Using Face Validity to Develop an Indigenous Household Resilience Scale

Background: This study developed the factor structure of an Indigenous Household Resilience Scale (IHRS) within a state-recognized tribal community facing extreme environmental threats. The IHRS assesses Indigenous people’s subjective appraisal of resilience at the household level, which is crucial as decisions such as relocation due to repeated disasters and chronic land loss occur at this level rather than at individual or community levels. Although extensive research has identified resilience indicators at both those levels, less is known about the factors contributing to a household’s decision to remain in their community. This gap underscores the need for a household-level assessment.

Methods: A comprehensive literature review yielded over 70 potential indicators of Indigenous resilience. Using face validity methods, four experts indicated items that might represent Indigenous household resilience. Items were further refined through community consultation to 17 indicators organized into three constructs. Data collection involved interviewer-administered surveys with a convenience sample of state-recognized tribal citizens. The research followed protocols developed with the Indigenous community and approved by the Tribal governance council and five university Institutional Review Boards. Initially, a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted in Mplus 8.10 to evaluate if the 17 indicators were constrained as three factors to confirm prior studies. Due to poor fit, an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was performed in SPSS 29.0 to identify and extract the underlying factor structure through principal axis factoring and direct oblique rotation. The number of factors retained was based on eigenvalue criteria greater than 1. Factor loadings for each item were examined and assigned to the factor where they had the largest loading. Items that did not load greater than .30 onto their primary factor and showed a difference of .10 between their primary and alternative factors were not retained in the final structure.

Results: The initial three-factor CFA, comprising Connection to Land, Embracing Culture, and Community Cohesion – suggested by literature, experts, and community – showed a poor fit, χ2 (116) = 189.03, p < .001; RMSEA = 0.07, CFI = .82, SRMR = 0.07. The subsequent EFA revealed an 11-item form of the IHRS across three factors, which differed from the previous studies. The first factor included five indicators of community support networks and cultural practices. The second factor contained four items related to cultural activities and land use. The third factor consisted of two indicators reflecting proactive community organizing and emergency responses.

Implications: These findings provide preliminary evidence for the IHRS within the specific cultural and contextual confines of the studied tribal community. With the exploratory analysis relying on a data-driven technique, future studies should integrate more community feedback and further employ CFA to evaluate this 11-item scale and finalize IHRS. This scale is particularly relevant for social work practitioners and researchers working with Indigenous peoples facing environmental challenges to provide culturally sensitive services and factors promoting resilience at the household level. The collaborative approaches adopted here, closely working with Indigenous communities, enrich the research and ensure that the resultant practices are culturally congruent to enhance social impact.