Are trauma memories state-dependent? Intrusive memories following alcohol-involved sexual assault

Figures & data

Figure 1. Simple effects comparisons for intrusion severity holding percentage drinking days constant at 0.30 and perceived threat constant at 1. **p < .01.

Table 1. Results of Negative Binomial Multilevel Model Predicting Intrusion Severity.

		B	SE	p
Model for the means
${\gamma }_{00}$	Intercept	–0.30	0.36	.413
${\gamma }_{10}$	Drinking Day	–0.02	0.12	.885
${\gamma }_{01}$	Percent Days Drinking	–0.48	0.85	.574
${\gamma }_{02}$	Perceived Threat during SA	0.39	0.13	.003**
${\gamma }_{03}$	Alcohol-Involved SA	–0.25	0.37	.503
${\gamma }_{11}$	Alcohol-Involved SA x Drinking Day	0.30	0.15	.046*
Model for the variance
${{\tau }^2}_{U_0}$	Random intercept variance	2.63	0.47
	Scale	0.74	0.06

SE = standard error; SA = sexual assault. *p < .05. **p < .01.

Table 2. Simple Effects Comparisons for Intrusion Severity.

	Non-Drinking Day			Drinking Day
	B	SE	exp(B)	B	SE	exp(B)	t(df = 91)	p
Alcohol-Involved SA	–0.30	0.22	0.74	–0.02	0.23	0.98	3.09	.003**
Non-Alcohol-Involved SA	–0.05	0.30	0.95	–0.07	0.31	0.94	–0.15	.885

SE = standard error; SA = sexual assault. For all estimates, percent of drinking days was held constant at 0.30 and perceived threat was held constant at 1. Estimates (B and SE) are in log units. Exp(B) represented predicted intrusion severity scores plotted in Figure 1. **p < .01.