Table 3.

Cluster analyses based on heavy episodic drinking (HED) and alcohol problems at ages 20 and 22

Variable	Full sample (N = 331)	Whites (n = 168)	Blacks (n = 163)
Solution quality	Good	Good	Good
Number of clusters	5	5	4
Cluster labels (n)	Non-HED (143)a	Non-HED (47)	Non-HED (96)
	Started HED (52)	Started HED (26)	Started HED (27)
	Stopped HED (39)	Stopped HED (15)	Stopped HED (24)
	Consistent HED 1 (75)a	Consistent HED 1 (61)	Consistent HED (16)
	Consistent HED 2 (22)a	Consistent HED 2 (19)
ANOVAb	F(4, 326)	F(4, 166)	F(3, 161)
Family factors
Parental guidelines	1.32	0.76	0.88
Parental monitoring	3.67**	1.93	1.70
Attachment to parents	1.04	1.20	0.58
Parental normsc	2.91	6.82	2.17
Consistent discipline	4.86**	2.51*	2.82*
Parental alcohol usec	14.54**	5.46	2.21
Individual factors
Religious conservatism	5.08**	0.86	0.87
Ethnic identity exploration	3.28*	0.53	2.16
Ethnic identity affirmation	7.86***	1.41	1.79
Delinquency	2.45*	1.50	0.87

Notes: ANOVA = analysis of variance.

^aDesignated clusters revealed race differences in membership. Details of differences are described in text;

^bdetailed results of ANOVA post hoc analyses are available from the authors on request;

^cchi-square tests were conducted on these dichotomous outcomes; the reported parameter for the full sample is χ²(l, 331), χ²(l, 168) for Whites, and χ²(1, 163) for Blacks. All other validation analyses were conducted using ANOVAs.

^*p < .05;

^**p < .01;

^***p < .001.