Examining gender and the longitudinal effect of weight conscious drinking dimensions on body mass index among a college freshman cohort

Figures & data

Table 1. Participant demographic characteristics and self-reported compensatory behaviors in response to alcohol consumption (n = 1,149).^a

Variables	Frequency n (%)		Missing n (%)
Sex			27 (2.3)
Male	377 (32.8)
Female	745 (64.8)
Gender identity			29 (2.5)
Male	376 (32.7)
Female	738 (64.2)
Other	6 (0.5)
Ethnic origin			34 (2.9)
Hispanic	204 (17.8)
Non-Hispanic	911 (79.3)
Race			0
Black or African American	162 (14.1)
Asian/Asian American	137 (11.9)
White	817 (71.1)
Residence			21 (1.8)
On campus	961 (83.6)
Off campus	167 (14.5)
Athlete Status			36 (3.1)
Athlete	68 (5.9)
Non-athlete	1,045 (90.9)
Greek affiliation			28 (2.4)
Affiliated	11 (1.0)
Nonaffiliated	1,110 (96.6)
Binge drinking frequency			411 (35.8)
Never	378 (32.9)
Less than monthly	230 (20)
Monthly	84 (7.3)
Weekly	44 (3.8)
Daily	2 (0.2)
BDF males			125 (33.2)
Never	94 (24.9)
Less than monthly	82 (21.8)
Monthly	46 (12.2)
Weekly	29 (7.7)
Daily	1 (0.3)
BDF females			265 (35.6)
Never	281 (37.7)
Less than monthly	146 (19.6)
Monthly	37 (5.0)
Weekly	15 (2.0)
Daily	1 (0.1)
Binge drinking region			98 (8.5)
At-risk	528 (46)
Not at-risk	523 (45.5)
Weight intentions			10 (0.9)
Lose weight	648 (56.4)
Gain weight	143 (12.4)
Stay the same weight	208 (18.1)
I am not trying to do anything about my weight	140 (12.2)
	Mean	SD	Missing (%)
Age	19.20	0.86	0
BMI (kg/m^2) baseline	24.17	4.32	2.6
BMI (kg/m^2) follow-up	24.33	4.12	28.2
CEBRACS^b
Alcohol effects
Before—eating less to get drunker	1.27	.68	35.3
Before—eating less to get drunk faster	1.24	.66	35.3
Before—skipping meals to get drunk faster	1.12	.50	35.4
During—eating less to get drunk faster	1.20	.59	35.2
During—not eating to get drunk faster	1.16	.56	35.3
During—eating less to get drunker	1.17	.58	35.3
During—not eating to get drunker	1.12	.51	35.3
Bulimia
Before—laxative use	1.04	.26	35.3
During—diuretic use	1.03	.24	35.3
During—laxative use	1.03	.26	35.3
After—diuretic use	1.03	.20	35.0
After—laxative use	1.03	.22	34.9
After—vomiting	1.04	.26	35.08
Dietary Restraint and Exercise
Before—exercising	1.50	.95	35.3
During—eating low calorie foods	1.21	.65	35.4
During—drinking low caloric alcoholic drinks	1.34	.86	35.51
After—eating low calorie foods	1.27	.72	34.9
After—exercising	1.60	1.03	34.9
After—eating less	1.18	.61	34.9
Restriction
Before—skipping meals	1.16	.57	35.3
After—skipping a day of eating	1.06	.33	34.9

a Descriptive statistics are based on all available values for each variable.

b CEBRACS item-level means range from 1-never to 5-almost all the time.

Table 2. Scale correlations and reliabilities missForest model with missing indicator.^a

Variables	Mean^b	1	2	3	4
1. Alcohol effects	NA	(.94)
2. Bulimia	NA	.80***	(.89)
3. Dietary restraint and exercise	NA	.75***	.77***	(.87)
4. Restriction	NA	.89***	.91***	.85***	(.63)
5. General factor	NA	.88***	.90***	.85***	.99***

a n = 1,149. Cronbach’s alphas for each sub-scale is located on the diagonal in parentheses.

b Means of CEBRACS latent variables are zero with a single time point.

*** p ≤ .001.

Table 3. Chi square test of independence between gender and weight intention by engagement in weight conscious drinking behaviors (n = 1,149).

	Weight conscious drinking behaviors not reported (n = 805)			Weight conscious drinking behaviors reported (n = 344)
	Male n (%)	Female n (%)	X^2	Male n (%)	Female n (%)	X^2
Weight intentions			95.2***			47.6***
Lose weight	111 (42.7)	331 (60.7)		54 (43.2)	156 (71.2)
Gain weight	76 (29.2)	28 (5.1)		33 (26.4)	8 (3.7)
Stay the same weight	34 (13.1)	112 (20.6)		24 (19.2)	42 (19.2)
I am not trying to do anything about my weight	39 (15)	74 (13.6)		14 (11.2)	13 (5.9)

*** p ≤ .001.

Table 4. Summary of model fit indices for missForest model.

Model test	χ^2	df	CFI	TLI	WRMR	RMSEA
Measurement Model	327.385	186	.99	.99	1.01	.03
Hypothesized Model 1	779.87	283	.98	.98	1.58	.04

a χ²-values for the measurement and structural models are significant at p ≤ .001.

Table 5. Standardized path coefficients.^a

Model test	Available-case analysis (n = 999)	missForest (n = 1,149)	missForest with missing indicator(n = 1,149)
Alcohol effects^b	−.04 (.12)	−.09 (.10)	−.09 (.09)
Bulimia^b	−.12 (.19)	.06 (.13)	.07 (.10)
Dietary restriction and exercise^b	−.03 (.10)	−.07 (.08)	−.07 (.06)
Restriction^b	.13 (.27)	−.11 (.21)	.09 (.19)
Gender^b	.01 (.01)	.02 (.01)	.01 (.02)
BMI at baseline^b	.93*** (.003)	.90*** (.004)	.91*** (.005)
Gender^c	−.16** (.05)	−.11* (.05)	−.15** (.05)
BMI at follow-up missing indicator^b			−.02 (.01)
CEBRACS missing indicator^b			−.001 (.01)

a Standard errors are in parentheses.

b Body mass index at follow-up is the dependent variable.

c Alcohol effects are the dependent variable.

*** p ≤ .001.

** p ≤ 0.01.

* p ≤ 0.05.