. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2018 Sep 1.

Published in final edited form as: Addiction. 2017 May 22;112(9):1547–1557. doi: 10.1111/add.13841

Table 5.

Indirect Effects of Treatment via Coping among Individuals with High, Moderate, and Low ADS Scores in the Outpatient Arm

Model for One-Year Post-Treatment Percent Drinking Days (PDD)
	High ADS (1 SD above mean)	Moderate ADS (< 1 SD below mean and < 1 SD above mean)	Low ADS (1 SD below mean)

	B (SE)	B (SE)	B (SE)
CBT vs. MET → Coping → One-Year PDD	−6.80 (2.6)^* 95% CI [−12.50, −2.43]	−0.25 (0.38) 95% CI [−1.10, 0.45]	3.10 (2.55) 95% CI [−0.61, 9.17]
CBT vs. TSF → Coping → One-Year PDD	−2.54 (1.28)^* 95% CI [−5.35, −0.34]	−0.46 (0.52) 95% CI [−1.73, 0.32]	3.90 (2.54) 95% CI [−0.30, 9.58]

Model for One-Year Post-Treatment Percent Heavy Drinking Days (PHD)
	High ADS (1 SD above mean)	Moderate ADS (< 1 SD below mean and < 1 SD above mean)	Low ADS (1 SD below mean)

	B (SE)	B (SE)	B (SE)
CBT vs. TSF → Coping → One-Year PHD	−2.17 (1.14)^* 95% CI [−4.72, −0.26]	−0.39 (0.27) 95% CI [−1.02, 0.01]	0.40 (2.13) 95% CI [−3.84, 4.77]

Note.

p < 0.05;

B = unstandardized regression coefficient; SE = Standard Error); 95 % confidence intervals for indirect effects computed using the distribution of the product of coefficients method. PDD = Percent Drinking Days; PHD = Percent Heavy Drinking Days. MET = Motivational enhancement therapy; TSF =Twelve-step facilitation therapy.