Contents

######## Table 5.6 Correlations among measures where p < .01 (correlations between explanatory and outcome variables are highlighted)

Measures	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
1. FRC endorsement	.390	.344	.462	470	.412	.339	.448	.311
2. Leadership	.216	.518	.442	.649	.275	.275	.207
3. Responsibility	.225	.255	.281	.229	.529	.489
4. Leadership change	.626	.427	.288	.267	.140
5. Community engagement change	.412	.288	.277	.207
6. Community engagement	.334	.347	.275
7. Wellbeing	.311	.303
8. Health support seeking	.459
9. Home living

Note: In a sample of this size, very small correlations are often significant but may not be meaningful. Therefore, only those outcome variables that correlated with FRC endorsement (as the central explanatory variable) at r = .30 or higher were included.

#### 5.7.2 between the contributions of different 5.7.2 between the contributions of different explanatory variables

It is also possible, using hierarchical and logistic regression analyses, to investigate the strength of the relationships between the predictor variables (FRC endorsement, leadership and responsibility) and outcome variables. This allows an exploration of the relative contribution that leadership and responsibility play in addition to endorsement of the FRC in explaining variance in the outcome of interest. In these analyses, a relationship of approximately ß = .10 (where ß is the standardised regression coefficient) or greater is considered to be noteworthy. It is also possible to examine whether, as the trial logic suggests (see Figure 5.1), the impact of the FRC on the outcome variables of interest is explained by the impact of the FRC on local community leadership and individual and family responsibility. Specifically, it is argued that engagement with (and endorsement of) the FRC should affect outcomes such as current behaviour directly, but also by enhancing the perception of strong Indigenous leadership and the internalisation of individual/family responsibility values. In this section, the focus is on exploring whether this pattern of findings is evident for a range of outcomes. The explanatory contribution of FRC endorsement is accounted for first (Block 1 of the hierarchical regression) and then other explanatory factors are included in the model (leadership, responsibility; Block 2). It is expected that the overall amount of variance explained by all three predictors would be greater than the amount of variance explained by FRC endorsement alone. Further, if the strength of the relationship between the FRC and the outcome is reduced significantly when leadership and responsibility are also entered into the model, that is an indication that the trial logic is supported by the data—that a given outcome is not only a function of FRC endorsement, but also an increase in perceptions of strong leadership and endorsement of individual/family responsibility. Note that it is only possible to conduct hierarchical regression analysis for outcomes measured on a continuous scale. For categorical variables (with response options such as ‘more’, ‘less’, ‘the same’), including child wellbeing, community improvement and personal improvement, logistic regression analyses have been conducted and are reported in Table 5.8 and further below. The key difference here is that for logistic regression all explanatory variables are considered simultaneously (equivalent to Block 2 of hierarchical regression). As shown in Table 5.7, when considered alone, FRC endorsement contributed significantly to explaining both community engagement change and leadership change, contributing over 20 per cent of variance in these variables. Adding leadership and responsibility to the model R2 significantly increased the amount of variance explained (as shown by a significant Change statistic) and also reduced the contribution of FRC endorsement. Leadership in particular was

28