependent variable replaced by the median (200). Imputation Option 2: Missing values in dependent variable replaced by 100. 1 All respondents living in a nursing home are removed from the table, unweighted N = 137. 2 All custodial grandparents are removed from the table, unweighted N = 289. Table A.7. Mental health (dummy variable) of working grandmothers, noninstitutional and noncustodial, logit regression models. Weighted Unweighted Variables Imputation Option 1 Imputation Option 2 Imputation Option 1 Imputation Option 2 Black -1.482*** -1.482*** -1.402*** -1.402*** (0.370) (0.370) (0.272) (0.272) Hispanic -0.454 -0.454 -0.197 -0.197 (0.354) (0.354) (0.271) (0.271) Other -0.0744 -0.0751 -0.465 -0.465 (0.899) (0.900) (0.654) (0.654) Education 0.0416 0.0416 0.0421 0.0421 (0.0468) (0.0468) (0.0328) (0.0328) Married -0.402 -0.403 -0.559*** -0.559*** (0.249) (0.249) (0.185) (0.185) Widowed -0.253 -0.254 -0.411 -0.411 (0.327) (0.327) (0.254) (0.254) # of grandkids -0.00473 -0.00467 0.0471* 0.0472* (0.0372) (0.0372) (0.0278) (0.0278) Weighted Unweighted Variables Imputation Option 1 Imputation Option 2 Imputation Option 1 Imputation Option 2 Proximity 0.0718 0.0711 -0.0418 -0.0422 (0.209) (0.209) (0.161) (0.161) Work hours -0.0104 -0.0104 -0.00805 -0.00805 (0.00781) (0.00782) (0.00583) (0.00583) Smoking 0.616** 0.617** 0.469** 0.469** (0.270) (0.270) (0.196) (0.196) Multigenerational 0.317 0.311 0.115 0.112 (0.284) (0.285) (0.219) (0.218) Drinking 0.136 0.136 0.162 0.162 (0.298) (0.298) (0.230) (0.230) Exercise -0.433* -0.432* -0.269 -0.269 (0.258) (0.258) (0.201) (0.201) BMI 0.00339 0.00336 -0.00199 -0.00200 (0.0172) (0.0172) (0.0140) (0.0140) Depression 0.260*** 0.260*** 0.264*** 0.264*** (0.0467) (0.0467) (0.0394) (0.0394) Chronic 0.152 0.152 0.184** 0.184** (0.107) (0.107) (0.0816) (0.0816) ADL limitations 0.112** 0.112** 0.127*** 0.127*** (0.0514) (0.0514) (0.0371) (0.0372) Care hour 1 -0.000166 -9.42e-05 (0.000201) (0.000162) Care hour 2 -0.000167 -9.64e-05 (0.000203) (0.000162) Constant -2.256** -2.258** -2.233*** -2.234*** (0.919) (0.919) (0.693) (0.693) Observations 1,067 1,067 1,305 1,305 Table A.7. (Continued) Robust standard errors in parentheses. *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1. Source: HRS 2010. Imputation Option 1: Missing values in dependent variable replaced by the median (200). Imputation Option 2: Missing values in dependent variable replaced by 100. Weighted Unweighted Variables Imputation Option 1 Imputation Option 2 Imputation Option 1 Imputation Option 2 Black -0.0993 -0.0992 -0.161*** -0.161*** (0.0730) (0.0730) (0.0580) (0.0580) Hispanic -0.324*** -0.324*** -0.344*** -0.344*** (0.0995) (0.0996) (0.0755) (0.0755) Other -0.250 -0.250 -0.197 -0.198 (0.188) (0.188) (0.166) (0.166) Education 0.0444*** 0.0444*** 0.0480*** 0.0480*** (0.0118) (0.0118) (0.00892) (0.00892) Married 0.00593 0.00605 -0.0178 -0.0177 (0.0693) (0.0693) (0.0526) (0.0526) Widowed 0.00100 0.00144 0.0847 0.0847 (0.0911) (0.0911) (0.0714) (0.0714) # of grandkids -3.11e-05 -4.00e-05 -0.00589 -0.00589 (0.00964) (0.00964) (0.00751) (0.00751) Proximity 0.0222 0.0225 0.0199 0.0201 (0.0535) (0.0534) (0.0427) (0.0427) Work hours 0.00226 0.00226 0.00128 0.00128 (0.00196) (0.00196) (0.00158) (0.00158) Smoking -0.256*** -0.256*** -0.203*** -0.203*** (0.0917) (0.0917) (0.0580) (0.0580) Multigenerational -0.0588 -0.0575 0.0784 0.0790 (0.0833) (0.0832) (0.0615) (0.0614) Drinking 0.0112 0.0114 -0.0313 -0.0314 (0.0724) (0.0724) (0.0637) (0.0637) Exercise 0.153*** 0.153*** 0.112** 0.112** (0.0592) (0.0592) (0.0502) (0.0502) BMI -0.0139*** -0.0139*** -0.0142*** -0.0142*** (0.00478) (0.00478) (0.00383) (0.00383) Depression -0.0586*** -0.0586*** -0.0723*** -0.0724*** (0.0164) (0.0164) (0.0125) (0.0125) Table A.8. Self-reported health (range 1–5) of working grandmothers, noninstitutional and noncustodial, linear regression models. Weighted Unweighted Variables Imputation Option 1 Imputation Option 2 Imputation Option 1 Imputation Option 2 Chronic -0.203*** -0.203*** -0.208*** -0.208*** (0.0302) (0.0302) (0.0235) (0.0235) ADL limitations -0.144*** -0.144*** -0.146*** -0.146*** (0.0146) (0.0146) (0.0110) (0.0110) Care hour 1 4.03e-05 1.61e-05 (4.83e-05) (4.23e-05) Care hour 2 4.02e-05 1.50e-05 (4.80e-05) (4.21e-05) Constant 3.838*** 3.838*** 3.900*** 3.900*** (0.247) (0.247) (0.189) (0.189) Observations 1,067 1,067 1,305 1,305 R-squared 0.410 0.410 0.407 0.407 Table A.8. (Continued) Standard errors in parentheses. *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1. Source: HRS 2010. Imputation Option 1: Missing values in dependent variable replaced by the median (200). Imputation Option 2: Missing values in dependent variable replaced by 100. ...