Despite these limitations, the results of this analysis contributed to its dual aims of clarifying factors associated with recovery from alcohol dependence and identifying various aspects of study design that need to be considered in the interpretation of research findings, especially discrepant findings. From a substantive perspective, the results supported both the importance of 12-step participation for recovery and the feasibility of maturing out of alcohol dependence (Gotham et al., 1997; Kandel, 1980; Labouvie, 1996; Watson and Sher, 1998). This study also replicated the strong association of religiosity with recovery that has been reported elsewhere, despite not being able to address its causal role. Although multiple methodological differences with respect to earlier papers made it impossible to attribute discrepant findings to any single factor with certainty, this study demonstrated that cross-sectional analyses of lifetime correlates of recovery require careful interpretation, with many associations plausibly reflecting effects of selectivity. However, when cross-sectional survey data are used in pseudo-prospective survival analyses with time-dependent covariates, the results may be as valid as those from prospective studies with short follow-up intervals. That is, the
