Several additional issues should be considered when interpreting our results. We substituted CSA for the measure of multiple severe stressors in adolescence used in the prior report (Blomeyer et al. 2008). Previous reports of G × E interactions have included either multiple classes of stressors (Caspi et al. 2003) or substituted stressors for which data were available in replication studies (Kaufman et al. 2004; Gillespie et al. 2005; Kendler et al. 2005; Surtees et al. 2006). Additional study will be necessary to delineate whether our findings will generalize to different types of stressors or those occurring during other developmental periods. CSA is also associated (Nelson et al. 2002) with risk for subsequent stressors further complicating definitive attribution. Although use of binary outcome variables for examination of G × E interactions may predispose to spurious positive findings (Eaves, 2006), the association we observed with ACFS, a continuous measure, is less susceptible to this source of error. Given concerns about the sensitivity of inferences from G × E interactions to scaling, we ran an additional analysis using Huber robust regression which down-weights
