Self-efficacy

 I used eight items in the index to determine each participant's self-efficacy score.

A potential response option for this index was "no Cherokee practice." Some participants

marked this box. As a result, I determined the mean scores for each participant by taking

the individual's sum total score and dividing it by the number of responses which

excluded the "no Cherokee practice" option. This was important to do because when a

participant marks "no Cherokee practice" for an item it implies that he/she believes that

the practice (item) listed was not historically developed and used by Cherokees. If I

assigned a point value to this belief, the mean score would inaccurately assign a higher or

lower mean score than what it should be.

 One participant was not included in this analysis because he/she did not believe that

any of the practices (items) listed were historically developed and used by Cherokees.

Confidence in performing traditional practices cannot be measured if the individual does

not believe that the practice is traditional. This is another reason why I compiled the

mean scores in the manner described above. There was one missing datum point. I took

the participant's average score and replaced the missing datum point with the average

score. See Appendix E Table 1 for self-efficacy data.

 I then ran a Mann-Whitney U test to determine if there was a difference between

groups (Table 4-7). There is no difference between high and low TAP user groups' self-

efficacy (z= -.37, p=0.71, a = 0.05). The high TAP user group has a significantly more

positive attitude toward traditional agriculture than the low TAP user group (Appendix E,

Figure 1).

 I used one scalar response question in the interview to measure self-efficacy. "If

you wanted to farm/garden traditionally, how well prepared are you to do that?" Both

TAP user group members mean responses is that they are somewhat prepared to farm