Table 3.

SEM Models of the Associations between child maltreatment, Depressive Symptoms, Alcohol Use Problems, and HRV-R (N = 225)

Paths	B (SE)	β	95%CI of B	p value
Mediation Models
Direct Effects
CM (T1) → DEP (T1)	.646 (.110)	.477	[.429, .861]***	< .001
CM (T1) → ΔAlcohol	−.142 (.044)	−.467	[−.228, −.057]**	.001
DEP (T1) → ΔAlcohol	.075 (.024)	.333	[.029, .121]**	.001
Conditional Indirect Effect
CM (T1) → DEP →Δ Alcohol	.048 (.018)	.159	[.017, .086]*	.002
Control
FIncome → DEP – T1	−.308 (.586)	−.034	[−1.458, .841]	.599
FIncome → ΔAlcohol	−.096 (.251)	−.047	[−.587, .395]	.702
Gender → DEP – T1	.661 (.855)	.047	[−1.015, 2.338]	.440
Gender → ΔAlcohol	.977 (.431)	.307	[.132, 1.823]*	.023
Moderated Mediation Model
Direct Effects
CM (T1) → DEP (T1)	.645 (.110)	.477	[.429, .861]***	< .001
CM (T1) → ΔAlcohol	−.148 (.043)	−.488	[−.233, −.064]**	.001
DEP (T1) → ΔAlcohol	.076 (.022)	.337	[.033, .118]***	< .001
ΔHRV (T1) → ΔAlcohol	−.033 (.153)	−.028	[−.333, .267]	.830
Interaction Effect
ΔHRV X DEP → Δ Alcohol	.034 (.015)	.193	[.005, .063]*	.022
Conditional Indirect Effect
CM (T1) → ΔHRV X DEP →Δ Alcohol	.022 (.011)	.092	[.003, .044]*	.022
Control
FIncome → DEP – T1	−.328 (.585)	−.036	[−1.474, .818]	.575
FIncome → ΔAlcohol	−.113 (.246)	−.055	[−.595, .369]	.645
Gender → DEP – T1	.647 (.850)	.046	[−1.020, 2.314]	.447
Gender → ΔAlcohol	.877 (.424)	.276	[.047, 1.708]*	.038

Note. T1 = Time 1; SE = Standard error; CI = Confidence interval; CM = Child maltreatment experiences latent factor; DEP = Depressive symptoms; ΔHRV = HRV residualized change score; ΔAlcohol = Alcohol use problems LC score; FIncome = Past-year household income. Gender was coded as 1 for male and 2 for female. Model fit for the mediation model: χ² (63) = 113.603 (p <.001), CFI = .952, SRMR = .048. Model fit for the moderated mediation model: χ² (77) = 130.200 (p < .001), CFI = .950, SRMR = .044.

^*p < .05;

^**p < .01;

^***p < .001.