.8126 0.1301 0.0116 0.0001 0.5037 0.5063 0.909 0.982 1.004 0.966 0.699 0.629 0.738 1.064 0.669 0.421 2.367 1.586 1.226 0.684 0.655 0.989 0.457 0.377 0.311 0.382 0.693 0.432 0.240 1.634 0.510 0.740 1.209 1.472 1.020 2.042 1.296 1.274 1.424 1.633 1.035 0.740 3.427 4.935 2.033 -0.0535 -0.1038 -0.0110 -0.3717 -0.0237 0.0263 0.0874 0.0810 0.2178 0.2075 4.1417 1.4120 0.0185 2.9135 0.0131 0.0418 0.2347 0.8919 0.0878 0.9089 0.948 0.901 0.989 0.690 0.977 0.908 0.781 0.866 0.482 0.694 0.990 1.041 1.130 0.987 1.374 -0.0185 -0.1747 0.4930 0.2297 0.6066 -0.3262 0.0081 0.0860 0.2339 0.2049 0.1964 0.2153 1.1522 0.2152 0.2175 0.2559 0.0062 0.7272 6.2986 1.1386 0.2771 2.2981 0.0014 0.1130 0.9370 0.3938 0.0121 0.2859 0.5986 0.1295 0.9702 0.7368 0.982 0.840 1.637 1.258 1.834 0.722 1.008 1.090 0.668 0.599 1.185 0.883 0.276 0.507 0.705 0.715 1.442 1.176 2.262 1.793 12.204 1.028 1.442 1.660 -1.1027 -0.1435 0.4444 0.5899 0.1071 0.2225 3.4938 1.7961 3.9910 0.0616 0.1802 0.0457 0.332 0.866 1.560 0.126 0.726 1.082 0.876 1.033 2.249 -3.5906 Standard Error 0.6702 Wald Chi order Bayer 41-4109 RG7666MedChemExpress GDC-0084 Squared 28.7057 Probability Chi Sq <.0001 Odds Ratio Estimate 90 Wald CI min 90 Wald CI maxPLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0158422 July 13,12 /SNAP Benefit CycleTable 2. (Continued) Maximum Likelihood Estimate Standard Error Wald Chi Squared Probability Chi Sq Odds Ratio Estimate 90 Wald CI min 90 Wald CI maxAssociation of predicted and observed: 62.6 percent Concordant, 26.5 Discordant, 10.9 Tied. Note: Age 15 and over. 90 Wald CI min = the minimum value of the Wald confidence interval at the 90 level. 90 Wald CI max = the maximum value of the Wald confidence interval at the 90 level. Family income categories are: 1 = Less than 5,000; 2 = 5,000 to 7,499; 3 = 7,500 to 9,999; 4 = 10,000 to 12,499; 5 = 12,500 to 14,999; 6 = 15,000 to 19,999; 7 = 20,000 to 24,999; 8 = 25,000 to 29,999; 9 = 30,000 to 34,999; 10 = 35,000 to 39,999; 11 = 40,000 to 49,999; 12 = 50,000 to 59,999; 13 = 60,000 to 74,999; 14 = 75,000 to 99,999; 15 = 100,000 to 149,999; and 16 = 150,000 and over. Reference group is SNAP/FSP non-participant, year 2008, non-holiday weekday, winter, no spouse/partner in home, do not own home, male, not employed, age 20?4 years, not retired, not disabled, less than high school diploma, white non-Hispanic (non-African American, non-Asian, nonHispanic), non-metropolitan area, and Midwest. Concordant-Discordant is a measure of the model's performance. For more information, see Paul D. Allison, Logistic Regression Using the SAS System: Theory and Application, Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc., 1999. Source: Authors' estimates using 2006?8 American Time Use Survey and Eating Health Module data. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0158422.tAlthough few of the model's variables were significant at the 90 percent level, the model overall did well in terms of fit and performance, with a concordance level of 62.6 percent.Simulated Benefit MonthIn order to understand the net effect of the factors affecting the probability of not eating on the average day, and also to understand the net effect of the SNAP and days since issuance variables, we simulated a benefit month. We used the estimated model in table 2 and the sub-sample averages (S2 Appendix) to calculate the probabilities of not eating by day since issuance for (1) those who were on SNAP, (2) those who were low-income (less than 185 percent of the poverty threshold) but not participating in SNAP, and (3) those who were high..8126 0.1301 0.0116 0.0001 0.5037 0.5063 0.909 0.982 1.004 0.966 0.699 0.629 0.738 1.064 0.669 0.421 2.367 1.586 1.226 0.684 0.655 0.989 0.457 0.377 0.311 0.382 0.693 0.432 0.240 1.634 0.510 0.740 1.209 1.472 1.020 2.042 1.296 1.274 1.424 1.633 1.035 0.740 3.427 4.935 2.033 -0.0535 -0.1038 -0.0110 -0.3717 -0.0237 0.0263 0.0874 0.0810 0.2178 0.2075 4.1417 1.4120 0.0185 2.9135 0.0131 0.0418 0.2347 0.8919 0.0878 0.9089 0.948 0.901 0.989 0.690 0.977 0.908 0.781 0.866 0.482 0.694 0.990 1.041 1.130 0.987 1.374 -0.0185 -0.1747 0.4930 0.2297 0.6066 -0.3262 0.0081 0.0860 0.2339 0.2049 0.1964 0.2153 1.1522 0.2152 0.2175 0.2559 0.0062 0.7272 6.2986 1.1386 0.2771 2.2981 0.0014 0.1130 0.9370 0.3938 0.0121 0.2859 0.5986 0.1295 0.9702 0.7368 0.982 0.840 1.637 1.258 1.834 0.722 1.008 1.090 0.668 0.599 1.185 0.883 0.276 0.507 0.705 0.715 1.442 1.176 2.262 1.793 12.204 1.028 1.442 1.660 -1.1027 -0.1435 0.4444 0.5899 0.1071 0.2225 3.4938 1.7961 3.9910 0.0616 0.1802 0.0457 0.332 0.866 1.560 0.126 0.726 1.082 0.876 1.033 2.249 -3.5906 Standard Error 0.6702 Wald Chi Squared 28.7057 Probability Chi Sq <.0001 Odds Ratio Estimate 90 Wald CI min 90 Wald CI maxPLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0158422 July 13,12 /SNAP Benefit CycleTable 2. (Continued) Maximum Likelihood Estimate Standard Error Wald Chi Squared Probability Chi Sq Odds Ratio Estimate 90 Wald CI min 90 Wald CI maxAssociation of predicted and observed: 62.6 percent Concordant, 26.5 Discordant, 10.9 Tied. Note: Age 15 and over. 90 Wald CI min = the minimum value of the Wald confidence interval at the 90 level. 90 Wald CI max = the maximum value of the Wald confidence interval at the 90 level. Family income categories are: 1 = Less than 5,000; 2 = 5,000 to 7,499; 3 = 7,500 to 9,999; 4 = 10,000 to 12,499; 5 = 12,500 to 14,999; 6 = 15,000 to 19,999; 7 = 20,000 to 24,999; 8 = 25,000 to 29,999; 9 = 30,000 to 34,999; 10 = 35,000 to 39,999; 11 = 40,000 to 49,999; 12 = 50,000 to 59,999; 13 = 60,000 to 74,999; 14 = 75,000 to 99,999; 15 = 100,000 to 149,999; and 16 = 150,000 and over. Reference group is SNAP/FSP non-participant, year 2008, non-holiday weekday, winter, no spouse/partner in home, do not own home, male, not employed, age 20?4 years, not retired, not disabled, less than high school diploma, white non-Hispanic (non-African American, non-Asian, nonHispanic), non-metropolitan area, and Midwest. Concordant-Discordant is a measure of the model's performance. For more information, see Paul D. Allison, Logistic Regression Using the SAS System: Theory and Application, Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc., 1999. Source: Authors' estimates using 2006?8 American Time Use Survey and Eating Health Module data. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0158422.tAlthough few of the model's variables were significant at the 90 percent level, the model overall did well in terms of fit and performance, with a concordance level of 62.6 percent.Simulated Benefit MonthIn order to understand the net effect of the factors affecting the probability of not eating on the average day, and also to understand the net effect of the SNAP and days since issuance variables, we simulated a benefit month. We used the estimated model in table 2 and the sub-sample averages (S2 Appendix) to calculate the probabilities of not eating by day since issuance for (1) those who were on SNAP, (2) those who were low-income (less than 185 percent of the poverty threshold) but not participating in SNAP, and (3) those who were high.