Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2013 Oct 1.
Published in final edited form as: Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2012 Jul 23;36(10):1767–1778. doi: 10.1111/j.1530-0277.2012.01786.x

Table 4.

Impact of SPARC on High-risk Drinking, Alcohol-related Consequences, and Alcohol-related Injuries: Results from 2003–2006 CDS: Time x ESIS measures1

Least-Squares Means (SE) Random coefficient
model Results
2003 (Baseline) 2004 2005 2006
I C I C I C I C Estimate p-value
(SE)
Drinking
Past 30 day use (# days) 4.16
(.24)
4.68
(.24)
4.17
(.23)
4.82
(.23)
4.19
(.22)
4.96
(.22)
4.20
(.27)
5.10
(.26)
−0.06
(.06)
0.28
Binge Drinking (# days in past 30 consumed 5 [for males] or 4 [for females] drinks in a row) 2.40
(.21)
2.69
(.21)
2.38
(.20)
2.73
(.20)
2.35
(.20)
2.77
(.19)
2.33
(.22)
2.81
(.21)
−0.03
(.04)
0.39
Drunk (# days/ typical week) 0.55
(.06)
0.66
(.06)
0.56
(.06)
0.67
(.05)
0.57
(.05)
0.67
(.05)
0.58
(.06)
0.67
(.06)
0.004
(.01)
0.58
Most # drinks (past 30 days) 4.43
(.29)
4.79
(.29)
4.40
(.26)
4.74
(.26)
4.37
(.24)
4.69
(.23)
4.33
(.23)
4.64
(.22)
0.008
(.03)
0.82
Consequences
Moderate Consequences, due to
own drinking (Tier I)
8.09
(.54)
8.42
(.53)
8.21
(.52)
8.72
(.51)
8.34
(.50)
9.03
(.49)
8.47
(.58)
9.33
(.57)
−0.09
(.11)
0.42
Severe Consequences, due to
own drinking (Tier II) (%1+)
0.18
(.01)
0.20
(.01)
0.17
(.01)
0.20
(.01)
0.17
(.01)
0.19
(.01)
0.16
(.01)
0.19
(.01)
0.001
(.001)
0.49
Interpersonal Consequences, due to others’ drinking 1.32
(.14)
1.11
(.14)
1.24
(.11)
1.15
(.11)
1.17
(.10)
1.19
(.10)
1.09
(.12)
1.23
(.12)
−0.06
(.03)
0.04
Community Consequences, due to others’ drinking 5.06
(.43)
4.82
(.42)
4.87
(.38)
4.66
(.38)
4.67
(.36)
4.50
(.35)
4.48
(.36)
4.34
(.35)
−0.02
(.06)
0.79
Alcohol-related Injuries
Experienced (%1 +) 0.12
(.007)
0.13
(.007)
0.12
(.007)
0.12
(.007)
0.11
(.007)
0.12
(.007)
0.10
(.007)
0.11
(.007)
<0.001
(.002)
0.85
Caused to Others (%1+) 0.04
(.002)
0.03
(.003)
0.03
(.003)
0.03
(.003)
0.02
(.002)
0.03
(.003)
0.02
(.003)
0.03
(.003)
−0.01
(.001)
<0.01
1

Adjusted linear or logistic Random coefficient mixed-effects models for CDS data, adjusted for within-school clustering, gender, race, and academic classification. Numbers given are the estimated least-squares means (population margins) or predicted probabilities; (standard error).

*

Estimate (SE) and p-values in last column are from interactions of ESIS measure and time, where the null hypothesis is that the effect of the intervention does not depend upon the implementation levels of the ESIS measure; A negative estimate indicates a declining trend in I schools compared to C schools for higher levels of implementation.