Table 3 Standardised loadings for the CFA model depicted in Fig. 1 for seven propositions about ‘favourable’ and ‘unfavourable’ impacts of Alcohol Management Plans (AMPs) put to 1211 residents of 10 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander (Indigenous) communities in a survey conducted in Queensland (Australia) in 2014–15

  f1

The AMP has helped make children safer in this community

0.95**

  f2

The AMP has made people more safe in this community

0.85**

  f3

The AMP has reduced violence against women in this community

0.83**

  f4

Since the AMP, violence has gone down in this community

0.80**

  f5

Since the AMP, school attendance has gone up in this community

0.79**

  f6

The AMP has been good for this community and made it a better place to live

0.74**

  f7

People are more aware of harmful effects of alcohol/drinking now (since the AMP)

0.48**

0.09

0.28

0.32

0.35

0.38

0.45

0.77

1.00 (fixed)

−0.08**

−0.11**

0.10**

0.10**

  u4

The AMP has caused more people to get fined, criminal records and convictions

0.03

  u1

There is more (not so much) gunjah being smoked in this community since the AMP

0.25**

  u3

There is more “binge drinking” now than before the AMP

0.27**

  u6

The AMP has discriminated against some people

0.39**

  u5

Police can’t (can) enforce the AMP effectively and stop the alcohol coming in

0.43**

  u7

The AMP has not (has) reduced the alcohol people can get in this community

0.57**

  u8

The AMP has not (has) helped people change their drinking and they are (not) drinking less

0.77**

1.00

0.90

0.93

0.85

0.81

0.67

0.40

1.00 (fixed)

0.29**

0.42**

0.12**

−0.19**

−0.14**