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-...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
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 |