. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2017 Oct 11.

Published in final edited form as: Emerg Adulthood. 2017 Apr 25;5(4):268–279. doi: 10.1177/2167696817704118

Table 4.

Model estimates for Aim 2 analyses (subsample of students in an LDDR at Semester 1)

	Model 2a: Positive affect	Model 2b: Loneliness	Model 2c: University activities	Model 2d: Alcohol use
Fixed Effects
Means
Intercept (γ₀₀)	2.13^***	1.89^***	−4.60^***	−4.56^***
Female (γ₀₁)	0.12	0.12	−0.46^*	−0.17
On-Campus (percent of days spent on-campus; γ₀₂)	0.02	−0.56	0.61	0.61
LDDR-single (γ₀₃)	−0.04	0.02	0.00	0.07
LDDR-new partner (γ₀₄)	−0.12	−0.17	0.81	−0.11
Slopes
Weekend day (γ₁₀)	0.05^*	−0.02	0.00	1.57^***
On-campus (γ₂₀)	−0.15^***	0.16^**	0.57^*	0.49^**
On-campus*LDDR-single (γ₂₁)	0.13	−0.06	–	–
On-campus*LDDR-new partner (γ₂₂)	0.20	0.17	–	–
Random Effects
Level-1 effect (ε_ij)	0.23^***	0.46^***	–	–
Level-2 effects Intercept (ζ_0i)	0.51^***	0.43^***	2.89^***	2.01^***

Note.

p < .05

^**

p < .01

^***

p < .001 Gender (Female) is coded 1 = male, 0 = female. Weekend day is coded 1 = weekend day, 0 = weekday. Within-person location (On-campus; γ₂₀) is coded 1 = on-campus, 0 = off-campus. University activities is coded 1 = university activity participation, 0 = university activity participation. Alcohol use is coded 1 = one or more drinks, 0 = no drinks. LDDR-single and LDDR-new partner are dummy coded with ongoing LDDR as the reference group. Models 2c and 2d were modeled via a logit equation, and thus, do not provide a residual error term.