As shown in Table 3, the slight differences in risk curves between the two dimensional severity measures made no difference in either their correlations with the outcomes or in the proportion of variance that they explained. Either score, or a count of the total number of symptoms endorsed (range=0 to 33) yielded higher values of r and R2 than did a dichotomous measure of any AUD. This was also true when the continuous outcome measures (other than NBMCS, which was already normalized) were logged to reduce skew, resulting in multiplicative rather than additive models (data not shown). Exclusion of legal problems, the criterion whose severity parameter appeared most misaligned with the total number of criteria endorsed and with the values of the outcome measures, did not affect the r and R2 values.
