Table 2.

Comparing Substance Abuse Awareness Training and Control Condition: Means for Pretest, Posttest, and Follow Up (6 month) and Planned Contrasts^†

	Training Condition									Contrasts F (p value)
	Team (T)			Informational (I)			Control (C)			T vs. I		T vs. C		I vs. C
	Pre	Post	Follow Up-6 mo	Pre	Post	Follow Up-6 mo	Pre	Post	Follow Up-6 mo	Pre to Post	Pre to 6 mo	Pre to Post	Pre to 6 mo	Pre to Post	Pre to 6 mo
Coworker enabling	2.19	2.05*	1.94**	2.09	2.16	2.20	2.09	2.16	2.06	5.96 (0.02)	8.49 (0.004)	1.16	2.42	1.88	1.57
Coworker responsiveness	2.65	2.87**	2.97**	2.67	2.78	2.58	2.67	2.78	2.89	<1	8.42 (0.004)	1.66	1.17	<1	2.95
Drinking norms	1.92	1.87	1.68**	1.88	1.83	1.69*	1.88	1.83	1.50*	<1	1.81	<1	<1	<1	<1
Drink with coworkers	1.57	1.52	1.44	1.37	1.49	1.47	1.37	1.49	1.20	4.29 (0.04)	4.26 (0.04)	2.09	<1	<1	1.91
Stigmatize substance users	2.71	2.59	2.41**	2.56	2.65	2.40	2.56	2.65	2.69	2.81 (0.09)	1.74	<1	5.43 (0.02)	2.03	1.14

^†Boldface means within condition differ significantly from pretest (baseline) values.

^‡For pre-to-post comparisons, ns are T (109), I (117), C (120). For pre-to-follow-up comparisons, ns are T (82), I (101), C (82).

^§MANCOVA results for overall condition effect on pre-to-post: Wilks λ = .950, F_{(10, 592)} = 1.54, p = .12. T vs. I contrast: Wilks λ = .960, F_{(5, 296)} = 2.70, p = .02. MANCOVA results for overall condition effect on pre-to-follow-up: Wilks λ = .897, F_{(10, 452)} = 2.52, p = .006. T vs. I contrast: Wilks λ = .912, F_{(5, 226)} = 4.34, p < .001.

^*p < .05,

^**p < .01.