Measuring The Effectiveness of Faculty Mentoring.17

Article
Measuring the Effectiveness of Faculty

Mentoring Relationships
Ronald A. Berk, PhD, Janet Berg, MS, RN, Rosemary Mortimer, MS, MSEd, RN,
Benita Walton-Moss, DNS, RN, and Theresa P. Yeo, MSN, MPH, RN
Abstract
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/academicmedicine by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4X
“Mentor” is a term widely used in aca- evaluate the effectiveness of the mentor- struments are explained and copies are
Mi0hCywCX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC4/OAVpDDa8K2+Ya6H515kE= on 03/18/2024
demic medicine but for which there is no ing relationship. The committee devel- provided. Psychometric issues, including
consensus on an operational definition. oped two tools: the Mentorship Profile the importance of content-related valid-
Further, criteria are rarely reported for Questionnaire, which describes the char- ity evidence, response bias due to acqui-
evaluating the effectiveness of mentor- acteristics and outcome measures of the escence and halo effects, and limitations
ing. This article presents the work of an mentoring relationship from the perspec- on collecting reliability evidence, are ex-
Ad Hoc Faculty Mentoring Committee tive of the mentee, and the Mentorship amined in the context of the mentor–
whose tasks were to define “mentor- Effectiveness Scale, a 12-item six-point mentee relationship. Directions for future
ship,” specify concrete characteristics agree– disagree-format Likert-type rating research are suggested.
and responsibilities of mentors that are scale, which evaluates 12 behavioral
measurable, and develop new tools to characteristics of the mentor. These in- Acad Med. 2005; 80:66 –71.
O ver the past 25 years, there has been a observation over 20 years ago still seems been written on mentoring in health care,
lack of clarity about the characteristics apropos today: “There is a false sense of the research has not addressed the effec-
and outcomes of mentoring relation- consensus, because at a superficial level tiveness of the mentoring relationship in
ships, despite a growing body of re- everyone ”knows“ what mentoring is. But the academic setting or the tools to mea-
search.1 “Mentor” has taken on numer- closer examination indicates wide varia- sure that effectiveness.
ous meanings and has been applied in a tion in operational definitions, leading to
variety of corporate2–9 and education- conclusions that are limited to the use of Formal and informal mentoring pro-
al10 –15 contexts since its origin about particular procedures.”20, pp 3– 4 grams have been popping up in colleges
2,600 years ago, give or take a month or and universities nationwide, especially in
two: In The Odyssey, the ancient Greek Another strategy to provide some mean- medical schools such as ours.34 There are
poet Homer recounts the saga of Odys- ing to the construct of mentorship has even a few books that describe guidelines
seus, the Greek king and warrior. When been to identify the basic elements or for developing such programs.9,35–37 Un-
he knew he would be away from home functions of the mentoring relationship. fortunately, criteria for evaluating the
for many years, he chose a trusted friend, Jacobi1 distilled five elements in the men- effectiveness of these programs are either
Mentor, to educate, tutor, protect, and toring relationship on which there is gen- not reported24,27 or not quantifiable.32,33
guide his son. eral agreement. A mentoring relationship Within the context of this need, the Ad
(1) focuses on achievement or acquisition Hoc Faculty Mentoring Committee at
Since the mid-1970s, more than 20 defi- of knowledge; (2) consists of three com- Johns Hopkins University School of
nitions of mentoring or mentors have ponents: emotional and psychological Nursing undertook to define the con-
appeared in the literature.16 –18 These support, direct assistance with career and struct of “mentorship” and to develop
definitions are extremely diverse,1,19 plus professional development, and role mod- new generic instruments to measure the
there is no professional consensus on any eling; (3) is reciprocal, where both men- effectiveness of a faculty mentoring rela-
“acceptable” definition. Wrightsman’s tor and mentee (aka protégé) derive emo- tionship.
tional or tangible benefits; (4) is personal
in nature, involving direct interaction; Interested faculty members in our school
Dr. Berk is professor, Johns Hopkins University
School of Nursing, Baltimore, Maryland. and (5) emphasizes the mentor’s greater established the Ad Hoc Faculty Mentor-
experience, influence, and achievement ing Committee to investigate faculty’s
Ms. Berg is instructor, Johns Hopkins University mentoring activities as they related to the
School of Nursing, Baltimore, Maryland. within a particular organization.
criteria for promotion to associate pro-
Ms. Mortimer is instructor, Johns Hopkins The literature on mentoring within the fessor and professor ranks. Although no
University School of Nursing, Baltimore, Maryland.
health care field has run the gamut, from formal mentoring program existed at our
Dr. Moss is assistant professor, Johns Hopkins describing the value of mentoring in school, evidence of successful mentoring
University School of Nursing, Baltimore, Maryland.
leadership,21–26 documenting a long-dis- was required for promotion. That evi-
Ms. Yeo is assistant professor, Johns Hopkins tance mentorship program,27 mentoring dence was being submitted in the form of
University School of Nursing, Baltimore, Maryland. new faculty,28 –30 using preceptors as letters, written by faculty and student
Correspondence should be addressed to Dr. Berk, mentors,31 and determining participation mentees, which described the mentoring
Johns Hopkins University, 525 North Wolfe Street, in mentoring relationships,32 to survey- relationship with the faculty candidate.
Baltimore, MD 21205-2110; telephone: (410) 955-
8212; fax: (410) 502-5481; e-mail: ing the extent of administrative support There were no specific guidelines or crite-
具rberk@son.jhmi.edu典. for mentoring.33 Although much has ria to define the mentoring relationship
66 Academic Medicine, Vol. 80, No. 1 / January 2005

Article
or to evaluate the mentor’s effectiveness. 䡲 Provides timely, clear, and comprehen- fied” and “Very Satisfied,” “Very Unim-
The evidence presented was nonstand- sive feedback to mentee’s questions portant” and “Very Important,” “No
ardized and anecdotal. 䡲 Respects mentee’s uniqueness and his Support” and “High Support,” and “No
or her contributions Impact” and “High Impact.” These bipo-
The committee’s four tasks were to (1) 䡲 Appropriately acknowledges contribu- lar anchors measure different characteris-
define “mentorship,” (2) specify concrete tions of mentee tics about specific items. The scores on
characteristics and responsibilities of 䡲 Shares success and benefits of the prod- these items cannot be summed using a
mentors that are measurable, (3) develop ucts and activities with mentee summated ratings procedure to produce
an instrument that provides a compre- subscale or scale scores. There are, how-
hensive profile description of the mentor- ever, other bipolar importance and activ-
New Mentorship Effectiveness
ing relationship, and (4) build a scale that ity scales with the same anchors. When
measures the effectiveness of that rela- Instruments anchors are presented only at the extreme
tionship in terms of specific outcomes Instruments related to mentoring pro- ends of a scale continuum, the meaning
that a mentee could evaluate. grams in the 1980s relied on global ques- of the scale’s values and the interpreta-
tions about whether or not someone had tion of responses at points in between
a mentor38 – 40 or on a wide array of men- these extremes are unclear or ambiguous.
“Mentorship”: The Construct
toring characteristics or functions.6,41– 46 Only the respondents will know the true
The following products related to the These tools mirrored the inconsistency in meaning of these points.
definition and characteristics of mentor- definitions and lack of consensus on a
ship are the results of the committee’s generic set of functions mentioned previ- Despite all of the aspects of mentoring
work. ously. In the 1990s, the health care re- that these instruments measure, none
search reporting instruments to measure measured the critical dimension, “To
Definition the effectiveness of mentoring programs what extent were any of the relationships
Building on the previous definitions, but consisted of three studies,32,33,47 includ- effective?” A rating scale that evaluates
allowing for flexibility in the nature of the ing only one in medicine. the degree of effectiveness was needed. The
mentoring relationship, the committee challenge was to develop such a scale,
proposed the following definition: Morzinski et al.47 described the evalua- plus address the structural limitations of
tion of a formal mentoring program for previous scales.
A mentoring relationship is one that may
vary along a continuum from informal/ junior faculty in academic family medi-
short-term to formal/long-term in which cine. This program was based on skills Given the variation and complexity of
faculty with useful experience, knowledge, deemed important for socialization in faculty mentoring relationships, measur-
skills, and/or wisdom offers advice, infor- medicine and professional development. ing effectiveness seems inextricably
mation, guidance, support, or opportu- The mentees evaluated the impact of a linked to the nature of each unique rela-
nity to another faculty member or student
mentoring program based on their tionship. Consequently the committee
for that individual’s professional develop-
ment. (Note: This is a voluntary relation- achievement of three dimensions: devel- developed two instruments: a question-
ship initiated by the mentee.) opment of career management skills, im- naire that described the characteristics of
proved understanding of values and the mentoring relationship (albeit a pro-
Characteristics norms of the environment, and the abil- file of the relationship) as seen from the
The desirable characteristics of a faculty ity to develop professional relationships. perspective of the mentee, and a formal
mentor include, but are not limited to, The study showed that junior faculty im- rating scale that measured the effective-
expertise, professional integrity, honesty, proved their professional and academic ness of the mentor against the aforemen-
accessibility, approachability, motivation, skills after participating in the mentoring tioned characteristics and responsibilities.
respect by peers in field, and supportive- program. The benefits were greater when
ness and encouragement. the participants engaged in joint aca- The Mentorship Profile Questionnaire
demic projects. The Mentorship Profile Questionnaire
Responsibilities (see Appendix A) was developed to de-
In order to put some teeth into the role of Critique of mentorship instruments scribe the exact nature of the mentoring
mentor, faculty must commit to certain The current evaluation tools used in relationship and to specify the outcome
responsibilities for which he or she will mentoring programs have several limita- measures produced from the relation-
be held accountable by the mentees. tions in the context of the mentoring re- ship. The Description Section requests
Those concrete responsibilities are: lationship. These tools are designed to the mentee define the role of his or her
evaluate only specific mentoring pro- mentor (teacher, counselor, advisor,
䡲 Commits to mentoring grams. They measure the importance of sponsor, advocate, resource), the fre-
䡲 Provides resources, experts, and source mentoring functions, and/or they mea- quency and mode of communication,
materials in the field sure the frequency of mentoring behav- length of the relationship, and its
䡲 Offers guidance and direction regard- iors. And, these evaluation tools may or strengths and weaknesses. The Outcomes
ing professional issues may not apply to faculty mentoring. Section asks the mentee to identify, de-
䡲 Encourages mentee’s ideas and work Their questionnaire formats consist of scribe, and provide supporting docu-
䡲 Provides constructive and useful cri- short-answer constructed response and ments for the products of the relation-
tiques of the mentee’s work bipolar anchor scales with different an- ship, such as publications, presentations
䡲 Challenges the mentee to expand his or chors for each item. For example, the or posters, new teaching methods, clinical
her abilities extreme anchors may be “Very Unsatis- expertise, conducting research, service
Academic Medicine, Vol. 80, No. 1 / January 2005 67

Article
activities, job change or promotion, and the ratings and, consequently, favorably gram, then the items must match the sa-
grant writing. skew the responses. Given the nature of the lient characteristics of the program as
mentor–mentee relationship, no psycho- well. A panel of faculty members knowl-
The Mentorship Effectiveness Scale metric antidote for this potential subjectiv- edgeable about mentorship should for-
Item generation. The committee con- ity and ratings bias appears possible. These mally review the scale items against the
structed a formal rating scale to provide effects should be considered in the interpre- mentoring characteristics and the panel
an efficient, comprehensive, and stan- tation of the final ratings. should attain consensus or, preferably,
dardized tool for rating the mentorship unanimity.
Scale administration and scoring. Men-
experience and, especially, the effective-

ness of the mentor (see Appendix B). tors nominate mentees to complete this Response bias. As noted previously, ac-
Deriving the content from the pool of scale. Each mentee rates the extent to quiescence and halo biases can inflate the
positive or desirable characteristics and which the mentor exhibited each of the ratings by the mentees. Although the di-
responsibilities of mentors listed previ- 12 characteristics or met the behavioral rection of the bias can be anticipated, the
ously, 12 statements were generated to descriptions. Degree of agreement repre- degree cannot be measured. Either or
reflect a comprehensive assessment of the sents a qualitative rating, albeit an ordinal both sources of response bias can lower
mentorship’s effectiveness. The state- score value, from which the mentor’s the validity of the ratings, and the infer-
ments were written to meet established effectiveness could be inferred. The rat- ences drawn from them, about mentor
scale-item criteria,48 –51 gleaned from a ings may be presented item-by-item effectiveness.
variety of classic sources on scale con- based on the 0 –5-point quantitative scale
struction.52–56 The items were then re- or summed across all 12 items for a total
Other validity and reliability evidence.
viewed by a five-member faculty commit- rating, ranging from 0 – 60.
The most common indices of item analy-
tee for their psychometric form as well as If several mentees rate the same mentor sis, validity, and reliability computed
for their mentor-characteristic substance and the relationships are comparable, a from sample data cannot be estimated for
to provide evidence of content-related median rating for the sample of mentees most scales of mentors’ effectiveness.
validity. Item revisions required several can be computed by item and for the to- Although a common set of criteria and
iterations until unanimity by the com- tal scale. This comparability, however, is scale items are administered using stan-
mittee was attained. quite rare. Most often, each mentor– dardized procedures, typically each men-
mentee relationship is unique on one or tor–mentee relationship is unique. For
Scale structure. A Likert-type summated example, the details of the relationships
more characteristics. This precludes ag-
rating scale format was used to elicit each on the Mentorship Profile Questionnaire
gregating ratings across mentees for a
mentee’s responses to the items. A highly preclude the aggregation of ratings across
single mentor. If such ratings were com-
discriminating six-point agree– disagree mentees for the same mentor (see Appen-
bined, the results could be misleading
continuum was developed: 0 ⫽ Strongly dix A). The ratings by each mentee are
and misrepresent the effectiveness of the
Disagree, 1 ⫽ Disagree, 2 ⫽ Slightly Dis- usually based on different role profiles.
mentoring.
agree, 3 ⫽ Slightly Agree, 4 ⫽ Agree, 5 ⫽ Hence, the ratings are not comparable
Strongly Agree. These anchors seemed and do not have the same meaning. Since
most appropriate to evaluate responses to Psychometric issues a statistical sample of mentor ratings can-
a wide range of mentors’ characteristics. Although there is considerable variation in not be obtained, validity coefficients and
No uncertain or neutral position was the types of formal and informal mentoring standard indices of internal consistency
presented in order to force an agree– dis- programs in medical schools, minimal at- reliability, such as coefficient alpha, as
agree rating. Nunnally and Bernstein57 tention has been devoted to the develop- well as other group-based psychometric
have indicated there is a slight advantage ment of instruments to evaluate mentors statistics, cannot be computed.
to using an even-numbered scale with no and the mentoring relationship. The Ad
middle “undecided” position because a Hoc Faculty Mentoring Committee spent
neutral position response gives no rating more than a year reviewing the literature
Conclusions
information. A “Not Applicable” option and constructing the two tools described in
was also listed in case a characteristic was this section. Despite the effort expended, The research and experience on faculty
not appropriate for a particular mentor– there are built-in intractable psychometric mentoring relationships in academia, and
mentee relationship. issues that limit the collection of validity medical schools in particular, over the
and reliability evidence. Such evidence is past 25 years have produced lists of defi-
Response bias. Two types of response required by the Standards for Educational nitions, functions, and programs, but
bias were of concern: acquiescence (or and Psychological Testing.58 miniscule evidence of effectiveness. The
yea-saying) and the halo effect. Although concept of mentoring remains unclear
these biases are not common with Likert- Content-related validity. The most im- and imprecise and instruments designed
type scales,51 a mentee’s close working portant validity evidence is content re- to evaluate mentoring programs rarely
relationship with his or her mentor may lated. The items on the Mentorship Pro- do. The effectiveness of formal and infor-
affect the rater’s objectivity. The tendency file Questionnaire and the Mentorship mal medical faculty mentoring programs
to give positive responses to the “posi- Effectiveness Scale must be congruent intended to promote the professional
tive” characteristics, irrespective of the with the definition of mentoring and the growth of junior faculty and the aca-
item content, or to rate the specific char- domain of mentor characteristics and demic success of students is based more
acteristics highly because of an overall pos- responsibilities in whatever mentoring on assumption than on demonstrated
itive impression of the mentor, can inflate activities occur. If there is a formal pro- empirical evidence.

Article
In view of this shaky foundation, the Ad 8 Roche GR. Much ado about mentors. Harv 28 Brown H.N. Mentoring new faculty. Nurs
Hoc Faculty Mentoring Committee at the Bus Rev. 1979;57(1):14 –28. Educ. 1999;24(1):48 –51.
Johns Hopkins University School of 9 Scandura TA. Mentorship and career mobil- 29 DeJong C, Hartman M, Fisher-Hoult J. Men-
ity: an empirical investigation. J Organ Be- toring new faculty. J Staff Prog Organ Dev.
Nursing has contributed a generic defini- hav. 1992;3(2):69 –174. 1994;12(1):41–9.
tion, set of characteristics and responsi-
10 Daloz LA. Mentor: Guiding the Journey of 30 Genrich SJ, Pappas A. Retooling faculty ori-
bilities, and a mentorship profile and Adult Learners. Indianapolis, IN: Wiley/ entation. J Prof Nurs. 1997;13(2):84 –9.
rating scale to measure faculty mentor- Pfeiffer, 1999.
31 Bellinger SR, McCloskey JC. Are preceptors
ship effectiveness. Although these prod- 11 Davidson MN, Foster-Johnson L. Mentoring for orientation of new nurses effective? J Prof
ucts were developed in the absence of a in the preparation of graduate researchers of Nurs. 1992;8:321–7.
formal mentoring program, the content, color. Rev Educ Res. 2001;71:549 –74.
32 Short JD. Profile of administrators of schools

items, and instrument structure can be 12 Miller A. Mentoring Students and Young
of nursing, Part II: Mentoring relationships
People: Handbook of Effective Practice. Lon-
applied, or easily modified, to fit most don: Kogan Page, 2002.
and influence activities. J Prof Nurs. 1997;
informal as well as formal programs al- 13(1):13– 8.
13 Schoenfeld AC, Magnan R. Mentor in a Man-
ready in operation. ual: Climbing the Academic Ladder to Ten- 33 Kavoosi MC, Elman NS, Mauch JE. Faculty
ure. 2nd ed. Madison, WI: Magna Publica- mentoring and administrative support in
tions, 1994. schools of nursing. J Nurs Educ. 1995;34:
There is a critical need for research on
419 –26.
mentoring that must address the defini- 14 Villani S. Mentoring Programs for New
Teachers: Models of Induction and Support. 34 Fried LP, McDonald SM. Mentoring: A Re-
tional and conceptual issues plaguing this port from the Task Force on Women’s Aca-
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, 2002.
domain for years. Neither the empirical demic Careers in Medicine. Baltimore, MD:
15 Wang J, Odell SJ. Mentored learning to teach
nor theoretical published research has Department of Medicine, The Johns Hopkins
according to standards-based reform: a criti-
kept pace with the development of men- University, 1997.
cal review. Rev Educ Res. 2002;72:481–546.
toring programs. The scarcity of rating 16 Blackwell JE. Mentoring: an action strategy
35 Reinarz AG, White ER (eds). Beyond Teach-
scales that directly measure characteris- for increasing minority faculty. Academe. ing to Mentoring. Indianapolis, IN: Wiley/
1989;75:8 –14. Pfeiffer, 2001.
tics of the mentoring relationship, essen-
tial to evaluate any program’s effective- 17 Moore KM, Amey MJ. Some faculty leaders 36 Vance C, Olson RK (eds). The Mentor Con-
are born women. In: Sagaria MAD (ed). Em- nection in Nursing. New York: Springer,
ness, requires immediate attention. 1998.
powering Women: Leadership Development
Although the psychometric issues we Strategies on Campus. New Directions for 37 Zachary LJ. The Mentors Guide: Facilitating
have identified tend to limit quantifica- Student Services. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Effective Learning Relationships. Indianapo-
tion of results to person-, relationship-, 1988:39 –50. lis, IN: Wiley/Pfeiffer, 2000.
and program-specific contexts, a deliber- 18 Moses YT. Black women in academe: issues 38 Burke RJ. Mentors in organizations. Group
ate effort should be devoted to tackling and strategies. Paper presented at the Confer- Organ Stud. 1984;9:353–72.
ence of the Association of American Colleges,
these scaling problems. Hopefully, our Washington, DC, 1989. ERIC Document 39 Fagenson EA. The mentor advantage: perceived
contribution will furnish a springboard, Reproduction Services No. ED 311-817. career/job experiences of protégés versus non-
direction, and instrument prototypes to protégés. J Organ Behav. 1989;10:309 –20.
19 Merriam S. Mentors and protégés: a critical
direct future research. review of the literature. Adult Educ Q. 1983; 40 LeCluye EE, Tollefson N, Borgers SB. Differ-
33(3):161–73. ences in female graduate students in relation
20 Wrightsman LS. Research methodologies for to mentoring. Coll Stud J. 1985;10:411–5.
assessing mentoring. Paper presented at the 41 Busch JW. Mentoring in graduate schools of
References Conference of the American Psychological education: mentors’ perceptions. Am Educ
1 Jacobi M. Mentoring and undergraduate aca- Association, Los Angeles, CA, 1981. ERIC Res J. 1985;22:257– 65.
demic success: a literature review. Rev Educ Document Reproduction Service No. ED
42 Erkut S, Mokros JR. Professors as models and
Res. 1991;61:505–32. 209-339.
mentors for college students. Am Educ Res J.
2 Chao GT, Gardner PD. Formal and informal 21 Boyle C, James SK. Nursing leaders as men- 1984;21:399 – 417.
mentorship: a comparison on mentoring tors: how are we doing? Nurs Adm Q. 1990;
15(1):44 – 8. 43 Knox PL, McGovern TV. Mentoring women
functions and contrast with nonmentored in academia. Teach Psychol. 1988;15:39 – 40.
counterparts. Pers Psychol. 1992;45:619 –36. 22 Hamilton MS. Mentorhood: A key to nursing
leadership. Nurs Leadersh. 1981;4(1):4 –13. 44 Kogler-Hill SE, Bahniuk MH, Dobos J,
3 Collins GC, Scott P. Everyone who makes it Rouner D. Mentoring and other communica-
has a mentor. Harv Bus Rev. 1978;56(4):89 – 23 Larson BA. Job satisfaction of nursing leaders tion support in the academic setting. Group
101. with mentor relationships. Nurs Adm Q.
Organ Stud. 1989;14:355– 68.
1986;11(1):53– 60.
4 Dreher GF, Ash RA. A comparative study of 45 Noe RA. An investigation of the determi-
mentoring among men and women in mana- 24 Madison J. The value of mentoring in nurs-
nants of successful assigned mentoring rela-
ing leadership: a descriptive study. Nurs Fo-
gerial, professional, and technical positions. tionships. Pers Psychol. 1988;41:457–79.
rum. 1994;29(4):16 –23.
J Appl Psychol. 1990;75:539 – 46.
25 Rawl SM, Peterson LM. Nursing education 46 Riley S, Wrench D. Mentoring among
5 Jeruchim J, Shapiro P. Women, Mentors, and administrators: level of career development women lawyers. J Appl Soc Psychol. 1985;15:
Success. New York: Fawcett Columbine, and mentoring. J Prof Nurs. 1992;8(3):161–9. 374 – 86.
1992.
26 White JF. The perceived role of mentoring in 47 Morzinski JA, Diehr S, Bower DJ, Simpson
6 Kram KE. Mentoring at Work: Developmen- the career development and success of aca- DE. A descriptive, cross-sectional study of
tal Relationships in Organizational Life. Gl- demic nurse administrators. J Prof Nurs. formal mentoring for faculty. Fam Med.
enview, IL: Scott, Foresman, 1985. 1988;4(3):178 – 85. 1996;28:434 – 8.
7 Mobley GM, Jaret C, Marsh K, Lim YY. Men- 27 Owens BH, Herrick CA, Kelley JA. A prear- 48 Berk RA. The construction of rating instru-
toring, job satisfaction, gender, and the legal ranged mentorship program: can it work long ments for faculty evaluation: a review of meth-
profession. Sex Roles. 1994;31(1-2):79 –98. distance? J Prof Nurs. 1988;14(2):78 – 84. odological issues. J Higher Educ. 1979;50:650–69.

Article
49 DeVellis RF. Scale Development: Theory and 52 Edwards AL. Techniques of Attitude Scale 56 Wang KA. Suggested criteria for writing atti-
Applications. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Construction. New York: Appleton-Century- tude statements. J Soc Psychol. 1932;3:367–73.
Sage Publications, 2003. Crofts, 1957.
57 Nunnally J, Bernstein IH. Psychometric The-
50 Netemeyer RG, Bearden WO, Sharma S. Scal- 53 Likert R. A technique for the measurement of ory. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1994.
ing Procedures. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage attitudes. Arch Psychol. 1932;140:44 –53.
58 AERA (American Education Research Associa-
Publications, 2003. 54 Payne SL. The Art of Asking Questions. Prince- tion), APA (American Psychological Associa-
51 Streiner DL, Norman GR. Health Measure- ton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1951. tion), and NCME (National Council on Mea-
ment Scales: A Practical Guide to Their De- 55 Thurstone LL, Chave EJ. The Measurement surement in Education) Joint Committee on
velopment and Use. 2nd ed. New York: Ox- of Attitude. Chicago: University of Chicago Standards. Standards for Educational and Psycho-
ford University Press, 1995. Press, 1929. logical Testing. Washington, DC: AERA, 1999.
Appendix A
Mentorship Profile Questionnaire Developed by the Ad Hoc Faculty Mentoring
Committee, Johns Hopkins University School of Nursing
Your name: Mentor’s name:
Part I: Description of Relationship
1. What was the role of your mentor? (e.g., teacher, counselor, advisor, sponsor, advocate, resource)
2. How often did you communicate? (e.g., e-mail, in person, telephone)
3. How long have you had this relationship?
4. How would you characterize the strengths and weaknesses of your relationship?
Part II: Outcome Measures
Directions: Please check all of the following that resulted from your interaction with your mentor and specify or describe below. Supporting
documents may be attached, as appropriate.
1. 䊐 Publication:
2. 䊐 Presentation or poster:
3. 䊐 New teaching method or strategy:
4. 䊐 Clinical expertise:
5. 䊐 Conducting research:
6. 䊐 Service activities (e.g., community service, political activity, professional organization):
7. 䊐 Development of a program (e.g., educational/clinical course or new program of study):
8. 䊐 Job change/promotion:
9. 䊐 Grant writing/submission:
10. 䊐 Other:
Copyright姝 2002 The Johns Hopkins University School of Nursing

Article
Appendix B
Mentorship Effectiveness Scale Developed by the Ad Hoc Faculty Mentoring
Committee, Johns Hopkins University School of Nursing
Your name:
Directions: The purpose of this scale is to evaluate the mentoring characteristics of , who has identified you as an individual with
whom he/she has had a professional, mentor/mentee relationship. Indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each statement listed
below. Circle the number that corresponds to your response. Your responses will be kept confidential.
0 ⫽ Strongly Disagree (SD)

1 ⫽ Disagree (D)
2 ⫽ Slightly Disagree (SlD)
3 ⫽ Slightly Agree (SlA)
4 ⫽ Agree (A)
5 ⫽ Strongly Agree (SA)
6 ⫽ Not Applicable (NA)
SAMPLE: My mentor was hilarious. 0 1 2 3 4 5 ➅

SD D SlD SlA A SA NA
1. My mentor was accessible. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
2. My mentor demonstrated professional integrity. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
3. My mentor demonstrated content expertise in my
area of need. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
4. My mentor was approachable. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
5. My mentor was supportive and encouraging. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
6. My mentor provided constructive and useful critiques
of my work. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
7. My mentor motivated me to improve my work
product. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
8. My mentor was helpful in providing direction and
guidance on professional issues (e.g., networking). 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
9. My mentor answered my questions satisfactorily (e.g.,
timely response, clear, comprehensive). 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
10. My mentor acknowledged my contributions
appropriately (e.g., committee contributions,
awards). 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
11. My mentor suggested appropriate resources (e.g.,
experts, electronic contacts, source materials). 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
12. My mentor challenged me to extend my abilities
(e.g., risk taking, try a new professional activity, draft
a section of an article). 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Please make additional comments on the back of this sheet.
Copyright姝 2002 The Johns Hopkins University School of Nursing

Measuring The Effectiveness of Faculty Mentoring.17

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Measuring The Effectiveness of Faculty Mentoring.17

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Article

Measuring the Effectiveness of Faculty

66 Academic Medicine, Vol. 80, No. 1 / January 2005

Academic Medicine, Vol. 80, No. 1 / January 2005 67

experience and, especially, the effective-

68 Academic Medicine, Vol. 80, No. 1 / January 2005

32 Short JD. Profile of administrators of schools

Academic Medicine, Vol. 80, No. 1 / January 2005 69

Your name: Mentor’s name:

Part I: Description of Relationship

Part II: Outcome Measures

70 Academic Medicine, Vol. 80, No. 1 / January 2005

0 ⫽ Strongly Disagree (SD)

SAMPLE: My mentor was hilarious. 0 1 2 3 4 5 ➅

Academic Medicine, Vol. 80, No. 1 / January 2005 71

You might also like