No abstract

The purpose of this article is to introduce the Family Resilience Inventory (FRI) and present findings on initial efforts to validate this measure. The FRI is designed to assess family resilience in one's current family and in one's family of origin, enabling the assessment of family protective factors across these generations. The development of the FRI was the result of many years of ethnographic research with Southeastern Native American tribes; yet, we believe that this scale is applicable to families of various backgrounds. Items for the FRI were derived directly from thematic analysis of qualitative data with 436 participants, resulting in two 20-item scales. Due to missing data, eight cases were removed from the 127 participants across two tribes, resulting in an analytic sample size of 119. Conceptually, the FRI is comprised of two factors or scales measuring distinct dimensions of family resilience (i.e., resilience in one's current family and resilience in one's family of origin). The results of the confirmatory factor analysis supported the hypothesized two-factor structure (X 2 (644) = 814.14, p = .03, X 2 /df = 1.10, RMSEA = .03, CFI = .97, TLI = .96). Both the subscales and the total FRI scale (a = .92) demonstrated excellent reliability. The results also provided preliminary evidence of convergent and discriminant validity. This measure fills a gap in the absence of community-based, culturally grounded, and empirical measures of family resilience. The examination of family resilience, which may occur across generations, is an exciting new contribution of the FRI.

(1) Background: Settler colonialism has severely disrupted Indigenous ancestral ways of healing and being, contributing to an onslaught of health disparities. In particular, the United Houma Nation (UHN) has faced large land loss and trauma, dispossession, and marginalization. Given the paucity of research addressing health for Indigenous individuals living in Louisiana, this study sought to co-identify a United Houma Nation health framework, by co-developing a community land-based healing approach in order to inform future community-based health prevention programs. (2) Methods: This pilot tested co-designed and implemented a land-based healing pilot study among Houma women utilizing a health promotion leadership approach and utilized semi-structured interviews among to identify a UHN health framework to guide future results. (3) Results: The findings indicated that RTOR was a feasible pilot project. The initial themes were (1.) place, (2.) environmental/land trauma, (3.) ancestors, (4.) spirituality/mindfulness, (5.) cultural continuity, and (6.) environment and health. The reconnection to land was deemed feasible and seen as central to renewing relationships with ancestors (aihalia asanochi taha), others, and body. This mindful, re-engagement with the land contributed to subthemes of developing stronger tribal identities, recreating ceremonies, and increased cultural continuity, and transforming narratives of trauma into hope and resilience. Based on these findings a Houma Health (Uma Hochokma) Framework was developed and presented. (4) Conclusions: Overall, this study found that land can serve as a feasible therapeutic site for healing through reconnecting Houma tribal citizens to both ancestral knowledges and stories of resilience, as well as viewing self as part of a larger collective. These findings also imply that revisiting historically traumatic places encouraged renewed commitment to cultural continuity and health behaviors—particularly when these places are approached relationally, with ceremony, and traumatic events tied to these places, including climate change and environmental/land trauma, are acknowledged along with the love the ancestors held for future generations.

Indigenous peoples of the United States are distinct from other ethnic minorities because they have experienced colonization as the original inhabitants. Social and health disparities are connected to a context of historical oppression—the chronic, pervasive, and intergenerational experiences of oppression that, over time, may be normalized, imposed, and internalized into the daily lives of many Indigenous peoples (including individuals, families, and communities). As part of the critical Framework of Historical Oppression, Resilience, and Transcendence (FHORT), in this article, we introduce the Historical Oppression Scale (HOS), a scale assessing internalized and externalized oppression. Our study reports on survey data ( N = 127) from a larger convergent mixed-methodology study with scale items derived from thematic analysis of qualitative data ( N = 436), which informed the resultant 10-item scale. After six cases were removed from the 127 participants who participated in the quantitative component to the study due to missing data across two tribes, the sample size for analysis was 121. Confirmatory factor analysis testing of the hypothesized unidimensional construct indicated acceptable model fit ( X2 = 58.10, [Formula: see text] 1.94, CFI = .98, TLI = .97, RMSEA = .088, 90% CI = .05, .12). Reliability of the 10-item scale was excellent (α = .97) and convergent and discriminant validity were established. The HOS explicates complex associations between historical oppression and health and social disparities and may be an important clinical and research tool in an understudied area.

No abstract