Table 3.
Indirect Effects Model: Effects paths from the adolescent substance initiation intercept and slope, and indirect intervention effects
| Outcome | Model Effect Paths | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|||||
| Age | Intercept effect on Outcome | Slope effect on Outcome | Intervention Indirect Effects | Int. X Risk Indirect Effects | |
|
|
|||||
| Drunkenness Frequency | |||||
| SFP 10–14+LST vs Control | 25 | .045 | .212*** | −.039*** | −.033** |
| 27 | .023 | .215*** | −.039** | −.033** | |
| LST vs Control | 25 | .163** | .077 | −.030* | −.021* |
| 27 | .143+ | .122 | −.038* | −.027* | |
| Alcohol-Related Problems | |||||
| SFP 10–14+LST vs Control | 25 | .094+ | .094+ | −.023* | −.021* |
| 27 | .074 | .100+ | −.023* | −.021** | |
| LST vs Control | 25 | .166** | .019 | −.019+ | −.014+ |
| 27 | .193* | .082 | −.034* | −.025** | |
| Cigarette Frequency | |||||
| SFP 10–14+LST vs Control | 25 | .432*** | .064 | −.041* | −.046** |
| 27 | .436*** | .067 | −.042* | −.047** | |
| LST vs Control | 25 | .349*** | .208** | −.073*** | −.054* |
| 27 | .359*** | .161* | −.066*** | −.049** | |
| Illicit Substance Use Frequency | |||||
| SFP 10–14+LST vs Control | 25 | .334** | −.059 | −.013 | −.020* |
| 27 | .231+ | .035 | −.022 | −.025** | |
| LST vs Control | 25 | .415*** | −.073 | −.025 | −.019 |
| 27 | .357** | −.010 | −.032* | −.024+ | |
| Marijuana Index | |||||
| SFP 10–14+LST vs Control | 25 | .376*** | .176*** | −.058** | −.057** |
| 27 | .353*** | .224*** | −.066** | −.063*** | |
| LST vs Control | 25 | .467*** | .102* | −.063** | −.046** |
| 27 | .443*** | .153** | −.73** | −.053** | |
| Lifetime Illicit Drug Use | |||||
| SFP 10–14+LST vs Control | 25 | .418*** | .089 | −.045** | −.048** |
| 27 | .395*** | .110 | −.049** | −.050*** | |
| LST vs Control | 25 | .460*** | .024 | −.047** | −.034* |
| 27 | .454*** | .064 | −.057** | −.040** | |
| Lifetime Prescription Drug Misuse | |||||
| SFP 10–14+LST vs Control | 25 | .470*** | −.052 | −.026 | −.035** |
| 27 | .426*** | .005 | −.032+ | −.038** | |
| LST vs Control | 25 | .391*** | .036 | −.045** | −.033** |
| 27 | .385*** | .060 | −.049** | −.036** | |
Note: SFP 10–14 = Strengthening Families Program: For Parents and Youth 10–14; LST = Life Skills Training. Contrast coding was used so that the effect of the intervention can be interpreted as the overall effect of assignment to the intervention condition, controlling for risk status, and the effect of risk can be interpreted as the overall effect of risk, controlling for intervention status. The interaction can be interpreted as the difference in intervention effect by level of risk—a significant negative Intervention X Risk effect would suggest that the intervention was more effective in lowering levels of substance misuse for the higher-risk group.