Table 4.
Quality ratings for the analysis methods that were used to analyse the resilience factors, split into individual, family, and community level.
| Resilience factor | Study | Moderation quality rating | Moderation supported | Mediation quality rating | Mediation supported |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| INDIVIDUAL LEVEL | |||||
| Distress tolerance | (38) | 3 | Yes | NA | NA |
| Cognitive reappraisal | (39) | 3 | Yes | 3 | Yes |
| Expressive suppression | (39) | 3 | No | 3 | Yes |
| Rumination | (39) | 3 | No | 3 | Yes |
| Rumination | (44) | NA | NA | 3 | No |
| Behavioral reward reactivity | (41) | 3 | No | NA | NA |
| Emotional reward reactivity | (41) | 3 | No | NA | NA |
| Academic grades | (42) | 3 | No | NA | NA |
| Self-esteem | (42) | 3 | Yes | NA | NA |
| Insecure attachment | (45) | NA | NA | 2 | Yes |
| Negative cognitive style | (45) | NA | NA | 2 | No |
| Coping expectancydef1 | (48) | NA | NA | 2 | Yes |
| Enhancement expectancydef2 | (48) | NA | NA | 2 | No |
| Self-efficacy | (49) | 1 | No | NA | NA |
| Ego over-control | (51) | NA | NA | 3 | Yes |
| Ego under-control | (51) | NA | NA | 3 | Yes |
| Ego under- vs. over-control | (51) | NA | NA | 3 | No |
| Mental flexibility | (52) | 1 | Yes | NA | NA |
| Protective self-cognitions | (54) | NA | NA | 1 | No |
| Disconnection/rejection*c | (56) | NA | NA | 3 | Yes |
| Other-directedness*c | (56) | NA | NA | 3 | Yes |
| Impaired autonomy*c | (56) | NA | NA | 3 | No |
| Socialization*c | (57) | NA | NA | 2 | No |
| Boldness*c | (57) | NA | NA | 2 | No |
| Academic engagement*c | (57) | NA | NA | 2 | No |
| Aggression*c | (58) | NA | NA | 3 | Yes |
| FAMILY LEVEL | |||||
| Positive parenting | (40) | 1 | No | 2 | Yes |
| Positive parenting | (42) | 3 | Yes | NA | NA |
| Family cohesion | (43) | NA | NA | 2 | Yes |
| Adolescent-father communication | (43) | NA | NA | 2 | No |
| Adolescent-mother communication | (43) | NA | NA | 2 | No |
| Extended family support | (46) | 3 | Yes | NA | NA |
| Parental involvement | (46) | 3 | Yes | NA | NA |
| Maternal support | (47) | 3 | No | NA | NA |
| Positive family climate | (49) | 1 | Yes | NA | NA |
| Proactive parenting | (50) | 3 | No | NA | NA |
| Immediate family support | (53) | 3 | Yes | NA | NA |
| Immediate family support | (24) | Not rateable | No | 2 | Yes |
| Parenting quality*b | (55) | 3 | No | NA | NA |
| Parent-child relationship*c | (57) | NA | NA | 2 | No |
| COMMUNITY LEVEL | |||||
| Social support*a | (49) | 1 | Yes | NA | NA |
| Friend support | (53) | 3 | No | NA | NA |
| Friend support | (24) | NA | NA | 2 | No |
| School support | (53) | 3 | No | NA | NA |
| Prosocial peers*c | (57) | NA | NA | 2 | No |
| Antisocial peers*c | (57) | NA | NA | 2 | No |
NA, not performed; Not rateable, no significant effect and no information provided whether post hoc tests were applied in case of significant effects (i.e., in case of nonsignificant effects, follow up post hoc probing tests are not necessary for moderation).
The social support measure could potentially also include family support and should therefore also belong to the family domain.
The CA timeline requirements might not be fully met.
The analysis did not include the direct path between CA and psychopathology when calculating the indirect mediation effect of the RF.
Definition, Consuming alcohol to handle stress;
Definition, Consuming alcohol to improve mood.