and their affectedness are known for a given individual. Moreover, it has been observed that some measures largely depend on the prevalence of the disorder/condition, while others are highly sensitive to the spectrum of the disorder/condition in the studied population. Indeed, Milne et al. (2013) have shown that for disorders with high (vs. low) prevalence (e.g., AUD, smoking), density (vs. dichotomous) measures should be preferred. Fourth, it has been seen that multiple substance use (e.g., nicotine, marijuana) in individuals with AUD with or without meeting criteria for substance use disorder is often observed as part of their clinical profile, including in the present sample. However, given the substantial sharing of familial vulnerability to alcohol and drug problems, along with evidence for cross-predictions, where a FH of drug problem predicts alcohol use/problems and a FH of alcohol problems predicts substance use/problems (e.g., Kendler et al., 2015), our findings may not be invalid. Nevertheless, future studies should investigate such poly-substance use effects. Lastly, density measures, like dichotomous/other FH measures do not parse apart the effects of biological and psychosocial aspects in their measurement of FH. Although, Zucker et al. (1994) included the extended family in their computation of FEA scores, they reasoned
