Description

The Connectedness Scale was developed to assess the extent to which Indigenous youth are integrated within their cultural identity, traditions, and spirituality. The scale aims to operationalize cultural connectedness as a protective factor for well-being, reflecting strengths-based and culturally grounded approaches. The final 29-item scale is organized into three dimensions: 1) Cultural identity – sense of belonging, pride, and self-identification with Indigenous culture; 2) Cultural traditions – engagement with traditional activities, ceremonies, and cultural practices; and 3) Cultural spirituality – connection to spiritual beliefs and practices. Scores can be used to evaluate cultural strengths and examine relationships between cultural connectedness and health, resilience, and well-being outcomes.

AI/AN Communities where the measure has been used

  • First Nations, Métis, and Inuit youth in Saskatchewan and Southwestern Ontario, Canada
  • Miami Tribe of Oklahoma, tribal members living in Oklahoma and the Midwest.

Demographics of AI/AN participants where the scale has been used

  • High school–aged Indigenous youth (mostly First Nations, with some Métis and Inuit), the majority living on-reserve (Snowshoe et al., 2015).
  • Myaamia university students at Miami University; Myaamia community members in cultural revitalization programs (Shea et al., 2019).

Notes on adaptations or modifications

  1. Shea et al. (2019) adapted a Myaamia version that was 25 items, 21 of which were from Showshoe et al.’s 2015 scale. Myammia version removed 4 items original to Snowshoe et al.’s scale that referenced practices not inherent to Myaamia culture: “I use tobacco for guidance,” “I believe things like animals and rocks have a spirit like people,” “I have offered food or feasted someone for a cultural reason,” “how often do you use sage, sweetgrass or cedar?”)
  2. Shea et al. (2019) adapted language so items were specific to Myaamia culture/Miami Tribe

Modality and administration

Self-report; administered as paper-and-pen questionnaires, typically in school or community settings and/or with support from researchers or facilitators when needed

Scoring

  • Snowshoe et al. (2015): 11 items have a yes/no response modality and 18 have a 5-point Likert scale (Strongly Disagree-Strongly Agree)
  • Shea et al. (2019): 10 items have a yes/no response modality and 15 have a 5-point Likert scale (Strongly Disagree-Strongly Agree)
  • Scores are summed within each of the three dimensions (identity, traditions, spirituality) and may also be aggregated into an overall cultural connectedness score. Higher scores indicate stronger cultural connectedness.

Psychometric evidence

  • Snowshoe et al. (2015): Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses supported a three-factor structure (identity, traditions, spirituality). Internal consistency was high (Cronbach’s α = .93 for the overall scale). Criterion validity supported via positive associations with life satisfaction and connectedness.
  • Shea et al. (2019): The Myaamia version produced similar Cronbach’s alpha values to Snowshoe et al.’s, with .799 for identity (nine items), .759 for traditions (six items), and .879 for spirituality (six items).

Citation(s)

  • Snowshoe, A., Crooks, C. V., Tremblay, P. F., Craig, W. M., & Hinson, R. E. (2015). Development of a Cultural Connectedness Scale for First Nations youth. Psychological Assessment, 27(1), 249–259. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037867 [Original citation]
  • Shea, H., Mosley-Howard, G. S., Baldwin, D., Ironstrack, G., Rousmaniere, K., & Schroer, J. E. (2019). Cultural revitalization as a restorative process to combat racial and cultural trauma and promote living well. Cultural diversity & ethnic minority psychology, 25(4), 553–565. https://doi.org/10.1037/cdp0000250

Note: The included citations are not exhaustive, but represent the examples we had access to. If you are an original author or have other work that could be included   here, please contact us.