We would also underscore that the analyses conducted at the item level (reported in Table 3) should be considered with caution, as they are each based on a single indicator. Similarly, the alcohol-related outcomes were single items, and not based on comprehensive scales; this approach was selected to enable detection of potential distinctions among the different outcomes. We did not adjust significance thresholds to correct for multiple tests, and it is likely that a portion of the results meeting a threshold of p<0.05 would not survive such a correction. Finally, as with all applied statistical methodologies, growth mixture modeling has potential limitations (Bauer, 2007). Most notably, in addition to accurately depicting the developmental realities, GMM might spuriously result in the overextraction of trajectory classes. Specifically, misspecification of the structural model may require additional classes to account for discrepancies in the observed versus model implied means, variances, and covariances. Thus, it is critical that we temper our confidence in the results (Bauer and Curran, 2003). In summary, these analyses provide insight into the complex relationship between the course of internalizing problems and alcohol use, suggesting that, unlike adolescent depression, childhood internalizing problems protect individuals from early alcohol experimentation.
