PROTOCOL: Measures of Parenting Constructs Utilised With Indigenous Caregivers in Canada,Australia,Aotearoa,and the United States: A Scoping Review Protocol

Abstract

Measures of parenting constructs that are suited to sample and context are necessary in the development of evidence for models of family support. As parenting practices and values vary across history and cultures, it is important to consider the validity of measures of parenting for Indigenous families. This protocol outlines a scoping review that will seek to describe the scope of measures of parenting constructs that have been utilised with Indigenous families in comparative contexts of Canada, Australia, Aotearoa, and the United States, and describe the characteristics of new and adapted measures. Data extracted from articles will describe the parenting construct being measured, the sample involved in the study, the process for development or adaptation, how Indigenous leadership and perspectives have been included in measure design, and the psychometric qualities of measures. The scoping review will employ the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews, with data extraction drawing on aspects of the COSMIN and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Quality Appraisal Tool. Findings will be aligned with the cultural continuum of measure adaptation and development and presented in table and narrative formats. Findings will be disseminated via a peer-reviewed academic output. Conducted by a team of Indigenous and allied scholars, the scoping review aims to capture a snapshot of existing measures, identifying for practitioners and researchers measurement approaches that embed strengths-based perspectives and Indigenous knowledges of parenting.

Plain Language Summary

Parenting practices and values are different across cultures and over time. Because of this it is important that surveys that measure ‘parenting’ are appropriate and meaningful for Indigenous families. This protocol describes the plans for a scoping review of measures (e.g., surveys, questionnaires) that have been used to measure different aspects of parenting within Indigenous families in Canada, Australia, Aotearoa (New Zealand), and the United States. Our review will look at studies that use measures of parenting to examine what aspects of parenting have been measured, who participated in the studies, how measures were developed or adapted, and statistical tests done to confirm that the measures were valid. We will also look at how Indigenous leadership and perspectives have been included in studies and in measure design. To do this work we will apply aspects of existing frameworks that consider the statistical quality of measures, culturally valid measurement in Indigenous communities and quality standards for Indigenous focused research. Our findings will be presented in tables and written summaries. Our scoping review team includes Indigenous and non-Indigenous scholars. We aim to provide an overview of measures that are already out there for use with Indigenous families and highlight approaches that emphasise Indigenous knowledges in understanding parenting. The results will help researchers and practitioners to choose measures that are appropriate for their work with Indigenous families.

Keywords

Indigenous parents measure development psychometric validation

Background

Introduction

Indigenous parents in nations now known as Canada, Australia, Aotearoa New Zealand (NZ) and the United States (US; referred to as CANZUS countries) face similar barriers in accessing contextually relevant models of family support. Across CANZUS countries there are few family support programs developed and evaluated specifically for Indigenous families (J. MacDonald et al., 2024; Macvean et al., 2017). Indeed, whilst the experiences of First Peoples in each country are diverse, there are significant parallels in their resistance against the historic and ongoing impacts of “dispossession, stigmatisation and marginalisation,” resulting in similar social, health and economic disparities (Walter et al., 2025, p. 7). Across CANZUS nations there are significant needs for contemporary and culturally relevant models of family support for Indigenous families (J. MacDonald et al., 2024; Macvean et al., 2017).

In the development of evidence for models of family support, quantitative psychometric measures of parenting-related constructs can be employed to demonstrate the efficacy of programs and potential impacts on family functioning and parenting behaviour (Macvean et al., 2017). As parenting practices and values vary across, and within, history and cultures (Harkness & Super, 2002; Rogoff, 2003), the measurement of ‘parenting’ as tailored to context is crucial to consider (Choate & McKenzie, 2015). Within models of support or intervention for Indigenous families, it has been argued that measurement of ‘parenting’ should incorporate Indigenous samples in measure development and importantly, be aligned with Indigenous Peoples’ experiences and perspectives of caregiving (Choate & McKenzie, 2015). Accordingly, use of inappropriate or irrelevant measures can undermine the development of relevant evidence (Blignault & Williams, 2017; Muir & Dean, 2017; Whitesell et al., 2018) and have broader and potentially determinantal implications on resource allocation and policy directions (Haroz et al., 2022; Luke et al., 2022).

The utility of measures in various contexts may be considered in terms of the: relevance of constructs being assessed; adaptation or development of measures for specific populations to ensure relevance and cultural acceptability; and the psychometric validation of these measures within the sample of interest (Fischer et al., 2024). In other psychosocial disciplines, it has been recommended that measures used with Indigenous Peoples are based on domains informed by “the values and preferences of the Indigenous people themselves”, requiring the development of tailored measures or adaptation of existing measures (Angell et al., 2016, p. 2176). Tailored measures recognise the linguistic, cultural, historical and worldview diversity within and between specific Indigenous populations and groups (Walls et al., 2019). Common measures allow for consideration of if and how general health and wellbeing predictors are relevant to Indigenous populations, and can facilitate comparative analyses (Walls et al., 2019). Thus, in working with Indigenous populations it is important to consider the characteristics of tailored and common measures, as well as adaptation of existing tools to suit new contexts.

Wesner and colleagues (2024) have developed a cultural continuum of measure adaptation and development with clear definitions of common, adapted and tailored measures for use within Indigenous communities, as grounded in an existing framework of cultural adaptation of interventions (Okamoto et al., 2014). Wesner and colleagues (2024) define and describe four measurement approaches: “(1) non-adapted, (2) surface-structure adaptation and development, (3) deep-structure adaptation and development, and (4) culturally grounded or immersed” measures (p. 230). This common language provides a framework in understanding strengths and limitations of measure adaptation and development with Indigenous communities, including a way to critique constructs underpinning measurement, measure use, adaptation, and unintended consequences for Indigenous families when inadequate or irrelevant measures have been applied (Walls et al., 2019; Wesner et al., 2024, 2025). Clear and transparent reporting of how measures have been developed and validated for Indigenous communities aids avoidance of ‘Questionable Measurement Practices’, which can preclude ascertaining the “overall validity of a study’s conclusions” (Flake & Fried, 2020, p. 457). Furthermore, clarity on the development of measures with regards to Indigenous input and leadership addresses how individual measurement approaches align with, or disregard, movements towards Indigenous determination over what quantitative data is collected, and how (Walter, 2018).

The last decade has seen a growing body of literature articulating the scope of measures that have been utilised, adapted, developed and/or validated within Indigenous populations, for example: Health Related Quality of Life (Angell et al., 2016), perinatal mental health screening (Chan et al., 2021), empowerment (Campbell et al., 2021) and wellbeing (Le Grande et al., 2017; Newton et al., 2015; Saunders et al., 2023). While a number of reviews have considered evidence and evaluation of Indigenous parenting programs and make allusions to impacts (or null effects) on parenting (see: Bleiweiss-Sande et al., 2022; Bowes & Grace, 2014; J. MacDonald et al., 2024; Macvean et al., 2017; McCalman et al., 2017; Mildon & Polimeni, 2012; Strobel et al., 2022; Waller et al., 2023), few comment on the utility of the measures used in these evaluations. Macvean and colleagues’ (2017) review of Indigenous parenting interventions stated that studies pertaining to the development or testing of measures for use with Indigenous People would be reported separately, however this work was not published (M. Macvean, personal communication, January 13, 2025). Indeed, a preliminary search indicates an absence of systematic or scoping reviews on parenting-related measures in Indigenous contexts. Given the comparative socioeconomic contexts of CANZUS countries, literature reviews regarding Indigenous health and family research regularly adopt a broad scope that includes all countries (for example: Chan et al., 2021; Macvean et al., 2017; Saunders et al., 2023). This protocol therefore details a scoping review to examine the scope and characteristics of new and existing measures that have been utilised with Indigenous parents and families to measure parenting-related constructs in CANZUS countries. Employing Wesner and colleagues’ (2024) cultural continuum of measure adaptation and development in the synthesis of the findings, attention will be paid to the process of development or adaptation, and descriptions of how Indigenous perspectives have been included.

Research Provenance and Positioning

This scoping review sits within a PhD programme of research. The PhD employs pragmatism as the research paradigm, with a focus on how the real world setting can inform solutions to real world problems (Dewey, 2008; Morgan, 2014). In recognising the positionality of the PhD candidate (first author: AG) as a non-Indigenous student of mixed-European heritage, this work looks to align respectfully (Byrne et al., 2021; Tuck & Yang, 2012) with Indigenous research methodologies (Moyer et al., 2024; Smith, 2012; Wilson, 2001) through centralising the experiences and perspectives of Indigenous caregivers, as guided by Indigenous mentors, advisors and colleagues. The overarching PhD explores how psychosocial aspects of parenting are conceptualised and operationalised from the perspectives of First Nations parents in the Northern Territory, Australia. The PhD candidate’s interest in this research topic developed during the evaluation of a parenting program with Australian First Nations parents in rural, culturally, and linguistically diverse communities (see: Gregory et al., 2024; Robinson et al., 2025). The larger scoping review team is composed of Indigenous (CW and LMR) and non-Indigenous (KMC, SF, EA, GR and KW) scholars across fields of social psychology, maternal and early childhood health, anthropology, parenting program design and evaluation, and Indigenous research methodologies.

Why a Scoping Review?

Scoping reviews establish the extent of available literature and emphasise the characteristics of studies rather than performing a critical appraisal of study rigour (Grant & Booth, 2009; Peters et al., 2020). Given the apparent lack of synthesis of literature, a scoping review was considered a first step towards mapping parenting-related measures for Indigenous caregivers and assessing ‘what is already out there’. This knowledge may be useful for program designers, implementors and evaluators to identify measures fit for specific contexts, and those measures that align with collecting types of data that are meaningful and useful to Indigenous communities (Walter, 2018, p. 258). Employing conceptually, culturally, linguistically, and methodologically relevant, as well as psychometrically valid measures, is essential in the process of developing evidence for parenting programs, which in turn are vital to creating meaningful support for Indigenous families. We hope this work will draw attention to how measures, specifically of parenting, have been developed and/or employed with Indigenous parents, and whose voices are privileged or notably absent (Dingwall & Cairney, 2010; Drew et al., 2010). Critical appraisal of study rigour is not undertaken for two reasons: (1) because this is not typical practice for scoping reviews (Grant & Booth, 2009), and (2) because such appraisal is best led by Indigenous scholars, communities, and parents (Phillips-Beck et al., 2024).

Objectives

Using the PCC mnemonic (Population, Concepts, Context; Peters et al., 2020), this protocol outlines a scoping review to identify self-report psychometric measures of parenting-related constructs, and investigate how measures have been developed or adapted (concept) for use with Indigenous families (population) in CANZUS countries (context). The review will describe how measures have been developed or adapted, examining the inclusion of Indigenous perspectives on parenting, design and administration decisions and statistical validation of scales. This work will be useful for practitioners and researchers to identify measurement approaches that embed strengths-based perspectives and Indigenous knowledges of parenting. The scoping review will answer the following questions:

(1) What studies have employed self-report psychometric measures of parenting-related constructs with parents (or caregivers) within Indigenous families?

(2) How are measures described as being adapted or designed for context?

(a) are Indigenous parents and researchers included in measure selection, design, or adaptation?

(3) What are the characteristics of measures in terms of:

(a) the construct being measured

(b) Indigenous knowledges in construct selection

(d) psychometric characteristics

(4) For measures that have been adapted, how do their design qualities and other characteristics differ from the original scales?

Methods

Design

The overall framework for this scoping review is Peters and colleagues’ (2020) updated guidance on conduct of scoping reviews. The PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) will be used as the reporting guideline for the manuscript. The data extraction approach draws on Step 6 described in Prinsen and colleagues’ (2018) COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) to report on the internal structure of measures. The description of Indigenous Knowledges in measure design and/or adaptation draws on the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Quality Appraisal Tool (Harfield et al., 2020). The synthesis of results draws on Wesner and colleagues’ (2024) cultural continuum of measure adaptation and development. This scoping review protocol has been registered on Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/x8qne/overview; DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/X8QNE).

Inclusion Criteria

Eligibility is described in Table 1 and includes studies that employ self-report measurement of parenting-related constructs within Indigenous families in CANZUS countries. We employ the term ‘Indigenous families’ to encompass Indigenous parents and non-Indigenous parents of Indigenous children. In doing so we recognise that contemporary Indigenous families and communities include diverse ethnic and cultural identities in addition to Indigeneity. We maintain that Indigenous parents must be the intended and substantive sample. This inclusion criteria will not preclude studies that include a subset of non-Indigenous caregivers alongside Indigenous parents of Indigenous children, as this may hold important insights in the use of measures in diverse Indigenous contexts. We will not include studies where Indigenous parents or families are not the intended and substantive sample, nor where they are reported on as part of a larger heterogeneous sample with non-Indigenous families, for example, as part of a comparative study. ‘Parent’ is used to refer to biological and other caregivers and will be defined by the study under review. Additional definitions are provided at the end of the protocol.

Table 1.

Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

Criteria	Inclusion	Exclusion
Participants (Population & Context)	• Indigenous parents in Canada Australia, Aotearoa NZ and the US OR • Parents of Indigenous children in CANZUS AND • Indigenous parents are the intended and substantive sample	• Substantive inclusion of non-Indigenous parents to non-Indigenous children AND/OR • Comparison drawn between Indigenous and non-Indigenous samples
Study type	• Parenting program evaluation, trial or reporting of results/outcomes AND/OR • Measure design, adaptation, or psychometric validation study AND/OR • Exploring relationships between parenting constructs and other variables	• Cohort study using healthcare data only OR • Protocol only (no reporting of participants and/or psychometric statistics from measures) OR • Literature review, systematic or scoping review or meta-analysis
Construct measured (Concept)	• Parenting attitudes, values, beliefs, behaviour, feelings, or cognitions OR • Parent-child relationship	• Child characteristics/constructs only OR • Physical health OR • Mental health
Type of measure (Concept)	• Quantitative or mixed methods measure AND • Self-report by parent or caregiver	• Solely qualitative interview OR • Observational OR • Clinical/provider assessment process OR • Report by family member only OR • Report by child only
Publication Language	English	Language other than English
Dates	Since 1999	Prior to 1999
Publication type	• Peer reviewed academic article OR • Published evaluative report of a parenting program OR • Thesis	• Policy document OR • Online reference (e.g., webpage) OR • Conference paper

Types of studies included will be those that focus on measure design or adaptation as well as those that employ measures of parenting-related constructs in a program evaluation or in examining relationships between parenting and other variables. We define ‘psychometric measures of parenting-related constructs’ as measures that are completed by a parent about a parenting construct or outcome, meaning that they are reporting on their own experiences, views, or behaviours in relation to caring for and meeting the needs of their child(ren). We take this to include latent constructs such as parenting style, beliefs, attitudes, knowledge or parent-child relationships, observable factors such as behaviours, or another performance outcome reported by the parent and defined within the study. Parenting outcome measures that are not self-report are excluded (e.g., healthcare data that describes increased attendance at well-child checks). Measures that examine physical and mental health and wellbeing are also excluded as there are already a number of reviews that focus on these areas (see: Angell et al., 2016; Rohit et al., 2019; Ryder et al., 2022; Saunders et al., 2023). Measures that examine child-specific constructs, behaviours, or outcomes (e.g., child wellbeing, externalising behaviours) are also excluded as the focus of the review is on parenting constructs and parents’ experiences.

Types of measures included are restricted to self-report and can be solely quantitative or incorporate mixed methods within data collection. Self-report measures were selected in keeping with the psychometric focus of the review, and to constrain the scope of the literature. The eligibility of mixed methods measures acknowledges the shift towards the inclusion of storytelling components in measure design with Indigenous participants (e.g., Marley and colleagues’ (2017) adaptation to the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale). Only studies published in English are included, as this is the dominant language of the CANZUS countries and inclusion of publications in other languages is not feasible for this review. This does not limit the inclusion of studies where data were collected or analysed in languages other than English, provided the language of publication was English. Studies are limited to those published since 1999 to create a manageable scope of literature. This timeline is also consistent with the increased investment and attention paid to programs for Indigenous parents in recent decades (Waller et al., 2023). Types of eligible publications include peer-reviewed publications, evaluation reports of parenting programs and theses.

Information Sources and Search Strategy

A three-step search strategy will be utilised. An initial limited search of PsycInfo and CINAHL Ultimate was undertaken in December 2024 prior to writing the protocol to identify key articles on the topic. Key words in titles and abstracts were used to develop search terms in consultation with a librarian at Charles Darwin University. ChatGPT was used to identify any other useful synonyms (see Supplemental Material for ChatGPT prompts and response), with the final list of search terms outlined in Table 2.

Table 2.

Search Terms

ID	Concept	Terms
1	Measure	Measur* OR Instrument* OR Assess* OR Scale* OR Questionnaire* OR Tool* OR Survey* OR Self-report* OR Construct OR Test*
2	Parenting	Parent* OR Child-rear* OR “Growing up” OR Caregiv* OR Upbringing OR Mother* OR Father*
3	Indigenous	Aboriginal* OR “Torres Strait Islander” OR Indigenous OR “First Nation” OR Inuit OR Metis OR “Alaska Native” OR “Native American” OR “American Indian*” OR Māori
4	Validation	Design* OR Develop* OR Adapt* OR Valid* OR Psychometric* OR Reliabilit*
5	Program	Program* OR Interven* OR Preven* OR Workshop* OR Training OR Course* OR Education
6	Evaluation	Evaluation OR Research

Systematic searches of PsycInfo, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global, CINAHL Ultimate, SocINDEX (EBSCO), Scopus, Web of Science Core Collection and Informit Indigenous Collection will be conducted using these terms. Databases were identified via review of recommended databases (H. MacDonald et al., 2024) and through consultation with a librarian, this selection was thought to cover a range of fields relevant to the current focus, including both general databases and more specific source locations (e.g., Informit Indigenous Collection). Boolean logic will be used to combine all terms for two search strategies. The reference lists of all included studies will also be reviewed for additional records not already identified through database searches. Only peer-reviewed studies, theses and program evaluation reports identified through the databases and published in English since 1999 will be screened for inclusion. We will not be conducting a full search of grey literature sources due to both the feasibility of the study, and the restrictions of scoping reviews to provide a starting point for exploring existing literature rather than an exhaustive review. An example search is provided (Table 3). All records will be imported into reference management software Zotero for storage, with deduplicated RIS files imported into JBI SUMARI (Munn et al., 2019), which will be used to manage screening and inclusion decisions.

Table 3.

Example Search Strategy PsycInfo

Search	String	Limits
1	TI (Measur* OR Instrument* OR Assess* OR Scale* OR Questionnaire* OR Tool* OR Survey* OR Self-report* OR Construct OR Test) OR AB (Measur OR Instrument* OR Assess* OR Scale* OR Questionnaire* OR Tool* OR Survey* OR Self-report* OR Construct OR Test) OR DE (Questionnaires OR “Rating Scales” OR “Self Report” OR “Parent Report” OR “Cognitive Measures” OR “Attitude Measures” OR “Behavioral Measures” OR “Family and Parenting Measures” OR “Stress and Coping Measures” OR “Racial, Ethnic, and Cultural Measures”) OR KW (Measur OR Instrument* OR Assess* OR Scale* OR Questionnaire* OR Tool* OR Survey* OR Self-report* OR Construct OR Test*)
2	TI (Parent* OR Childrear* OR “Growing up” OR Caregiv* OR Upbringing OR Mother* OR Father) OR AB (Parent OR Childrear* OR “Growing up” OR Caregiv* OR Upbringing OR Mother* OR Father) OR DE (Parents OR Parenting OR “Parent Child Relations” OR “Childrearing Attitudes” OR “Child Rearing Practices” OR “Parental Attitudes” OR “Parental Skills” OR “Parental Influence” OR “Parental Role” OR “Parental Stress” OR “Parental Involvement”) OR KW (Parent OR Childrear* OR “Growing up” OR Caregiv* OR Upbringing OR Mother* OR Father*)
3	TI (Aboriginal* OR “Torres Strait Islander” OR Indigenous OR “First Nation” OR Inuit OR Metis OR “Alaska Native” OR “Native American” OR “American Indian” OR Māori) OR AB (Aboriginal OR “Torres Strait Islander” OR Indigenous OR “First Nation” OR Inuit OR Metis OR “Alaska Native” OR “Native American” OR “American Indian” OR Māori) OR DE (“Indigenous Peoples in Australia” OR “Pacific Islanders” OR “Indigenous Peoples in Canada” OR “Hawaii Natives” OR “Alaska Natives” OR “American Indians”) OR KW (Aboriginal OR “Torres Strait Islander” OR Indigenous OR “First Nation” OR Inuit OR Metis OR “Alaska Native” OR “Native American” OR “American Indian*” OR Māori)
4	TI (Design* OR Develop* OR Adapt* OR Valid* OR Psychometric* OR Reliabilit) OR AB (Design OR Develop* OR Adapt* OR Valid* OR Psychometric* OR Reliabilit) OR DE (“Test Construction” OR “Statistical Measurement” OR Psychometrics OR “Test Reliability” OR “Test Validity” OR “Cross Cultural Test Adaptation”) OR KW (Design OR Develop* OR Adapt* OR Valid* OR Psychometric* OR Reliabilit*)
5	TI (Program* OR Interven* OR Preven* OR Workshop* OR Training OR Course* OR Education) OR AB (Program* OR Interven* OR Preven* OR Workshop* OR Training OR Course* OR Education) OR DE (Intervention OR “Preventative Programs” OR “Parent Education”) OR KW (Program* OR Interven* OR Preven* OR Workshop* OR Training OR Course* OR Education)
6	TI (Evaluation OR Research) OR AB (Evaluation OR Research) OR DE (“Program Evaluation”) KW (Evaluation OR Research)
7	(S1) AND (S2) AND (S3) AND (S4)	1999 - 2026
8	(S2) AND (S3) AND (S5) AND (S6)	1999 - 2026

Screening

Titles and abstracts will be screened by one reviewer (AG). Screening of titles and abstracts will follow the eligibility criteria (Table 1). Studies are required to meet the baseline criteria for full text review (Table 4). Screening will be performed in JBI SUMARI, where notes and decision making can be tracked. Where studies meet other criteria but the construct being addressed and/or the type of measure (self-report) is unclear from title and abstract screening alone, studies will be screened in for full text review. Following a first round of screening, all abstracts will undergo a second screening by the same reviewer (AG).

Table 4.

Baseline Criteria for Being Screened in for Full Text Review

Criteria	Inclusion	Exclusion
Participants	• Indigenous parents in Canada Australia, Aotearoa NZ and the USOR• Parents of Indigenous childrenAND• Indigenous families are the intended and substantive sample	• Substantive inclusion of non-Indigenous parents to non-Indigenous childrenAND/OR• Comparison drawn between Indigenous and non-Indigenous samples
Study type	• Parenting program evaluation, trial or reporting of results/outcomesAND/OR• Measure design, adaptation, or psychometric validation studyAND/OR• Exploring relationships between parenting constructs and other variables	• Cohort study using healthcare data onlyOR• Literature review, systematic or scoping review or meta-analysis
Publication language	English	Language other than English
Dates	Since 1999	Prior to 1999

Study Selection

All records that screened in will have full text retrieved, and saved to a shared Zotero collection. Any texts where the full text cannot be retrieved (i.e., not open access, or inaccessible via university library collections) will be listed as ‘unknown’ and not included in the review. Full texts will be reviewed for inclusion into the scoping review. Full text review will be conducted independently by two reviewers (AG, and one other member of the team). Decision making for inclusion will follow the full inclusion criteria and be recorded in JBI SUMARI. Discrepancies in inclusion/exclusion decisions will be resolved via discussion by reviewing each of the inclusion criteria and identifying where and why a discrepancy occurred. If a decision cannot be met by discussion, a senior author will make the final decision for inclusion.

Study Appraisal

This scoping review study is pragmatic, examining what approaches already exist with regards to characteristics of measures, as well as what is relevant to real world practice in the utility of measures with Indigenous parents. As previously described, we do not seek to conduct a critical appraisal of the studies (i.e., commenting on study rigour). Our intent is to describe use of parenting measures within the context of Indigenous families and communities, so that future research may be better informed of existing measures to make decisions about measurement based on development and characteristics. As part of our approach, we have utilised elements of existing tools to articulate how measures have been designed or adapted, their sample qualities, and psychometric characteristics. To adequately capture the role of Indigenous contributors and knowledges we have drawn on elements of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Quality Appraisal Tool (Harfield et al., 2020), specifically reporting on Indigenous leadership, strengths-based approaches and community consultation and on the COSMIN (Prinsen et al., 2018) for reporting of psychometric qualities. For adaptation of existing measures, the appraisal process situates studies in comparison to the original measure or validation study.

Data Extraction

A data extraction form will be used to perform study appraisal. The data extraction form describes the characteristics of instruments. The form was developed through a three step-process. Firstly, the first author (AG) reviewed approaches used in other scoping reviews of measures for use with Indigenous populations, for example Ryder and colleagues’ (2022) scoping review of Patient Reported Outcome Measures, and Sjoblom and colleagues’ (2024) protocol for their review of measures of health and wellbeing from preconception to early life. Secondly, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Quality Appraisal Tool (Harfield et al., 2020) was drawn on to describe the inclusion of Indigenous perspectives, community engagement and leadership. Step 6 of the COSMIN was employed to develop the questions regarding psychometric validation (Prinsen et al., 2018). Lastly, the data extraction form was reviewed and refined by co-authors.

As some studies may employ multiple measures, the data extraction form is designed to describe the study at the broadest level as well as each measure employed in greater specificity. Description of measures will focus on the construct being measured (purpose of measure), sample, subscales, response type, administration qualities, novel development or adaption and the language of administration. The psychometric qualities of measures will be described in terms of face, content and construct validity, stability, internal consistency, and item removal. Description of measure development will consider the inclusion of Indigenous knowledges in piloting and revision of instruments and items, and strengths-based approaches. We draw from Harfield and colleagues (2018) to define strengths-based approaches as: acknowledgement of past harms; efforts not to replicate damaging past practices; recognition of the imposition of Western values and perspectives; a focus on positive attributes; and identification of and building on the strengths of the community.

Description will also include the incorporation of Indigenous perspectives of parenting, recognising the need to establish construct validity (Flake & Fried, 2020) and ensure that constructs being addressed are indeed relevant to Indigenous families (Choate & McKenzie, 2015). Studies will be denoted as reporting, partially reporting or not reporting on these factors. We define ‘reported’ as clearly described content that dedicates a substantive amount of physical space within the article to the point of interest (e.g., more than one sentence). ‘Partially reported’ is defined as unclear and brief descriptions. For example, a brief statement of ‘co-design processes’ may warrant being described as partially reported whereas a paragraph detailing the co-design process, the collaborators and their contributions may be described as ‘yes, reported’. For any aspects that are not mentioned, this will be described as ‘not reported’, as this does not assume that these processes were not done, rather that they were not reported on (Moyer et al., 2024). The data extraction form will be piloted on two studies, reviewed and discussed with two co-authors to ensure that the form includes all necessary information for extraction and best meets the research objectives. If necessary, the form will be amended.

Data extraction will be completed by the first author (AG). Completed data extraction forms will be reviewed by a second reviewer to verify the information and ensure consistency across the information extracted from the included studies. During the data extraction process, the first author (primary reviewer) will discuss emerging with the study team to enhance depth of understanding, and to invite different perspectives. The data extraction forms (Table 5) will be stored in document format and summarised in a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet.

Table 5.

Data Extraction Form

Study review
Study (Author, Year)	Reported
Describe parent sample	E.g. Parent type (mother/father/caregiver generic), child characteristics (age, development)
Include, if possible, the Indigenous context/community/Nation where the research was conducted.	E.g., CANZUS Country, community/Indigenous affiliation (e.g., Tribal Nation)/language group
Indigenous leadership in study	Yes, Partially, Not reportedComments:
Collaboration or consultation with community members/Indigenous stakeholders in construct and measure selection	Yes, Partially, Not reportedComments:

Measure review
Completed for each measure within each study.
Note: For existing measures complete both columns, for new measures complete only the ‘Current Study’ column.
Measure name
Origins of measure	□ Existing measure OR □ New measure
	Original study	Current study
	______________ (Citation)	______________ (Citation)
Construct
Subscales
Response type
Administration (e.g., self or researcher supported)
Language of measure
Indigenous knowledges [select one answer]
Measure piloted and revised with Indigenous community/sample	Yes, Partially, No, Not reported, NA (e.g., non-Indigenous sample)	Yes, Partially, Not reported
		Comments:
Strengths-based approach adopted in measure design (according to Harfield and colleagues (2018, p. 18))	Yes, Partially, No, Not reported, NA (e.g., non-Indigenous sample)	Yes, Partially, Not reported
		Comments:
Inclusion of contextually grounded perspectives of parenting in the process of measure development and/or in the items included on the scale	Yes, Partially, No, Not reported, NA (e.g., non-Indigenous sample)	Yes, Partially, Not reported
		Comments:
Psychometric qualities [describe process and reported results]
Face validity
Content validity
Construct validity
Stability (e.g., test-retest)
Internal consistency (e.g., α)
Item level characteristics
Item removal (include examples)
Item adaptation (include examples)
Narrative reflection
Describe outcomes recorded using the measure
Describe the overall learning or implications articulated in the study with regards to measure design

Synthesis and Presentation of Results

A PRISMA flow diagram will be used to describe the final inclusion of studies. Our findings will be described both narratively and in a tabulated format. Descriptive statistics will be employed to describe the number of studies, the CANZUS location, the sample and Indigenous population, the constructs underpinning measures, the measures employed, the frequency of common, adapted and newly developed measures, and reported psychometric qualities (research questions 1, 3a, 3d). In addressing research questions 2, 3 and 4 we will organise findings by each research question, and further synthesise via aligning measure use with Wesner and colleagues’ (2024) cultural continuum of measure adaptation and development (non-adapted through to culturally grounded/immersed; Table 6). Where the information has been reported on, we will provide insight into study justification and implementation of the approaches across the continuum. For example, Wesner and colleagues (2024) pose that non-adapted (e.g., common measures) and surface-structure adaptation may be best placed when there is existing alignment with the underlying construct within the novel context, or when the research is subject to limited resources. Whereas culturally grounded or immersed approaches work best where there is little or no alignment between existing measures and the conceptualisations of constructs within the community of interest; and where there are adequate resources to do this intensive work.

Table 6.

Summary of the Cultural Continuum of Measure Adaptation and Development (Wesner et al., 2024)

	Continuum
	Non-adapted	Surface structure adaptation	Deep structure adaptation	Culturally grounded or immersed
Description	Well established and validated in other (non-Indigenous) contexts.	Existing measure is adapted, or a new measure developed for the specific context using construct “operationalisations and methods that are minimally culturally relevant.” (p. 236)	Existing measure is adapted or a new measure developed for the specific context using methods that are culturally aligned. Although the underlying construct may have been conceptualised in a different context/worldview, it is still appropriate to the community.	A new measure that is grounded in the context, cultures and worldview of the specific context.
Example characteristics	Common, widely used measure with no evidence of adaptation.	Uses local language words within items or culturally relevant pictures or images in materials.	The underlying construct and its operationalisation are established and in general alignment across cultures/contexts. Images and languages are tailored to context.	Conceptualisation of the construct is contextually grounded and culturally driven, all images, language and methods in measure application are reflective of the needs, preferences, and ways of being within the community.

Ethics and Dissemination

This scoping review forms part of AG’s PhD research. This research has been provided full ethical approval by the Menzies School of Health Research and NT Health Human Research Ethics Committee (2024-5015). Results will be disseminated in the form of a peer-reviewed manuscript. Meta-data for inclusion and exclusion decision making and search strings will be made available to the journal at the point of manuscript submission, or available on request, in line with the journal guidelines.

Conclusion

The overall aim of this scoping review will be to identify and describe key characteristics in the design and administration of self-report measures of parenting-related constructs used with Indigenous families. To achieve this, the scoping review will determine the scope and purpose of existing measures of parenting constructs that have been used with Indigenous parents in Canada, Australia, Aotearoa NZ, and the US; describe measure development or adaptation; and the characteristics of these measures. This knowledge will be useful to program evaluators and researchers, as well as psychometricians, in developing insight into ‘what is already out there’, and aid in decision making regarding the utility of these measures with Indigenous families. The scoping review will provide a foundation for further research, with relevance to examining cross-cultural parenting construct equivalence, and the evaluation of family support programs implemented by or for Indigenous communities. By clearly articulating the characteristics of new and adapted measures, social scientists and practitioners are better placed to identify measures that are suited to their work and consider the development and adoption of measures that embed strengths-based perspectives and Indigenous knowledges of parenting.

Terminology

Indigenous is used to refer to the many and diverse First Peoples of the lands now known as Canada, Australia, Aotearoa New Zealand and the United States. This term is used respectfully and with recognition for Indigenous Peoples’ continuous connection to and care for lands, waters, skies, and non-human entities.

Parent/s refers to people that are the primary caregiver(s) of children. In the current scoping review, parent will be defined by the study under review, and may include non-biological parents raising children.

Parenting refers to the ways in which caregivers meet the emotional and developmental needs of children, construed through cultural and chronological systems (Harkness & Super, 2002). For Indigenous parents it has been posed that “to ‘parent’ a child means to help the spirit of the child emerge as the child grows and experiences life” (Secretariat of National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Child Care, 2011, p. 8).

Family refers to a couple or group of people who share emotional, social, or other bonds, who may or may not be biologically related to each other. For Indigenous Peoples, family may include extended kinship networks, “physical and emotional bonds to country, and connecting to the spirit of their ancestors” (Lohoar et al., 2014, p. 3).

Aboriginal/traditional adoption systems refer to when a child is traditionally adopted and raised by another family member (Secretariat of National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Child Care, 2011).

Supplemental Material

Supplemental Material - PROTOCOL: Measures of Parenting Constructs Utilised With Indigenous Caregivers in Canada, Australia, Aotearoa, and the United States: A Scoping Review Protocol

Supplemental Material for PROTOCOL: Measures of Parenting Constructs Utilised With Indigenous Caregivers in Canada, Australia, Aotearoa, and the United States: A Scoping Review Protocol by Alexandra Gregory, Kim M. Caudwell, Chelsea Wesner, Leeann Mick-Ramsamy, Sara Filoche, Emily Armstrong, Gary Robinson & Kayli Wild in Campbell Systematic Reviews.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We would like to extend our appreciation to Lisa Ban, Academic and Research Librarian at Charles Darwin University, for her contribution to database searching and key word development, as well as general guidance on conducting scoping reviews.

Author contributions

Alexandra Gregory: Conceptualisation, methodology, preliminary literature search, data extraction tool development, data synthesis, manuscript writing and manuscript revision. Kim M. Caudwell: Methodology, data extraction tool development, manuscript review and revision, supervision. Chelsea Wesner: Methodology, data synthesis, manuscript review and revision. Leeann Mick-Ramsamy: Data extraction tool review, manuscript revision, cultural and academic mentorship. Sara Filoche: Methodology, manuscript revision. Emily Armstrong: Data extraction tool review, manuscript revision. Gary Robinson: Supervision, manuscript review and revision. Kayli Wild: Data extraction tool development, manuscript review and revision, supervision.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The PhD candidate (AG) receives an Australian Commonwealth Government Research Training (RTP) Program Scholarship () and was awarded the ACSPRI Fellowship (2025/26).

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Data Availability Statement

Data are available via request. Available data includes search strategies for each database with search strings, citations for all records included and excluded at full text review, citations for final included studies, and the data extraction form for each study included in the final review.*

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

Angell

Muhunthan

Eades

A.-M.

Cunningham

Garvey

Cass

Howard

Ratcliffe

Eades

Jan

(2016). The health-related quality of life of Indigenous populations: A global systematic review. Quality of Life Research, 25(9), 2161–2178. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-016-1311-9

Bleiweiss-Sande

Sama-Miller

Chavez

Coughlin

Mraz Esposito

(2022). Assessing effectiveness of early childhood home visiting models implemented with Tribal populations. OPRE. https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/documents/opre/TRIBAL-REPORT-2022.pdf

Blignault

Williams

(2017). Challenges in evaluating Aboriginal healing programs: Definitions, diversity and data. Evaluation Journal of Australasia, 17(2), 4–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/1035719X1701700202

Bowes

Grace

(2014). Review of early childhood parenting, education and health intervention programs for Indigenous children and families in Australia. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/indigenous-australians/review-of-early-childhood-parenting-education-and/summary

Byrne

A.-L.

McLellan

Willis

Curnow

Harvey

Brown

Hegney

(2021). Yarning as an interview method for non-indigenous clinicians and health researchers. Qualitative Health Research, 31(7), 1345–1357. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732321995802

Campbell

Zhai

Tan

Azami

Cunningham

Kruske

(2021). Assessment tools measuring health-related empowerment in psychosocially vulnerable populations: a systematic review. International Journal for Equity in Health, 20(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12939-021-01585-1

Chan

A. W.

Reid

Skeffington

Marriott

(2021). A systematic review of EPDS cultural suitability with Indigenous mothers: A global perspective. Archives of Women’s Mental Health, 24(3), 353–365. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00737-020-01084-2

Choate

McKenzie

(2015). Psychometrics in parenting capacity assessments: A problem for Aboriginal parents. First Peoples Child and Family Review, 10(2), 31–43. https://doi.org/10.7202/1077260ar

Dewey

(2008). The later works of John Dewey, volume 1, 1925–1953: 1925, experience and Nature. ( Boydston

J. A.

Hook

(Eds.), Original work published 1925a). Southern Illinois University Press.

10.

Dingwall

K. M.

Cairney

(2010). Psychological and cognitive assessment of Indigenous Australians. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 44(1), 20–30. https://doi.org/10.3109/00048670903393670

11.

Drew

Adams

Walker

(2010). Issues in mental health assessment with Indigenous Australians. In Purdie

Dudgeon

Walker

(Eds.), Working together: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander mental health and wellbeing principles and practice (pp. 191–210). Commonwealth of Australia. https://deadlystory.com/icms_docs/275965_working-together-aboriginal-torres-strait-islander-mental-health.pdf#page=225

12.

Fischer

Bailey

Shankar

Safaeinili

Karl

J. A.

Daly

Johnson

F. N.

Winter

Arahanga-Doyle

Fox

Abubakar

Zulman

D. M.

(2024). Cultural challenges for adapting behavioral intervention frameworks: A critical examination from a cultural psychology perspective. Clinical Psychology Review, 110(1), Article 102425. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2024.102425

13.

Flake

J. K.

Fried

E. I.

(2020). Measurement Schmeasurement: Questionable Measurement Practices and How to Avoid Them. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 3(4), 456–465. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245920952393

14.

Grant

M. J.

Booth

(2009). A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 26(2), 91–108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x

15.

Gregory

Wild

Aquino

Robinson

(2024). ‘They got my back’: Thematic analysis of relationship building in nurse home visiting in Aboriginal communities. Australian Journal of Rural Health, 32(6), 1227–1238. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajr.13199

16.

Harfield

Pearson

Morey

Kite

Canuto

Glover

Gomersall

J. S.

Carter

Davy

Aromataris

Braunack-Mayer

(2020). Assessing the quality of health research from an Indigenous perspective: The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander quality appraisal tool. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 20(1), 79. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-020-00959-3

17.

Harfield

Pearson

Morey

Kite

Glover

Canuto

Gomersall

J. S.

Carter

Aromataris

Braunack-Mayer

(2018). The Aboriginal and torres strait islander quality appraisal tool: Companion document. South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute. https://sahmri.blob.core.windows.net/communications/Aboriginal-and-Torres-Strait-Islander-Quality-Appraisal-Tool-Companion-Document-1.pdf

18.

Harkness

Super

C. M.

(2002). Culture and parenting. In Handbook of parenting: Biology and ecology of parenting (2nd ed., Vol. 2, pp. 253–280). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

19.

Haroz

E. E.

Ivanich

J. D.

Barlow

O’Keefe

V. M.

Walls

Kaytoggy

Suttle

Goklish

Cwik

(2022). Balancing cultural specificity and generalizability: Brief qualitative methods for selecting, adapting, and developing measures for research with American Indian communities. Psychological Assessment, 34(4), 311–319. (2022-16359-001). https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0001092

20.

Le Grande

Ski

C. F.

Thompson

D. R.

Scuffham

Kularatna

Jackson

A. C.

Brown

(2017). Social and emotional wellbeing assessment instruments for use with Indigenous Australians: A critical review. Social Science & Medicine, 187, 164–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2017.06.046

21.

Lohoar

Butera

Kennedy

(2014). Strengths of Australian Aboriginal cultural practices in family life and child rearing [Report]. Child Family Community Australia, Australian Institute of Family Studies. (Australia). https://apo.org.au/node/41447

22.

Luke

Verbunt

Zhang

Bamblett

Johnson

Salamone

Thomas

Eades

Gubhaju

Kelaher

Jones

(2022). Questioning the ethics of evidence-based practice for Indigenous health and social settings in Australia. BMJ Global Health, 7(6), Article e009167. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2022-009167

23.

MacDonald

Comer

Foster

Labelle

P. R.

Marsalis

Nyhan

Premji

Rogers

Splenda

Stansfield

Young

(2024a). Searching for studies: A guide to information retrieval for Campbell systematic reviews. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 20(3), cl2.1433. https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1433

24.

MacDonald

Young

Barclay

McMullen

Knox

Morgan

(2024b). The participation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander parents in Australian trials of parenting programs for improving children’s health: A scoping review. Medical Journal of Australia, 220(6), 331–335. https://doi.org/10.5694/mja2.52198

25.

Macvean

Shlonsky

Mildon

Devine

(2017). Parenting interventions for Indigenous child psychosocial functioning: A scoping review. Research on Social Work Practice, 27(3), 307–334. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049731514565668

26.

Marley

J. V.

Kotz

Engelke

Williams

Stephen

Coutinho

Trust

S. K.

(2017). Validity and acceptability of Kimberley mum’s mood scale to screen for perinatal anxiety and depression in remote Aboriginal health care settings. PLoS One, 12(1), Article e0168969. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0168969

27.

McCalman

Heyeres

Campbell

Bainbridge

Chamberlain

Strobel

Ruben

(2017). Family-centred interventions by primary healthcare services for Indigenous early childhood wellbeing in Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States: A systematic scoping review. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, 17(71), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-017-1247-2

28.

Mildon

Polimeni

(2012). Parenting in the early years: Effectiveness of parenting support programs for Indigenous families (Resource Report No. 16). Australian Institute of Family Studies. https://www.aihw.gov.au/getmedia/0e01fe6d-04b4-4ee9-bcba-2614fdf27cc1/ctgc-rs16.pdf.aspx%E2%80%89?inline=true

29.

Morgan

D. L.

(2014). Pragmatism as a paradigm for social research. Qualitative Inquiry, 20(8), 1045–1053. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800413513733

30.

Moyer

Wesner

Sarche

Chavis

Gachupin

Nadler

Svoboda

Asdigian

N. L.

Geary

Around Him

Dunn

Whitesell

(2024). Braiding research approaches to understand home visiting in Indigenous communities. Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation; Administration for Children and Families; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. https://acf.gov/opre/report/braiding-research-approaches-understand-home-visiting-indigenous-communities

31.

Muir

Dean

(2017). Evaluating the outcomes of programs for Indigenous families and communities. Australian Institute of Family Studies. https://aifs.gov.au/resources/practice-guides/evaluating-outcomes-programs-indigenous-families-and-communities

32.

Munn

Aromataris

Tufanaru

Stern

Porritt

Farrow

Lockwood

Stephenson

Moola

Lizarondo

McArthur

Peters

Pearson

Jordan

(2019). The development of software to support multiple systematic review types: The Joanna Briggs Institute System for the Unified Management, Assessment and Review of Information (JBI SUMARI). JBI Evidence Implementation, 17(1), 36–43. https://doi.org/10.1097/XEB.0000000000000152

33.

Newton

Day

Gillies

Fernandez

(2015). A review of Evidence‐Based Evaluation of Measures for Assessing Social and Emotional Well‐Being in Indigenous Australians. Australian Psychologist, 50(1), 40–50. https://doi.org/10.1111/ap.12064

34.

Okamoto

S. K.

Kulis

Marsiglia

F. F.

Holleran Steiker

L. K.

Dustman

(2014). A continuum of approaches toward developing culturally focused prevention interventions: From adaptation to grounding. Journal of Primary Prevention, 35(2), 103–112. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10935-013-0334-z

35.

Peters

M. D. J.

Marnie

Tricco

A. C.

Pollock

Munn

Alexander

McInerney

Godfrey

C. M.

Khalil

(2020). Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. JBI Evidence Synthesis, 18(10), 2119–2126. https://doi.org/10.11124/JBIES-20-00167

36.

Phillips-Beck

Bukich

B. L. J.

Thiessen

Lavoie

J. G.

Schultz

Sanguins

Beck

Longclaws

Shingoose

Palmer

Linton

Negash

Morriseau

(2024). An Indigenous-informed scoping review study methodology: Advancing the science of scoping reviews. Systematic Reviews, 13(1), 181. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-024-02586-1

37.

Prinsen

C. A. C.

Mokkink

L. B.

Bouter

L. M.

Alonso

Patrick

D. L.

de Vet

H. C. W.

Terwee

C. B.

(2018). COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures. Quality of Life Research, 27(5), 1147–1157. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-018-1798-3

38.

Robinson

Aquino

Gregory

Wild

(2025). MECSH Evaluation 2019-2024 Summary report (p. 33). Centre for Child Development and Education, Menzies School of Health Research. https://www.menzies.edu.au/content/Document/MECSH_Eval_Summary_Report_final.pdf

39.

Rogoff

(2003). The cultural nature of human development. Oxford University Press, Incorporated. https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/cdu/detail.action?docID=272865

40.

Rohit

Tonkin

Maple-Brown

Golley

McCarthy

Brimblecombe

(2019). Parent feeding practices in the Australian Indigenous population within the context of non-Indigenous Australians and Indigenous populations in other high-income countries—A scoping review. Advances in Nutrition, 10(1), 89–103. https://doi.org/10.1093/advances/nmy050

41.

Ryder

Stephens

J. H.

Ullah

Coombes

Cominos

Sharpe

D’Angelo

Cameron

Hayes

Bennett-Brook

Mackean

(2022). Community engagement and psychometric methods in Aboriginal and Torres strait islander patient-reported outcome measures and surveys—A scoping review and critical analysis. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(16), 16. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191610354

42.

Saunders

McCalman

Tsey

Askew

Campbell

Jongen

Angelo

Spurling

Cadet-James

(2023). Counting what counts: A systematic scoping review of instruments used in primary healthcare services to measure the wellbeing of Indigenous children and youth. BMC Primary Care, 24(1), 51. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12875-023-02001-z

43.

Secretariat of National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Child Care . (2011). Growing up our way: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander child rearing practices matrix. SNAICC. https://www.snaicc.org.au/resources/growing-up-our-way-aboriginal-and-torres-strait-islander-child-rearing-matrix/

44.

Sjoblom

Wisnesky

Montesanti

(2024). Measuring health and wellbeing from preconception to early life in Indigenous populations: A scoping review protocol. https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/YFV8M

45.

Smith

L. T.

(2012). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples. Bloomsbury Academic & Professional. https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/cdu/detail.action?docID=1426837

46.

Strobel

N. A.

Chamberlain

Campbell

S. K.

Shields

Bainbridge

R. G.

Adams

Edmond

K. M.

Marriott

McCalman

(2022). Family‐centred interventions for Indigenous early childhood well‐being by primary healthcare services. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 12(12), CD012463. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD012463.pub2

47.

Tuck

Yang

K. W.

(2012). Decolonization is not a metaphor. Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society, 1(1), 1–40. https://clas.osu.edu/sites/clas.osu.edu/files/Tuck_and_Yang_2012_Decolonization_is_not_a_metaphor.pdf

48.

Waller

Ampofo

Bryant

Sanson-Fisher

R. W.

(2023). Child rearing and parenting programs among First Nations’ populations in high-income countries: A bibliometric review. Australian Health Review, 47(1), 26–57. https://doi.org/10.1071/AH22073

49.

Walls

M. L.

Whitesell

N. R.

Barlow

Sarche

(2019). Research with American Indian and Alaska Native populations: Measurement matters. Journal of Ethnicity in Substance Abuse, 18(1), 129–149. Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332640.2017.1310640

50.

Walter

(2018). The voice of indigenous data: Beyond the markers of disadvantage. Griffith Review, 60(1), 256–263. (ielapa.586241932732209). https://search.informit.org/. https://doi.org/10.3316/ielapa.586241932732209

51.

Walter

Andersen

Kukutai

Gabel

(2025). Introduction. In Indigenous statistics (2nd ed.). Routledge.

52.

Wesner

C. A.

Around Him

Ullrich

J. S.

Martin

Denmark

Russette

Lee

Sarche

Asdigian

N. L.

Barnes-Najor

Whitesell

N. R.

Tribal Early Childhood Research Center Early Relational Wellbeing Community of Learning (2025). Co-creating a conceptual model of Indigenous relational wellbeing in early childhood: Planting seeds of connectedness. Infant Mental Health Journal: Infancy and Early Childhood, 46(2), 115–132. https://doi.org/10.1002/imhj.22149

53.

Wesner

C. A.

Handeland

Martin

Asdigian

N. L.

Barnes-Najor

Whitesell

N. R.

(2024). Advancing equity through engaging communities to address measurement disjuncture in Indigenous infant and early childhood mental health. In Osofsky

J. D.

Fitzgerald

H. E.

Keren

Puura

(Eds.), WAIMH handbook of infant and early childhood mental health: Cultural context, prevention, intervention, and treatment, volume two (pp. 227–244). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-48631-9_15

54.

Whitesell

N. R.

Bolan

Chomos

J. C.

Heath

Miles

Salvador

Whitmore

Barlow

(2018). Measurement issues in home-visiting research within tribal communities: Challenges and strategies. Infant Mental Health Journal, 39(3), 326–334. https://doi.org/10.1002/imhj.21713

55.

Wilson

(2001). What is an Indigenous research methodology? Canadian Journal of Native Education, 25(2), 175–179. https://ojs.library.ubc.ca/index.php/CJNE/article/download/196968/192001

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.21 MB