Gender wage gap in European emerging markets: a meta-analytic perspective

Journal for Labour Market Research

Table 8 Summary of publication selection bias test

Study type	Number of estimates (K)	Test results^a
Study type	Number of estimates (K)	Funnel asymmetry test (FAT) (H₀: γ ₀ = 0)	Precision-effect test (PET) (H₀: γ ₁ = 0)	Precision-effect estimate with standard error (PEESE) (H₀: γ ₁= 0)^b
All studies By EU membership status	670	Rejected	Rejected	Rejected (− 0.0970/− 0.0513)
2004 member	265	Rejected	Rejected	Rejected (− 0.0958/− 0.0421)
2007 and 2013 member	85	Not rejected	Rejected	Rejected (− 0.1126/− 0.0955)
Membership candidate	19	Rejected	Rejected	Rejected (− 0.1597/− 0.1217)
Nonmember	301	Not rejected	Rejected	Rejected (− 0.1974/− 0.1972)
By period
1995 or before	163	Not rejected	Rejected	Rejected (− 0.2013/− 0.1918)
1996–2005	300	Not rejected	Rejected	Rejected (− 0.1705/− 0.0965)
2006 or later	207	Rejected	Rejected	Rejecte (− 0.0419/− 0.0357)

This table summarizes the test results for publication selection bias in estimates of the gender dummy variable reported in 53 research works listed in Additional file 1: Table S1 and Additional file 2: Bibliography of studies subject to meta-analysis using the FAT–PET–PEESE procudure by EU membership status and estimation period in addition to the results for all studies reported in Table 6. The Appendix describes the methodology applied in this table. If the null hypothesis is rejected, it is highlighted in bold
^aThe null hypothesis is rejected when more than three of five models show a statistically significant estimate. Otherwise not rejected
^bFigures in parentheses are PSB-adjusted estimates. If two estimates are reported, the left and right figures denote the minimum and maximu estimates, respectively