Stepfamily Closeness and Depression Among American Indian Emerging Adults: A Structural Equation Modeling Approach

Abstract

Stepfamilies are one of the fastest growing family structures among all racial groups in the United States. Stepfamily research among many racial groups, specifically American Indians, is virtually nonexistent. This is unfortunate, as American Indians are more likely to divorce and remarry compared with other populations. From a family systems perspective, this study examined whether retrospectively perceived closeness in three stepfamily relationships, namely child–residential biological parent, child–residential stepparent, and child–stepsibling, were negatively associated with depression scores in 226 American Indian emerging adults. A structural equation model showed that increased child–residential biological parent and child–stepsibling closeness predicted decreased depression scores, whereas child–residential stepparent closeness did not. We also found that depression scores significantly predicted retrospective perceptions of child–residential biological parent, child–residential stepparent, and child–stepsibling closeness. Findings encourage interventions that strengthen American Indian child–residential biological parent and child–stepsibling relationships, and underscore the need for further research that explores American Indian stepfamily relationships.

Keywords

stepfamilies depression American Indian parent/child relations family theory

The stepfamily is an increasingly common family structure, as the majority of remarriages include children from a previous marriage or relationship (Lewis & Kreider, 2015). Compared with the rate at which stepfamilies are forming, research dedicated to stepfamilies is only emerging. This is especially true for many groups of color (Sweeney, 2010), specifically the American Indian population. In fact, American Indian stepfamily research is virtually nonexistent. This is unfortunate, as the American Indian population currently has high rates of divorce and remarriage (Cohen, 2015; Lewis & Kreider, 2015). More research is needed to better support American Indian stepfamilies and determine whether American Indian stepfamily functioning mirrors the existing research findings of stepfamilies from other populations.

Much of the existing stepfamily research is dedicated to examining the risk factors of divorce, remarriage, and stepfamily formation. For example, children whose parents divorce may experience higher levels of depression compared with children whose parents stay married (Strohschein, 2005). Additionally, divorce stress and transitioning to a new family structure in childhood has been found to be independently and conjointly associated with increased depression scores in emerging adulthood (Shafer, Jensen, & Holmes, 2017). However, a burgeoning area of stepfamily literature is dedicated to exploring the potential protective factors of stepfamily functioning and how stepfamily functioning could mitigate detrimental mental health outcomes (Amato, King, & Thorsen, 2016; Coleman, Ganong, & Fine, 2000; King, Thorsen, & Amato, 2014; Yuan & Hamilton, 2006). In other words, while stepfamily dysfunction may be positively associated with depression, more optimal stepfamily functioning may serve as a protective factor, being negatively associated with depression. Recent research is beginning to elucidate distinct qualities in stepfamilies, such as relationship quality, that protect against children developing internalizing and externalizing symptoms in emerging adulthood (e.g., Jensen, Lippold, Mills-Koonce, & Fosco, 2018); however, substantially more research is needed in this area in order to understand stepfamilies from a strength-based perspective.

The aims of this study were twofold: (a) to respond to the lack of empirical research dedicated to American Indian stepfamily relationships and (b) to determine whether specific close relationships in American Indian stepfamilies serve as protective factors against depressive symptoms in emerging adulthood. Informed by family systems theory, we examined the association between closeness and depression within three stepfamily relationships: child–residential biological parent, child–residential stepparent, and child–stepsibling. The following section delves into the existing research relevant to these factors within the American Indian population.

American Indian Family Closeness and Family Systems Theory

The American Indian family identity is largely defined by its closeness; specifically, an ideal of being “close-knit”—meaning spending a lot of time with others, getting along and feeling close to others, receiving help and support, and having a general sense of being loved (Martin & Yurkovich, 2014). American Indian families extend this value of closeness to their tribal culture, which opens the opportunity to receive increased amounts of social support from other tribal members (Lesane-Brown, Brown, Tanner-Smith, & Bruce, 2010; Thomas, 1982). This closeness appears to be fostered through American Indian values of unobtrusiveness, harmony, and strong cultural traditions (Hodge, Limb, & Cross, 2009; Red Horse, 1997). And, to maintain this closeness, American Indian families believe they must achieve balance in the spiritual, emotional, physical, and social domains of their lives (Martin & Yurkovich, 2014). Although this value of closeness unfortunately does not seem to translate into lower rates of divorce or remarriage in the American Indian population (Cohen, 2015; Lewis & Kreider, 2015), it is a unique aspect of the American Indian family system that may serve as a valuable component of American Indian child upbringing and subsequent outcomes. Indeed, programs that focus on building relationships within American Indian families increase resilience among American Indian urban youth (Kahn et al., 2016). Therefore, upholding the value of American Indian closeness may translate into achieving positive mental health benefits in children.

The American Indian concept of having close relationships with a broader tribal community and actively maintaining that closeness socially, physically, emotionally, and spiritually is relatively unique to the American Indian population. Other racial groups have markedly smaller groups they consider themselves to be close with. For example, the traditional American conceptualization of closeness typically includes only immediate family members and close friends (Taylor, Chatters, Woodward, & Brown, 2014). The Hispanic and African American views of closeness tend to include both immediate and extended family members (Zayas & Solari, 1994).

Because of American Indians’ extended view of closeness and the concomitant support that comes from their tribal community, immediate family (or stepfamily) closeness may not be as salient a protective factor against mental health challenges as it would be for other racial groups, which rely less on outside communities and more on familial relationships. Nevertheless, increased closeness within the immediate family seems to bring about considerable mental health benefits to American Indians (Kahn et al., 2016) as it does in the general population (Steinberg, 2001). Similarly, we would suspect that closeness within American Indian stepfamilies may serve as a protective factor against mental health issues, as it does with members of the general population (Buchanan, Maccoby, & Dornbusch, 2000).

This potential protective influence of American Indian closeness within a stepfamily context can be better understood through the lens of family systems theory (Bowen, 1966; Brown, 1999). According to family systems theory, families are relationally and emotionally interdependent—influencing one another’s thoughts, feelings, and actions. This interdependency allows familial patterns—such as closeness or discord—to form. Different family relationships can develop their own pattern of functioning, as they have their own rules, boundaries, and features (Morgaine, 2001). These functional or dysfunctional family patterns can serve as powerful influences on individual mental health outcomes (Brown, 1999; King, 2006; Repetti, Taylor, & Seeman, 2002). Therefore, it is possible that patterns in distinct American Indian family relationships may also be related to individual mental health outcomes. More specifically, it is possible that perceived closeness within American Indian stepfamily relationships may be related to less mental health challenges. However, further research is needed to explore this relationship—especially among American Indian stepfamilies.

Depression Among American Indians

Despite the value of closeness existent within American Indian families, American Indians often experience disproportionately high rates of depression when compared with the general population (Dillard, Smith, Ferucci, & Lanier, 2012; Roh et al., 2015). Available data that include diverse samples of American Indians generally reveal depression rates between 10% and 30% (Berkman et al., 1986; Duran et al., 2004; Manson, 1992). These rates are generally higher than other racial groups’ depression rates, with White, African American, and Hispanic populations exhibiting depression rates between approximately 7% and 11% (Dunlop, Song, Lyons, Manheim, & Chang, 2003). Among U.S. adults, American Indians (including Alaska Natives) have the highest rate of major depressive episodes. Among U.S. adolescents, American Indians have the highest prevalence of a lifetime major depressive episode as well as the highest rate of a major depressive episode in the past year (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 2007; Urban Indian Health Institute, 2012).

Contributing to this phenomenon are stressors unique to the American Indian experience. For example, previous research indicates that American Indian families are more likely to have higher rates of poverty, unemployment, alcoholism, and violence (Christensen & Manson, 2001; Evans-Campbell, Lindhorst, Huang, & Walters, 2006; Tann, Yabiku, Okamoto, & Yanow, 2007), thereby leaving American Indians more susceptible to depressive symptoms. Along with the aforementioned difficulties, cultural-specific stressors—including violence, loss of land, loss of language, unresolved intergenerational grief, historical trauma, and loss of other facets of American Indian culture—also contribute to negative mental health outcomes among American Indian children, adults, and tribal communities (Brave Heart & DeBruyn, 1998; Brockie, Dana-Sacco, Wallen, Wilcox, & Campbell, 2015; Lawrence, 2013; Manson & Altschul, 2004; Mashunkashey-Shadlow, 2008).

Although the prevalence and correlates of American Indian depression are relatively established in the literature, further research is needed to understand the unique protective factors among American Indians in relation to depression. Walters and Simoni (2002) propose an “indigenist stress-coping model” to explain how American Indian women cope with stress. While the intricacies of this theory are beyond the scope of the current study, this theory has initiated culturally attuned research that examines notable protective factors among American Indian populations, such as spiritual coping, traditional health practices, and positive identity attitudes (Walters, 2008). Therefore, studying the unique positive aspects of American Indian families—in this case, American Indian stepfamily closeness—may be particularly beneficial in addressing their high rates of depression.

Closeness in Stepfamily Relationships and Depression

Although not examined specifically among the American Indian population, protective factors existent within stepfamily relationships have received increasing research attention. Perceived child–residential stepparent closeness and child–residential biological parent closeness are significant protective factors against stress, externalizing symptoms, and internalizing symptoms in emerging adulthood (Jensen et al., 2018; Jensen, Shafer, & Holmes, 2017; King, 2006). Additionally, increased child–residential biological parent relationship quality may be associated with a more satisfying stepfamily experience and less psychological distress in adolescence, and a decreased likelihood of prescription drug abuse in emerging adulthood (Falci, 2006; Urick & Limb, 2015; Ward, Dennis, & Limb, 2017). Although more scarce, early research on child–stepsibling relations suggest stepsibling relationships may be beneficial due to the experiential sharing of losing an original family structure (Rosenberg & Hajal, 1985). Furthermore, individuals with stepsiblings may experience a more positive adjustment to divorce and have a more positive outlook on life (Gatlins, Kinlaw, & Dunlap, 2014).

Research has also illuminated protective factors that stem from more specific stepfamily relationships. For example, child–residential stepfather relationship closeness is associated with decreased depression and problem behaviors in adolescence (Yuan & Hamilton, 2006). Child–biological mother and child–residential stepfather relationship closeness is associated with fewer internalizing and externalizing problems in adolescence (White & Gilbreth, 2001). Furthermore, adolescent closeness to residential biological fathers is associated with fewer externalizing and internalizing problems, and closeness to nonresidential biological mothers is associated with fewer internalizing problems (King, 2007). Thus, it appears that strong stepfamily relationships can serve as a buffer against significant mental health challenges.

Family systems theory (Bowen, 1966; Brown, 1999) can assist in explaining the mechanisms by which stepfamily relationship closeness protects against mental health challenges, specifically depression. From a family systems perspective, the thriving of a stepfamily relationship itself has a positive impact on the mental health of the individuals within the relationship, as well as larger systems around it. In other words, the adaptive functioning of the child–biological parent, child–stepparent, and/or child–stepsibling relationship(s) has a direct, beneficial effect on a child’s and overall family’s mental health. Thus, the closer and more adaptive the relationships are within stepfamilies, the greater the influence on child [adolescent, or emerging adult] well-being.

Research findings seem to support this perspective. Yuan and Hamilton (2006) found that the quality of stepfamily relationships is associated with adolescent well-being, in that conflictual relationships contributed to adolescent mental health difficulties, while quality relationships were associated with decreased depression. Other researchers have found that stepparents and biological parents can have very similar influences on adolescent well-being, due to the relationship quality with the adolescent (Amato & Rivera, 1999; Hetherington, 1993; White & Gilbreth, 2001). Hence, closeness in several relationships within stepfamilies appears to matter for adolescent well-being. Therefore, we suspect that increased closeness within American Indian stepfamily relationships would likewise serve as a buffer against depressive symptoms in emerging adulthood.

In addition to the potential protective factor of stepfamily relationship closeness, a number of other factors may influence depressive symptoms in the American Indian population. Greater levels of depression have been found among American Indian females compared with males (Medoff, 2006). Additionally, evidence of a relationship between income and depression among American Indians has been continually supported, with lower income associating with an increased likelihood of experiencing depressive symptoms (Jeon, Buettner, & Hur, 2014; Smokowski, Evans, Cotter, & Guo, 2014). Prior research suggests that age is also related to depression, in that emerging adulthood is a time period where there is a particularly high risk of depression (Berry, 2004); therefore, because our study examines only emerging adults, depression may be higher in our overall sample. Educational attainment may be related to mental health outcomes, with higher levels of education being associated with decreased depressive symptoms (Bien & Bien-Barkowska, 2016; Ross & Mirowsky, 2006). Regarding stepfamily factors, stepfamily household income, stepparent and biological parent sex, the way in which the stepfamily formed (i.e., through separation, divorce, or death), and amount of time an individual lived in a stepfamily may influence current mental health (Berrett & Turner, 2005; Grinwald, 2008; Nicholson, Fergusson, & Horwood, 1999).

It is clear that further research is needed to examine the risk and protective factors of American Indian depression. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to explore how closeness in three American Indian stepfamily relationships—child–residential biological parent, child–residential stepparent, and child–stepsibling— were associated with depression in emerging adulthood. Taking into account prior research findings and American Indian family values, our hypotheses were outlined as follows:

Hypothesis 1: Increased retrospective child–residential biological parent closeness would be associated with decreased depression scores in emerging adulthood.

Hypothesis 2: Increased retrospective child–residential stepparent closeness would be associated with decreased depression scores in emerging adulthood.

Hypothesis 3: Increased retrospective child–stepsibling closeness would be associated with decreased depression scores in emerging adulthood.

Method

Participants and Procedure

Data were analyzed from the Stepfamily Experiences Project, a retrospective survey conducted in 2013. Data collection was approved by Brigham Young University’s institutional review board. The project surveyed emerging adults aged 18 to 30 years who lived in a stepfamily between the ages of 8 and 18 years. Participants were recruited and surveys were distributed via Qualtrics—a data-collection software company—that used a national quota sample based on U.S. Census races estimates. Qualtrics procured participants by seeking out individuals who previously agreed to participate in Qualtrics online surveys (i.e., an opt-in panel). Qualtrics sent e-mails inviting eligible participants apart of their panel to participate in the survey. In accordance with American Association for Public Opinion Research online panel guidelines (Baker et al., 2010), data quality checks, identification of careless respondents, and guards against multiple submissions and survey length minimums were included in the survey.

Table 1 provides descriptive statistics all study variables. The Stepfamily Experiences Project data set included 1,593 participants with an oversample of 340 American Indians. Only American Indians who had a residential biological parent, a residential stepparent, and stepsiblings were included in the study, leaving a final sample size of 226. When examining sociodemographic characteristics of the final American Indian sample, the majority were female (70.4%), the average income was between $20,000 and $39,999, and the average age was approximately 26 years (SD = 4.24; see Table 1). Most of the participants (approximately 68%) lived with a female residential biological parent and a male residential stepparent. However, three participants had same-sex residential biological parents and stepparents. The average number of years that participants lived in a stepfamily was approximately 10. The most common tribe represented was Cherokee (approximately 15%), although a number of other tribal groups were also represented such as Navajo, Sioux, Blackfoot, and Apache.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics of Study Variables.

Variable	Total (n)	Percentage	M (x-bar)	SD
Participant sex
Male	67	29.65
Female	159	70.35
Residential biological parent sex
Male	73	32.30
Female	153	67.70
Residential stepparent sex
Male	154	68.14
Female	72	31.86
Income ($)
0	21	9.29
Under 20,000	75	33.19
20,000-39,999	58	25.66
40,000-59,999	33	14.60
60,000-79,999	18	7.96
80,000+	20	8.85
Stepfamily income ($)
0	3	1.33
Under 20,000	27	11.95
20,000-39,999	53	23.45
40,000-59,999	59	26.11
60,000-79,999	23	10.18
80,000+	56	24.78
Education level
Less than high school	11	4.87
High school equivalency (GED)	19	8.41
High school diploma	17	7.52
Some college, not currently enrolled	71	31.42
Some college, currently enrolled	40	17.70
Associate’s degree	20	8.85
Bachelor’s degree	27	11.95
Graduate or professional degree, not completed	3	1.33
Graduate or professional degree, completed	18	7.96
How stepfamily formed
Parental separation/divorce	211	93.36
Parent passing away	15	6.64
Years in stepfamily			10.02	6.28
Age			26.32	4.24
Stepfamily closeness
Biological parent close relationship			3.28	1.48
Biological parent communication			3.16	1.43
Biological parent good parent			3.57	1.36
Stepparent close relationship			2.83	1.46
Stepparent communication			2.70	1.45
Stepparent good parent			3.09	1.39
Stepsibling close relationship			2.96	1.39
Stepsibling communication			3.00	1.35
Depression			23.36	15.50

Note. Stepfamily relationship quality range is 1 to 5.

Measures

Stepfamily Closeness

Feelings of stepfamily closeness subsequent to stepfamily formation was measured by responses to eight statements—three for residential biological parent closeness, three for residential stepparent closeness, and two for stepsibling closeness; these statements formulated three latent variables. The latent variable of residential biological parent closeness was composed of the following three indicators: (a) “My residential biological parent maintained a close and warm relationship with me,” (b) “I was able to communicate openly and safely with my residential biological parent,” and (c) “My residential biological parent was a good parent to me.” The alpha coefficient for biological parent closeness was .88.

The latent variable of stepparent closeness was composed of the following three indicators: (d) “My residential stepparent formed a close and warm relationship with me,” (e) “I was able to communicate openly and safely with my residential stepparent,” and (f) “My residential stepparent was a good parent to me.” The alpha coefficient for stepparent closeness was .93. The latent variable of stepsibling closeness was composed of the following two indicators: (g) “I was able to form close and warm relationships with my stepsiblings,” and (h) “My stepsiblings and I were able to communicate effectively and openly.” The alpha coefficient for stepsibling closeness was .87. Participants rated each item on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Participants who chose 6 (does not apply) were excluded from the data. Of all measures of stepfamily closeness, stepparent communication was rated the lowest, with a mean score of 2.70 (see Table 1).

Depression

Participants’ depression scores were measured using the Center for Epidemiological Studies–Depression Scale (CES-D). The CES-D has been empirically supported as a valid and reliable scale among individuals of different age groups, genders, and ethnicities (Morin et al., 2011; Radloff, 1977; Yang, Jia, & Qin, 2015). The scale measures various facets of depressive symptoms, including emotions, thoughts, and behaviors. The following statements from the CES-D scale were posed to participants: “I was bothered by things that don’t usually bother me,” “I felt that everything I did was an effort,” “I felt I was just as good as other people,” “I had trouble keeping my mind on what I was doing,” “I felt sad,” “I felt fearful,” “I felt lonely,” “I had crying spells,” “I talked less than usual,” “My sleep was restless,” “I felt that I could not shake off the blues, even with the help of my family/friends,” “I thought my life had been a failure,” “I was happy,” “I could not get ‘going,” “I felt hopeful about the future,” “People were unfriendly to me,” “I did not feel like eating; my appetite was poor,” “I felt depressed,” and “I felt that people dislike me.” The statements, “I felt I was just as good as other people,” “I enjoyed life,” “I was happy,” and “I felt hopeful about the future” were reverse-coded.

Participants indicated how frequently they agreed with each statement during the past week on a scale from 1 (rarely or none of the time) to 4 (most or all of the time [5-7 days a week]). The alpha coefficient for the CES-D in our sample was .95. The scale was created taking the sum of the indicators and subtracting 20, leaving the scale ranging from 0 to 60; scores of 16 or higher are considered clinically significant (Radloff, 1977). The mean depression score in our sample was 23.36 (see Table 1).

Sociodemographic and Stepfamily Characteristics

Participant sex, residential biological parent sex, and residential stepparent sex were dichotomously coded (0 = female). Age was continuous and measured in years. Education level was treated as a continuous variable, having nine possible categories: 1 (Less than high school), 2 (High school equivalency [GED]), 3 (High school diploma), 4 (Some college, not currently enrolled), 5 (Some college, currently enrolled), 6 (Associate’s degree), 7 (Bachelor’s degree), 8 (Graduate or professional degree, not completed), and 9 (Graduate or professional degree, completed). Participant annual income and stepfamily household income were treated as continuous variables with the following six categories: 0 (None), 1 (Under $20,000), 2 ($20,000-$39,999), 3 ($40,000-$59,999), 4 ($60,000-$79,999), and 5 ($80,000 and above). The way in which a stepfamily was formed was categorized as 0 (Parental separation/divorce) and 1 (Parent passing away). Years in a stepfamily household was continuous and measured in years (see Table 1).

Data Analysis

Preliminary and descriptive analyses were conducted in Stata 14.1. All structural equation modeling (SEM) was performed in Mplus version 7.4 (Muthén & Muthén, 1998-2015). Only data of those participants who identified as American Indian were included. As a preliminary measure, we screened for missing data, outliers, multicollinearity, and normality violations. Because missing data were extremely low (less than 1%), full information maximum likelihood estimation, which has been documented as an appropriate method for handling missing data in SEM, was used (Kline, 2016). No occurrences of multicollinearity were detected. Histograms testing for normality indicated no extreme distortions in the overall sample.

Zero-order correlations among all variables were examined. Correlation coefficients were in the expected directions in accordance with the study’s hypotheses. Bivariate analyses were conducted to determine whether significant differences existed between multiracial and nonmultiracial American Indians. Results from t tests and chi-square tests revealed no significant differences between these two groups in their scores of the independent and dependent variables. Nonmultiracial American Indians did not differ from multiracial American Indians in gender, but had a slightly higher average income (p < .05) and slightly higher average age (p < .05). Although some variation between groups was found, due to these small differences, the limited sample size, and lack of research on American Indians, multiracial and nonmultiracial American Indians were combined in all analyses.

A structural equation model was specified that included our independent, dependent, and control variables. SEM was particularly advantageous due to its ability to account for measurement error and provide more accurate estimates (Kline, 2016). SEM also allowed us to account for the possibility of bidirectionality in our model through conducting additional analyses. Three latent constructs—child–residential biological parent closeness, child–residential stepparent closeness, and child-stepsibling closeness—were specified, having 3, 3, and 2 indicators, respectively. Depression was specified as an observed dependent variable, and regression paths from the three latent constructs predicted depression (see Figure 1). Control variables were covaried with one another and the three latent factors, and they also predicted depression. With 67 degrees of freedom, the final model was overidentified. Overidentification is an ideal state in SEM with latent factors, as it allows for the testing of model fit (Kline, 2016).

Because of the interpretational limitations inherent in our cross-sectional data, we ran an additional analysis where depressive symptoms predicted retrospectively perceived stepfamily relationship closeness. The structural equation model used the identical variables as the description above, but had depression as the independent variable and the three latent constructs as the dependent variables. This analysis allowed us to test whether an increase in American Indian emerging adult depression was associated with a decrease in retrospectively perceived stepfamily relationship closeness.

Results

Measurement Model

An exploratory factor analysis was conducted to examine the shared variance among our six indicators measuring stepfamily closeness. After conducting a Promax rotation, stepparent closeness, biological parent closeness, and stepsibling closeness loaded onto three different factors. Subsequently, a confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to assess whether the three latent constructs accurately fit the data. All standardized factor loadings were significant (p < .001) and ranged from .84 to .91 (see Table 2). Four goodness-of-fit indices commonly used in SEM were utilized to examine model fit: comparative fit index (CFI) and Tucker–Lewis index (TLI), where values of .95 or greater indicate good fit, and root mean square error (RMSEA) and standardized root mean square residual (SRMR), where values of .08 or less indicate good fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999; Kline, 2016). The measurement model had acceptable model fit to the data (CFI = 0.97, TLI = 0.95, RMSEA = 0.11, and SRMR = .03). Although the RMSEA was slightly greater than desired, it was most likely influenced by our relatively small degrees of freedom (Kenny, Kaniskan, & McCoach, 2014).

Table 2.

Standardized Coefficients in Measurement and Structural Model.

Parameter	Measurement model		Structural model
Parameter	B	SE	B	SE
Residential biological parent close relationship	.84**	.03
Residential biological parent communication	.84**	.03
Residential biological parent good parent	.85**	.03
Residential stepparent close relationship	.91**	.02
Residential stepparent communication	.91**	.02
Residential stepparent good parent	.89**	.02
Stepsibling relationship quality	.90**	.04
Stepsibling communication	.85**	.04
Residential biological parent closeness → Depression			−.23*	.10
Residential stepparent closeness → Depression			.02	.11
Stepsibling relationship quality → Depression			−.26**	.08
Sex → Depression			−.03	.06
Age → Depression			−.05	.07
Education → Depression			−.16*	.07
Income → Depression			−.15*	.07
Stepfamily income → Depression			−.04	.06
Stepfamily formation → Depression			−.03	.06
Years in stepfamily → Depression			−.03	.06
Residential stepparent sex → Depression			.13	.23
Residential biological parent sex → Depression			.24	.23

Note. SE = standard error. The reference category for participant sex, residential biological parent sex, and residential stepparent sex was female. The reference category for stepfamily formation was parental separation/divorce.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Structural Model

To determine whether the data supported our hypotheses, all regression coefficients from the independent and control variables to the dependent variable were examined. In concordance with Hypothesis 1, the standardized regression coefficient for biological parent closeness predicting depression was significant, indicating that increased retrospective perception of biological parent closeness was associated with decreased depression scores in American Indian emerging adults. More specifically, a 1 standard deviation increase in retrospective perception of biological parent closeness was associated with a 0.23 standard deviation decrease in depression score. Possibly refuting Hypothesis 2, the standardized regression coefficient for stepparent closeness predicting depression was not significant (β = .02, p = .86), indicating that retrospective perception of stepparent closeness was not associated with depression scores in American Indian emerging adulthood. In support of Hypothesis 3, the standardized regression coefficient for stepsibling closeness predicting depression score was significant, indicating that increased retrospective perception of stepsibling closeness was associated with decreased depression scores in American Indian emerging adults. A 1 standard deviation increase in stepsibling closeness was associated with a 0.26 standard deviation decrease in depression score (see Table 2).

Regarding the control variables, education level appeared to have the greatest association with depression in our sample. Specifically, a 1 standard deviation increase in education level was associated with a 0.16 standard deviation decrease in depression score. All other control variables, except for participant income, were not associated to depression score. Our final model had good model fit (CFI = 0.96, TLI = 0.93, RMSEA = 0.06, and SRMR = 0.02) and accounted for 30.4% of the variance in depression.

Results of our additional analysis (where we reversed the directionality of our model) revealed that increased depression scores significantly related to decreased retrospective biological parent closeness (β = −.35, p < .001), stepparent closeness (β = −.33, p < .01), and stepsibling closeness (β = −.38, p < .001; see Table A1 and Figure B1). This model also had good model fit (CFI = 0.96, TLI = 0.93, RMSEA = 0.06, and SRMR = 0.02) and accounted for 17.2% of the variance in biological parent closeness, 13.3% of the variance in stepparent closeness, and 17.3% of the variance in stepsibling closeness. Thus, as American Indian emerging adult depression increased, their retrospective perception of stepfamily relationship closeness decreased. Our additional analyses reveal how current mental distress symptoms can be associated with recollections of past relationships. These results suggest that current depressive symptoms significantly predicted how our sample of American Indians reflected on their stepfamily relationships in childhood.

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to examine whether perceived closeness in different stepfamily relationships in childhood were associated with depression scores in American Indian emerging adulthood. Closeness, stepfamilies, and depression were particularly appropriate topics for the American Indian population, as American Indian family systems are largely defined by their closeness, but experience higher rates of divorce, remarriage, and depression than other populations (Dillard et al., 2012; Lesane-Brown et al., 2010; Lewis & Kreider, 2015; Martin & Yurkovich, 2014). Furthermore, research dedicated to American Indian stepfamily relationships—and American Indian stepfamilies, in general—is virtually nonexistent. The examination of distinct stepfamily relationships aligned with family systems theory, as different (step)familial relationships theoretically have distinct dynamics and operations and may, therefore, contribute to different individual outcomes (Morgaine, 2001). Within a stepfamily context, we examined whether retrospectively perceived child–residential biological parent closeness, child–residential stepparent closeness, and child–stepsibling closeness were associated with decreased depression scores in emerging adults.

Supporting Hypothesis 1, we found that retrospectively perceived residential biological parent closeness in childhood was associated with decreased depression scores among American Indian emerging adults. In other words, as retrospectively perceived closeness to a residential biological parent in childhood increased, depression scores decreased. Our findings mirror studies conducted amid the general population that show increased residential biological parent relationship quality to be associated with lower levels of child distress (Falci, 2006; Jensen et al., 2017; Urick & Limb, 2015). Our results signal that, similar to the general population, American Indian closeness to a residential biological parent may serve as an important protective factor against the development of mental health challenges—specifically, depressive symptoms.

Hypothesis 2 was not supported. We found that stepparent closeness was unrelated to depression scores among American Indian emerging adults. This finding does not coincide with those from the general population, as previous research has found child mental health benefits stemming from increased stepparent relationship quality (Jensen et al., 2017). However, it is important to note that, in our model, stepfamily closeness was not associated with depression once biological parent and stepsibling closeness were accounted for—a specification that a number of studies fail to consdier. Rather than conclude that stepparent closeness does not serve as a valid protective factor for American Indians, we suggest that stepparent closeness may play a different role in American Indian stepfamilies. Further research is needed to examine the role stepparents play in American Indian stepfamilies, and whether this role is different from other racial groups.

Our findings suggest that American Indian stepsibling closeness may potentially be a protective factor against high depression scores in emerging adulthood. Supporting Hypothesis 3, increased retrospectively perceived closeness to stepsiblings in childhood was associated with a decrease in depression scores among American Indian emerging adults. While paralleling previous research that links positive stepsibling relationships with beneficial mental health outcomes (Gatlins et al., 2014; Rosenberg & Hajal, 1985), these findings call for greater research attention to American Indian stepsibling relationships. It seems that, while macro systems such as cultural traditions and tribal communities are an important aspect of American Indians’ lives (Hodge et al., 2009; Lesane-Brown et al., 2010; Red Horse, 1997; Thomas, 1982), closeness in a stepsibling relationship may also be an important component to American Indian children’s mental health.

In our sample, participants’ gender and age were not significantly associated with depression scores. Participants’ education level, however, was significantly associated with depression, in that increased educational attainment was associated with decreased depression scores. This finding is consistent with prior research findings (Bien & Bien-Barkowska, 2016; Ross & Mirowsky, 2006) and suggests that education, and the socioeconomic conditions that surround educational attainment, may aid in preventing American Indians from experiencing depressive symptoms. This is an important consideration among American Indians, as they tend to have higher rates of depression and lower high school graduation rates than other populations (Dillard et al., 2012; National Center for Education Statistics, 2008).

Our supplemental analyses revealed an important additional finding: current depressive symptoms were significantly associated with American Indian emerging adults’ perceptions of stepfamily closeness in childhood. More specifically, as depressive symptoms among American Indian emerging adults increased, perceptions of their biological parent, stepparent, and stepsibling closeness decreased. These findings suggest that a bidirectional relationship can exist between stepfamily closeness and depression, and call for further exploration and investigation of this relationship in future research. This finding may also be important from a clinical standpoint when working with American Indians who grew up in a stepfamily. Therapists may benefit from the knowledge that American Indian emerging adults’ depressive symptoms could be associated with their perceptions of stepfamily relationships in childhood; this information may be especially helpful when addressing unresolved stepfamily issues.

Implications and Future Directions

A large portion of the helping profession and empirically based practice, especially in recent decades, has focused on the importance of incorporating culturally relevant aspects into treatment processes. Considering that American Indians have a distinctive view of family and maintain distinctive cultural values (Limb, Hodge, & Panos, 2008; Martin & Yurkovich, 2014), both practitioners and researchers may benefit from a deeper understanding of unique American Indian cultural nuances. For example, topics such as individuation and autonomy may not resonate with American Indians as readily as other Western cultures, as American Indians often value community norms above individuality (Lesane-Brown et al., 2010). Additionally, through understanding the close-knit ideal of the American Indian family (Martin & Yurkovich, 2014), researchers and clinicians may examine the efficacy of constructing interventions that focus on closeness; which not only subscribes to American Indian values, but also may help protect against potential mental health challenges in emerging adulthood.

Our findings suggest that American Indian stepfamily relationships merit greater attention from researchers and practitioners. For American Indian children living within a stepfamily, residential biological parent closeness and stepsibling closeness may be key protective factors against the development of depression—possibly more so than stepparent closeness. This reinforces the theoretical concept of (step)familial relationships operating differently and producing different outcomes (Morgaine, 2001). Because stepsibling closeness was a predictor of lessened depression scores, we recommend that practitioners consider interventions involving American Indian stepsiblings in addition to strengthening the child–residential biological parent bond. Within a research context, our findings encourage more attention to the mechanisms by which stepfamilial relationships—specifically among American Indians—protect against mental health challenges. For example, closeness to a residential biological parent may hamper the stress that occurs when American Indian children transition to a stepfamily (Jensen et al., 2017), and stepsibling closeness may protect against a negative view of life (Gatlins et al., 2014).

The link between education level and depression scores may also be important for practice and research with American Indians. Educational attainment not only reflects degrees obtained, but also a myriad of socioeconomic factors and conditions. For example, American Indians who obtained greater educational attainment may have been provided with more resources in childhood, have a greater sense of self-efficacy, have a more desirable occupation, and/or have more socioeconomic advantages—all of which could be associated with a decrease in depression symptoms. Clinicians may benefit from considering education level, as well as its concomitant socioeconomic predictors and consequences, when administering assessments and interventions to American Indians. Should lack of educational attainment directly contribute to presenting depressive symptoms, involvement with an academic tutor or enrollment in GED classes may be warranted. Prior research suggests that education may affect depression through increasing work creativity and labor market payoffs (Ross & Mirowsky, 2006). However, this has not been empirically examined among the American Indian population, specifically. Further research is needed to understand the mechanisms by which socioeconomic factors are protective of American Indian depression.

Limitations

Several limitations in our study were present that merit attention. First, because the data utilized were gathered via an oversample of American Indians, our findings are less generalizable to the entirety of the American Indian population. However, oversamples are particularly useful when collecting data from elusive populations, such as American Indians (Shaghaghi, Bhopal, & Sheikh, 2011). Second, although our sample of American Indians is notably much larger compared with other empirical samples, the data contain only a small portion of all American Indians within the United States, possibly neglecting differences among tribal culture and geographical location. Third, results may be limited by the data being collected from an emerging adult population that was instructed to recall past experiences, resulting in the possibility of inaccurate recollection.

Along a similar vein, the way in which the data were collected lends itself to the possibility of same-reporter bias in the reporting of closeness and depression. Nevertheless, retrospective data within the family and social sciences are certainly not without merit (Hardt & Rutter, 2004). Fourth, within the recollection requirement, we measured stepfamily closeness only through the lens of the child within the stepfamily. While receiving the child’s perspective is needed, we have an admittedly limited view of the multifaceted construct of stepfamily closeness. Last, because the data are cross-sectional, the interpretation of the results are limited to associations. It is also possible that, as in our study, emerging adults who exhibit depressive symptoms have a more negative perception of their stepfamily relationships. Therefore, strictly causal inferences should not be made from this study.

Conclusion

Study findings underscore the reduction in negative mental health symptoms that may stem from perceived closeness within stepfamily relationships among American Indians. Perceived residential biological parent closeness and stepsibling closeness in childhood were significantly associated with decreased depression scores in emerging adulthood, but perceived residential stepparent closeness was not. These findings suggest that closeness within stepfamily relationships may operate differently and produce distinct outcomes for American Indian children. Inversely, depression scores in emerging adulthood were significantly associated with lower perceived biological parent, stepparent, and stepsibling closeness. These findings elucidate how depressive symptoms can be negatively associated with how emerging adults reflect on stepfamily relationships. Study findings also suggest that education level may be a valuable informant of presenting depressive symptoms and should be considered when working with members of the American Indian population who report high depressive symptoms. This study encourages further research and practice interventions that focus on American Indian stepfamily relationships.

Footnotes

Appendix A

Table A1.

Standardized Coefficients in Measurement and Structural Model.

Parameter	Measurement model		Structural model
Parameter	B	SE	B	SE
Residential biological parent close relationship	.84*	.03
Residential biological parent communication	.84*	.03
Residential biological parent good parent	.85*	.03
Residential stepparent close relationship	.91*	.02
Residential stepparent communication	.91*	.02
Residential stepparent good parent	.89*	.02
Stepsibling relationship quality	.90*	.04
Stepsibling communication	.85*	.04
Depression → Residential biological parent closeness			−.34*	.07
Depression → Residential stepparent closeness			−.37*	.07
Depression → Stepsibling relationship quality			−.38*	.07

Note. SE = standard error. Participant sex, residential biological parent sex, residential stepparent sex, income, stepfamily income, education level, stepfamily formation, and years in stepfamily were controlled for in this model.

p < .001.

Appendix B

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Kaitlin P. Ward

Gordon E. Limb’s

References

Amato

P. R.

King

Thorsen

M. L.

(2016). Parent–child relationships in stepfather families and adolescent adjustment: A latent class analysis. Journal of Marriage and Family, 78, 482-497.

Amato

P. R.

Rivera

(1999). Paternal involvement and children’s behavior problems. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61, 375-384.

Baker

Blumber

S. J.

Brick

J. M.

Couper

M. P.

Courtright

Dennis

. . . Zahs

(2010). Research synthesis: Research synthesis AAPOR report on online panels. Public Opinion Quarterly, 74, 711-781.

Berkman

L. F.

Berkman

C. S.

Kasl

Freeman

D. H.

Jr. Leo

Ostfeld

A. M.

. . . Brody

J. A.

(1986). Depressive symptoms in relation to physical health and functioning in the elderly. American Journal of Epidemiology, 124, 372-388.

Berrett

A. E.

Turner

R. J.

(2005). Family structure and mental health: The mediating effects of socioeconomic status, family process, and social stress. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 46, 156-169.

Berry

(2004). The relationship between depression and emerging adulthood: Theory generation. Advances in Nursing Science, 27, 53-69.

Bien

Bien-Barkowska

(2016). Objective drivers of subjective well-being in geriatric inpatients: Mobility function and level of education are general predictors of self-evaluated health, feeling of loneliness, and severity of depression symptoms. Quality of Life Research, 25, 3047-3056.

Bowen

(1966). The use of family theory in clinical practice. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 7, 345-374.

Brave Heart

M. Y. H.

DeBruyn

L. M

. (1998). The American Indian holocaust: Healing historical unresolved grief. American Indian and Alaska Native Mental Health Research, 8, 56-78.

10.

Brockie

T. N.

Dana-Sacco

Wallen

G. R.

Wilcox

H. C.

Campbell

J. C.

(2015). The relationship of adverse childhood experiences to PTSD, depression, poly-drug use and suicide attempt in reservation-based Native American adolescents and young adults. American Journal of Community Psychology, 55, 411-421.

11.

Brown

(1999). Bowen family systems theory and practice: Illustration and critique. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Family Therapy, 20, 94-103.

12.

Buchanan

C. M.

Maccoby

E. E.

Dornbusch

S. M.

(2000). Adolescents after divorce. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

13.

Christensen

Manson

(2001). Adult attachment as a framework for understanding mental health and American Indian families: A study of three family cases. American Behavioral Scientist, 44, 1447-1465.

14.

Cohen

P. N.

(2015). Recession and divorce in the United States, 2008-2011. Population Research and Policy Review, 33, 615-628.

15.

Coleman

Ganong

Fine

(2000). Reinvestigating remarriage: Another decade of progress. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 1288-1307.

16.

Dillard

D. A.

Smith

J. J.

Ferucci

E. D.

Lanier

A. P.

(2012). Depression prevalence and associated factors among Alaska Native people: The Alaska education and research toward health (EARTH) study. Journal of Affective Disorders, 136, 1088-1097.

17.

Dunlop

D. D.

Song

Lyons

J. S.

Manheim

L. M.

Chang

R. W.

(2003). Racial/ethnic differences in rates of depression among preretirement adults. American Journal of Public Health, 93, 1945-1952.

18.

Duran

Sanders

Skipper

Waitzkin

Malcoe

L. H.

Paine

Yager

(2004). Prevalence and correlates of mental disorders among Native American women in primary care. American Journal of Public Health, 94, 71-77.

19.

Evans-Campbell

Lindhorst

Huang

Walters

K. L.

(2006). Interpersonal violence in the lives of urban American Indian and Alaska Native women: Implications for health, mental health, and help-seeking. American Journal of Public Health, 96, 1416-1422.

20.

Falci

(2006). Family structure, closeness to residential and nonresidential parents, and psychological distress in early and middle adolescence. Sociological Quarterly, 47, 123-146.

21.

Gatlins

Kinlaw

C. R.

Dunlap

L. L.

(2014). Impact of postdivorce sibling structure on adolescent adjustment to divorce. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 55, 239-251.

22.

Grinwald

(2008). Communication-family characteristics: A comparison between stepfamilies (formed after death or divorce) and biological families. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 24, 183-196.

23.

Hardt

Rutter

(2004). Validity of adult retrospective reports of adverse childhood experiences: Review of the evidence, Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45, 260-273.

24.

Hetherington

E. M.

(1993). An overview of the Virginia Longitudinal Study of Divorce and Remarriage with a focus on early adolescence. Journal of Family Psychology, 7, 39-56.

25.

Hodge

Limb

Cross

(2009). Moving from colonization toward balance and harmony: A Native American perspective on wellness. Social Work, 54, 211-219.

26.

Bentler

P. M.

(1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55.

27.

Jensen

T. M.

Lippold

M. A.

Mills-Koonce

Fosco

G. M.

(2018). Stepfamily relationship quality and children’s internalizing and externalizing problems. Family Process, 57, 477-495. doi:10.1111/famp.12284

28.

Jensen

T. M.

Shafer

Holmes

E. K.

(2017). Transitioning to stepfamily life: The influence of closeness with biological parents and stepparents on children’s stress. Child & Family Social Work, 22, 275-286.

29.

Jeon

Buettner

C. K.

Hur

(2014). Family and neighborhood disadvantage, home environment, and children’s school readiness. Journal of Family Psychology, 28, 718-727.

30.

Kahn

C. B.

Reinschmidt

Teufel-Shone

N. I.

Ore

C. E.

Henson

Attakai

(2016). American Indian elders’ resilience: Sources of strength for building a healthy future for youth. American Indian and Alaska Native Mental Health Research, 23, 117-133.

31.

Kenny

D. A.

Kaniskan

McCoach

D. B.

(2014). The performance of RMSEA in models with small degrees of freedom. Sociological Methods & Research, 44, 486-507.

32.

King

(2006). The antecedents and consequences of adolescents’ relationships with stepfathers and nonresident fathers. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68, 910-928.

33.

King

(2007). When children have two mothers: Relationships with nonresident mothers, stepmothers, and fathers. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69, 1178-1193.

34.

King

Thorsen

M. L.

Amato

P. R.

(2014). Factors associated with positive relationships between stepfathers and adolescent stepchildren. Social Science Research, 47, 16-29.

35.

Kline

R. B.

(2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

36.

Lawrence

G. L.

(2013). The relationship between historical trauma and cultural buffers, among Choctaw Native American Indians with and without diagnosed depression and/or alcohol abuse (Doctoral Dissertation). Retrieved from http://proxy.lib.umich.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/docview/1314781403?accountid=14667

37.

Lesane-Brown

Brown

T. N.

Tanner-Smith

Bruce

M. A.

(2010). Negotiating boundaries and bonds: Frequency of young children’s socialization to their ethnic/racial heritage. Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology, 41, 457-464.

38.

Lewis

J. M.

Kreider

R. M.

(2015). Remarriage in the United States: American community survey reports. Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2015/acs/acs-30.pdf

39.

Limb

Hodge

Panos

(2008). Social work with Native people: Orienting child wefare workers to the beliefs, values, and practices of Native American families and children. Journal of Public Child Welfare, 2(3), 383-397.

40.

Manson

S. M.

(1992). Long-term care of older American Indians: Challenges in the development of institutional services. In Barresi

C. M.

Stull

D. E.

(Eds.), Ethnicity and long-term care (pp. 130-143). New York, NY: Springer.

41.

Manson

S. M.

Altschul

(2004). Meeting the mental health needs of American Indians and Alaska natives. Retrieved from https://www.nasmhpd.org/sites/default/files/native%20american%20FINAL-04.pdf

42.

Martin

Yurkovich

(2014). “Close-knit” defines a healthy Native American, Indian family. Journal of Family Nursing, 20, 51-72.

43.

Mashunkashey-Shadlow

J. O.

(2008). A longitudinal study of hope in Native American children and adolescents (Doctoral Dissertation). Retrieved from https://kuscholarworks.ku.edu/bitstream/handle/1808/4031/umi-ku-2225_1.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

44.

Medoff

L. R.

(2006). Suicidal ideation and related factors in Native American adolescents with and without learning disabilities (Doctoral Dissertation). Retrieved from http://www.indigenouspolicy.org/index.php/ipj/thesis/view/282

45.

Morgaine

(2001). Family systems theory. Retrieved from http://web.pdx.edu/~cbcm/CFS410U/FamilySystemsTheory.pdf

46.

Morin

A. J.

Moullec

Maiano

Layet

Just

J. L.

Nonot

(2011). Psychometric properties of the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D) in French clinical and nonclinical adults. Revue D’Epidemiologie et de Sante Publique, 59, 327-340.

47.

Muthén

L. K.

Muthén

B. O.

(1998-2015). Mplus user’s guide (7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.

48.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2008). Status and trends in the education of American Indians and Alaska natives: 2008. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2008/nativetrends/highlights.asp

49.

Nicholson

J. M.

Fergusson

D. M.

Horwood

L. J.

(1999). Effects on later adjustment of living in a stepfamily during childhood and adolescence. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 40, 405-416.

50.

Radloff

L. S.

(1977). The CES-D scale. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1, 385-401.

51.

Red Horse

. (1997). Traditional American Indian family systems. Families, Systems, & Health, 15, 243-250. doi:10.1037/h0089828

52.

Repetti

R. L.

Taylor

S. E.

Seeman

T. E.

(2002). Risky families: Family social environments and the mental and physical health of offspring. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 330-366.

53.

Roh

Burnette

C. E.

Lee

K. H.

Lee

Easton

S. D.

Lawler

M. J.

(2015). Risk and protective factors for depressive symptoms among American Indian older adults: Adverse childhood experiences and social support. Aging & Mental Health, 19, 371-380.

54.

Rosenberg

E. B.

Hajal

(1985). Stepsibling relationships in remarried families. Social Casework, 66, 287-292.

55.

Ross

C. E.

Mirowsky

(2006). Sex differences in the effect of education on depression: Resource multiplication or research substitution? Social Science & Medicine, 63, 1400-1413.

56.

Shafer

Jensen

T. M.

Holmes

E. K.

(2017). Divorce stress, stepfamily stress, and depression among emerging adult stepchildren. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 26, 851-862.

57.

Shaghaghi

Bhopal

R. S.

Sheikh

(2011). Approaches to recruiting “hard-to-reach” populations into re-search: A review of the literature. Health Promotion Perspectives, 1, 86-94.

58.

Smokowski

P. R.

Evans

C. R.

Cotter

K. L.

Guo

(2014). Ecological correlates of depression and self-esteem in rural youth. Child Psychiatry & Human Development, 45, 500-518.

59.

Steinberg

(2001). We know some things: Parent–adolescent relationships in retrospect and prospect. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 11, 1-19.

60.

Strohschein

(2005). Parental divorce and child mental health trajectories. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 1286-1300.

61.

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2007). Results from the 2006 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: National findings. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED498206.pdf

62.

Sweeney

M. M.

(2010). Remarriage and stepfamilies: Strategic sites for family scholarship in the 21st century. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 667-684.

63.

Tann

S. S.

Yabiku

S. T.

Okamoto

S. K.

Yanow

(2007). TRIADD: The risk for alcohol abuse, depression, and diabetes multimorbidity in the American Indian and Alaska Native population. American Indian and Alaska Native Mental Health Research, 14, 1-23.

64.

Taylor

R. J.

Chatters

L. M.

Woodward

A. T.

Brown

(2014). Racial and ethnic differences in extended family, friendship, fictive kin and congregational informal support networks. Family Relations, 62, 609-624.

65.

Thomas

R. K.

(1982). Mental health: American Indian tribal societies. Retrieved from http://works.bepress.com/robert_thomas/10/

66.

Urban Indian Health Institute. (2012). Addressing depression among American Indians and Alaska Natives: A literature review. Seattle, WA: Author.

67.

Urick

Limb

G. E.

(2015). The quality of residential parent-child relationships and its impact on stepfamily experiences. Journal of Sociology & Social Work, 3(1), 27-33.

68.

Walters

K. L.

(2008). Urban American Indian identity attitudes and acculturation styles. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 2, 163-178.

69.

Walters

K. L.

Simoni

J. M.

(2002). Reconceptualizing native women’s health: An “indigenist” stress-coping model. American Journal of Public Health, 92, 520-524.

70.

Ward

K. P.

Dennis

C. B.

Limb

G. E.

(2017). The impact of stepfamily relationship quality on emerging adult non-medical use of prescription drugs. American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 44, 463-471.

71.

White

Gilbreth

J. G.

(2001). When children have two fathers: Effects of relationships with stepfathers and noncustodial fathers on adolescent outcomes. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63, 155-167.

72.

Yang

Jia

C.-X.

Qin

(2015). Reliability and validity of the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D) among suicide attempters and comparison residents in rural China. BMC Psychiatry, 15, 76.

73.

Yuan

A. S. V.

Hamilton

H. A.

(2006). Stepfather involvement and adolescent well-being: Do mothers and nonresidential fathers matter? Journal of Family Issues, 27, 1191-1213.

74.

Zayas

L. H.

Solari

(1994). Early childhood socialization in Hispanic families: Context, culture, and practice implications. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 25(3), 200-206.