Of note, we found significant effects for all outcomes except lifetime AUD. One possible reason is that, as a binary variable (present/absent), AUD diagnosis may not be sensitive enough for young and/or high-risk samples (Chassin, Bountress, Haller, & Wang, 2014) and/or dichotomizing variables reduces power. Whereas we did obtain a bootstrapped 95% confidence interval that did not contain zero for lifetime AUD diagnosis at high levels of parental monitoring, the interaction term was not significant, indicating that the effect should not be interpreted as significant. Therefore it is possible that with a larger sample this effect may be found significant in future work. It is also important to note that our measure of AUD is not the same as DSM-5 AUD (APA, 2013), given that DSM-IV abuse or dependence do not include craving and DSM-5 AUD does not include legal problems. Future studies that utilize DSM-5 criteria, which include craving and define AUD as mild, moderate, or severe, may be more informative.
