Cargando…

A new Mentor Evaluation Tool: Evidence of validity

BACKGROUND: Mentorship plays an essential role in enhancing the success of junior faculty. Previous evaluation tools focused on specific types of mentors or mentees. The main objective was to develop and provide validity evidence for a Mentor Evaluation Tool (MET) to assess the effectiveness of one-...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Yukawa, Michi, Gansky, Stuart A., O’Sullivan, Patricia, Teherani, Arianne, Feldman, Mitchell D.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7297334/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32544185
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0234345
_version_ 1783546982277578752
author Yukawa, Michi
Gansky, Stuart A.
O’Sullivan, Patricia
Teherani, Arianne
Feldman, Mitchell D.
author_facet Yukawa, Michi
Gansky, Stuart A.
O’Sullivan, Patricia
Teherani, Arianne
Feldman, Mitchell D.
author_sort Yukawa, Michi
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Mentorship plays an essential role in enhancing the success of junior faculty. Previous evaluation tools focused on specific types of mentors or mentees. The main objective was to develop and provide validity evidence for a Mentor Evaluation Tool (MET) to assess the effectiveness of one-on-one mentoring for faculty in the academic health sciences. METHODS: Evidence was collected for the validity domains of content, internal structure and relationship to other variables. The 13 item MET was tested for internal structure evidence with 185 junior faculty from Schools of Dentistry, Medicine, Nursing, and Pharmacy. Finally, the MET was studied for additional validity evidence by prospectively enrolling mentees of three different groups of faculty (faculty nominated for, or winners of, a lifetime achievement in mentoring award; faculty graduates of a mentor training program; and faculty mentors not in either of the other two groups) at the University of California San Francisco (UCSF) and asking them to rate their mentors using the MET. Mentors and mentees were clinicians, educators and/or researchers. RESULTS: The 13 MET items mapped well to the five mentoring domains and six competencies described in the literature. The standardized Cronbach’s coefficient alpha was 0.96. Confirmatory factor analysis supported a single factor (CFI = 0.89, SRMR = 0.05). The three mentor groups did not differ in the single overall assessment item (P = 0.054) or mean MET score (P = 0.288), before or after adjusting for years of mentoring. The mentorship score means were relatively high for all three groups. CONCLUSIONS: The Mentor Evaluation Tool demonstrates evidence of validity for research, clinical, educational or career mentors in academic health science careers. However, MET did not distinguish individuals nominated as outstanding mentors from other mentors. MET validity evidence can be studied further with mentor-mentee pairs and to follow prospectively the rating of mentors before and after a mentorship training program.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7297334
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-72973342020-06-19 A new Mentor Evaluation Tool: Evidence of validity Yukawa, Michi Gansky, Stuart A. O’Sullivan, Patricia Teherani, Arianne Feldman, Mitchell D. PLoS One Research Article BACKGROUND: Mentorship plays an essential role in enhancing the success of junior faculty. Previous evaluation tools focused on specific types of mentors or mentees. The main objective was to develop and provide validity evidence for a Mentor Evaluation Tool (MET) to assess the effectiveness of one-on-one mentoring for faculty in the academic health sciences. METHODS: Evidence was collected for the validity domains of content, internal structure and relationship to other variables. The 13 item MET was tested for internal structure evidence with 185 junior faculty from Schools of Dentistry, Medicine, Nursing, and Pharmacy. Finally, the MET was studied for additional validity evidence by prospectively enrolling mentees of three different groups of faculty (faculty nominated for, or winners of, a lifetime achievement in mentoring award; faculty graduates of a mentor training program; and faculty mentors not in either of the other two groups) at the University of California San Francisco (UCSF) and asking them to rate their mentors using the MET. Mentors and mentees were clinicians, educators and/or researchers. RESULTS: The 13 MET items mapped well to the five mentoring domains and six competencies described in the literature. The standardized Cronbach’s coefficient alpha was 0.96. Confirmatory factor analysis supported a single factor (CFI = 0.89, SRMR = 0.05). The three mentor groups did not differ in the single overall assessment item (P = 0.054) or mean MET score (P = 0.288), before or after adjusting for years of mentoring. The mentorship score means were relatively high for all three groups. CONCLUSIONS: The Mentor Evaluation Tool demonstrates evidence of validity for research, clinical, educational or career mentors in academic health science careers. However, MET did not distinguish individuals nominated as outstanding mentors from other mentors. MET validity evidence can be studied further with mentor-mentee pairs and to follow prospectively the rating of mentors before and after a mentorship training program. Public Library of Science 2020-06-16 /pmc/articles/PMC7297334/ /pubmed/32544185 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0234345 Text en https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ This is an open access article, free of all copyright, and may be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, modified, built upon, or otherwise used by anyone for any lawful purpose. The work is made available under the Creative Commons CC0 (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) public domain dedication.
spellingShingle Research Article
Yukawa, Michi
Gansky, Stuart A.
O’Sullivan, Patricia
Teherani, Arianne
Feldman, Mitchell D.
A new Mentor Evaluation Tool: Evidence of validity
title A new Mentor Evaluation Tool: Evidence of validity
title_full A new Mentor Evaluation Tool: Evidence of validity
title_fullStr A new Mentor Evaluation Tool: Evidence of validity
title_full_unstemmed A new Mentor Evaluation Tool: Evidence of validity
title_short A new Mentor Evaluation Tool: Evidence of validity
title_sort new mentor evaluation tool: evidence of validity
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7297334/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32544185
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0234345
work_keys_str_mv AT yukawamichi anewmentorevaluationtoolevidenceofvalidity
AT ganskystuarta anewmentorevaluationtoolevidenceofvalidity
AT osullivanpatricia anewmentorevaluationtoolevidenceofvalidity
AT teheraniarianne anewmentorevaluationtoolevidenceofvalidity
AT feldmanmitchelld anewmentorevaluationtoolevidenceofvalidity
AT yukawamichi newmentorevaluationtoolevidenceofvalidity
AT ganskystuarta newmentorevaluationtoolevidenceofvalidity
AT osullivanpatricia newmentorevaluationtoolevidenceofvalidity
AT teheraniarianne newmentorevaluationtoolevidenceofvalidity
AT feldmanmitchelld newmentorevaluationtoolevidenceofvalidity