Table 1.

Procedures for meeting the evaluation criteria for our CBPR project^*

Criterion	Procedure
Credibility	Observations and memos were kept in field notes for referral when analyzing the data (Persistent observation)
	The Native American team member reviewed all analyses and interpretations of the data for cultural bias. (Member checks)
	The 2 people responsible for data collection had formally scheduled reflective sessions to discuss the progress of the research. (Peer debriefing/progressive subjectivity)
	The research team met regularly to discuss the progress of the project. (Peer debriefing) Research results were discussed with the participants at a final meeting and feedback welcomed. (Member checks)
Transferability	Descriptions of the community were described to the degree negotiated, so the reader of reports generated from this project can have access to the context of the Study setting. Descriptions are available in (a) the field notes recording direct and participant observations. (b) minutes that recorded each research team meeting. (c) minutes that recorded research team reflections, (d) archival data that provided a description of services and agencies on the reservation, and (e) demographic data that provided statistical population data.
Dependability	Through the use of N-Vivo, the method of data analysis was documented and saved.
Confirmability	Through the use of N-Vivo, along with the generation of Microsoft Word documents, all forms and levels of analysis are traceable to each data source.
Fairness	The process of negotiations and subsequent resolutions (particularly the Memorandum of Understanding) were recorded and archived.
Ontological authenticity	Through the process of team reflections (at both face-to-face meetings and teleconference meetings), team members had the opportunity to describe changes and growth in understanding of one's own construction/worldview. These reflections were recorded and archived as part of the data set.
Educative authenticity	Through the process of team reflections, team members had the opportunity to describe changes and growth in understanding of the other team member's constructions/worldviews. These reflections were recorded and archived as part of the data set.
Level of participant involvement	This was measured in terms of number of people interviewed (27 people in total) and their willingness to participate in all aspects of the project. Families were referred to the Native research team member with confidence from the service providers for the Family Care Conference (FCC). Similarly, the family participating in the FCC was enthusiastic about how it had worked and requested a follow-up meeting. These observations were included in field notes as part of the data set.
Community voice	The Native research team member was involved in all phases of the research project, including problem identification, intervention development, research design particularly as related to cultural sensitivity, data collection, data analysis, and dissemination of results. This involvement was recorded in the minutes of all research team meetings.
Acceptable problem resolution	The family who agreed to participate in the FCC indicated positive results from the intervention. These results were both objective and subjective. Throughout the course of the project, as the Native research team member had continued contact with the community members, she received verbal indications of support. People would tell her they would be willing to help in whatever way they could.
Feasibility of project sustainability	With the information we gained from the pilot project, and the support we received from the community, we submitted a grant proposal to expand the project. This second proposal subsequently was funded.

^*CBPR indicates community-based participatory research.