Table 4.
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 |
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.