Thus, Table 3 shows major results for this study and Figures 2 – 5 visually demonstrate patterns of change over time. However, Table 3 indicates significant (p <.001) main effects for ethnicity for all four drinking outcomes. The consistent importance of ethnicity regarding outcomes and the ethnic differences in drinking practices and regarding LR discussed in the Introduction prompted us to re-review the adequacy of ethnic matches across Low and High LR pairs. This revealed ideal ethnic matches for 308 subjects, but demonstrated that smaller ethnic groups (e.g., AA, Filipino, Pacific South Islanders, Middle Eastern and Native American subjects) were often matched with other ethnic groups within the heterogeneous “other” category, and that some White Hispanic subjects had been matched with EA individuals to optimize baseline matching on the quantity and frequency variables also used as outcomes. Thus, it was necessary to determine if these sub-optimally matched subjects may have affected the data in Table 3 (i.e., if those results were spurious). Therefore, Table 4 repeats the analyses from Table 3, but is limited to the 308 optimally ethnically matched
