Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2012 Aug 1.
Published in final edited form as: Prev Sci. 2012 Aug;13(4):415–425. doi: 10.1007/s11121-011-0269-7

Table 2.

Descriptive statistics for outcomes at baseline and follow-up, N=9528*

Outcome Control Intervention
Mean (SD) / % Mean (SD) / %
Time Baseline Follow up Baseline Follow up
Intervention School vs Control School (ITT) Lifetime Alcohol Use 19.1% 29.0% 16.7% 22.2%
Past Month Alcohol Use 8.1% 12.9% 6.8% 9.7%
Heavy Drinking in Past Month 3.3% 6.1% 3.9% 4.5%
Perceived Alcohol Use 1.98 (1.80) 2.50 (2.27) 1.76 (1.64) 2.37 (2.16)
Alcohol Intentions 8.7% 9.4% 6.9% 7.6%
Resistance Self-Efficacy (Alcohol) 3.57 (0.77) 3.46 (0.82) 3.63 (0.70) 3.48 (0.79)
Attenders vs Propensity Matched Controls Lifetime Alcohol Use 17.5% 28.3% 16.9% 22.7%
Past Month Alcohol Use 7.1% 11.8% 6.8% 10.5%
Heavy Drinking in Past Month 2.2% 5.4% 1.9% 4.4%
Perceived Alcohol Use 1.69 (1.69) 2.33 (2.14) 1.64 (1.54) 2.39 (2.27)
Alcohol Intentions 17.7% 18.6% 15.0% 19.0%
Resistance Self-Efficacy (Alcohol) 3.55 (0.24) 3.47 (0.25) 3.58 (0.80) 3.46 (0.80)

Note: Perceived alcohol use responses were recorded on an 11-point scale where zero or no students out of 100 were coded as “1”, 10 students out of 100 was coded as “2”, and so forth. Alcohol intentions were rated on a 4-point Likert scale from 1 (definitely no) to 4 (definitely yes). RSE items were rated on a scale ranging from 1 = “I would definitely drink” to 4 = “I would definitely not drink.

*

this number differs from the baseline sample of 8932 as this sample includes both wave 1 and wave 2 students.