A new Mentor Evaluation Tool: Evidence of validity.
ABSTRACT: 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.
Project description:<h4>Introduction</h4>Mentorship is a vital component of academic and professional development. Mentees report positive impacts from mentorship programs, yet institutions and societies may struggle to meet their mentees' needs due to factors such as mentor fatigue and lack of mentor training. To address this in our own professional society, the Association of Pediatric Program Directors, we developed a mentor toolkit in order to utilize a variety of mentoring models, provide faculty development for midlevel mentors, and offer guidance to mentees.<h4>Methods</h4>Most of these tools were designed to be administered in an interactive format such as a workshop or seminar with think-pair-share opportunities. The toolkit begins by providing a definition of <i>mentoring</i> and reinforcing the benefits and the characteristics of effective mentoring relationships. Next, we discuss the important role that mentees have in creating and maintaining effective mentoring relationships (i.e., mentee-driven mentoring). We then introduce a mentoring mosaic activity designed to help mentees examine their professional network and think about how they might expand it to fulfill the spectrum of their mentoring needs. Next, we present guidelines for the implementation of four mentoring models that can be used within one's institution: traditional dyadic mentoring, peer group mentoring, meet the professor mentoring, and speed mentoring. We then provide tools that can be used to help facilitate effective mentoring development.<h4>Results</h4>This toolkit has successfully served as a self-guided resource at national meetings for many years, garnering positive feedback from mentors and mentees alike.<h4>Discussion</h4>The principles and methods are easily generalizable and may be used to guide mentorship programs within institutional and professional societies, as well as to assist mentors and mentees in optimizing their individual mentoring relationships.
Project description:Mentorship programs are perceived as valuable, yet little is known about the effect of program design on mentoring effectiveness.We developed a program focused on mentoring relationship quality and evaluated how subsequent relationships compared to preexisting informal pairings.Faculty members were invited by e-mail to participate in a new mentoring program. Participants were asked to complete a biography, subsequently provided to second- and third-year internal medicine residents. Residents were instructed to contact available mentors, and ultimately designate a formal mentor. All faculty and residents were provided a half-day workshop training, written guidelines, and e-mails. Reminders were e-mailed and announced in conferences approximately monthly. Residents were surveyed at the end of the academic year.Thirty-seven faculty members completed the biography, and 70% (26 of 37) of residents responded to the survey. Of the resident respondents, 77% (20 of 26) chose a formal mentor. Of the remainder, most had a previous informal mentor. Overall, 96% (25 of 26) of the residents had identified a mentor of some kind compared to 50% (13 of 26) before the intervention (P?<?.001), and 70% (14 of 20) who chose formal mentors identified them as actual mentors. Similar numbers of residents described their mentors as invested in the mentorship, and there was no statistical difference in the number of times mentors and mentees met.Facilitated selection of formal mentors produced relationships similar to preexisting informal ones. This model may increase the prevalence of mentorship without decreasing quality.
Project description:BACKGROUND:Identification and development of young investigators (YI) is critical to the long-term success of research organizations. In 2004, the Children's Oncology Group (COG) created a mentorship program to foster the career development of YIs (faculty <10 years from initial appointment). This study sought to assess mentors' long-term assessment of this program. PROCEDURE:In 2018, 101 past or current mentors in the COG YI mentorship program completed an online survey. Statistical comparisons were made with the Kruskal-Walis test. RESULTS:The response rate was 74.2%. As some mentors had multiple mentees, we report on 138 total mentee-mentor pairs. Mentors were 57.4% male, and mentees were 39.1% male. Mentors rated being mentored as a YI as important with a median rating of 90 on a scale of 1-100, interquartile range (IQR) 80-100. Most mentors reported that being mentored themselves helped their own success within COG (78.2%) and with their overall career development (92.1%). Most mentors enjoyed serving in the program (72.3%) and the median success rating (on a scale of 1-100) across the mentor-mentee pairings was 75, IQR 39-90. Success ratings did not differ by mentor/mentee gender, but improved with increased frequency of mentor-mentee interactions (P < .001). Mentor-mentee pairs who set initial goals reported higher success ratings than those who did not (P < .001). Tangible successes included current mentee COG committee involvement (45.7%), ongoing mentor-mentee collaboration (53.6%), and co-authored manuscript publication (38.4%). CONCLUSION:These data indicate that mentorship is important for successful professional development. Long-term mentoring success improves when mentors and mentees set goals upfront and meet frequently.
Project description:The Colorado Mentoring Training program (CO-Mentor) was developed at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus in 2010, supported by the Colorado Clinical and Translational Sciences Institute. CO-Mentor represents a different paradigm in mentorship training by focusing equally on the development of mentees, who are valued as essential to institutional capacity for effective mentorship. The training model is unique among Clinical and Translational Science Award sites in that it engages mentors and mentees in an established relationship. Dyads participate in 4 day-long sessions scheduled throughout the academic year. Each session features workshops that combine didactic and experiential components. The latter provide structured opportunities to develop mentorship-related skills, including self-knowledge and goal setting, communication skills (including negotiation), "managing up," and the purposeful development of a mentorship support network. Mentors and mentees in 3 recent cohorts reported significant growth in confidence with respect to all mentorship-related skills assessed using a pre-post evaluation survey (P = .001). Mentors reported the most growth in relation to networking to engage social and professional support to realize goals as well as sharing insights regarding paths to success. Mentees reported the most growth with respect to connecting with potential/future mentors, knowing characteristics to look for in current/future mentors, and managing the work environment (e.g., prioritizing work most fruitful to advancing research/career objectives). CO-Mentor represents a novel approach to enhancing mentorship capacity by investing equally in the development of salient skills among mentees and mentors and in the mentorship relationship as an essential resource for professional development, persistence, and scholarly achievement.
Project description:In the highly competitive environment of academic medicine, junior faculty investigators face high attrition rates due to challenges in finding effective mentorship, securing grant funding, and obtaining resources to support their career development and research productivity. The purpose of this study was to describe the centralized, cost-sharing design of the Independent Investigator Incubator (I3) program as a novel approach to junior faculty mentoring and to evaluate quantitative outcomes for program improvement.In September 2014, the I3 pilot program, a comprehensive mentorship program targeting junior faculty pursuing research careers, was launched. Participants included junior faculty during the crucial first three years of their research careers or during their transition from career development awards to more independent research. Following initial screening, the I3 mentees were paired with a senior faculty "super-mentor" with expertise in either basic science or clinical research. Mentees were provided with robust traditional one-on-one mentoring, targeted feedback from a super-mentor review committee, as well as biostatistician and grant writing support. To assess the effectiveness of the I3 program, we tracked outcome measures via baseline and 12-month mentee surveys. Data collected assessed program diversity, mentee self-assessments, evaluation of the mentoring relationship, scholarship and productivity metrics. Raw data were analyzed using a paired t-test in Excel (P?<?0.05).Results of the baseline mentee self-assessment survey found that the I3 mentees indicated common "perceive deficits" including navigating the organizational and institutional culture, clear direction in achieving promotion and tenure, among others. When baseline mentee survey responses were compared to 12-month responses, we identified strong "perceived growth" in categories, such as Research and Interpersonal Skills and Career Development Skills. Further, productivity metrics at 12-months revealed that roughly 80% of I3 mentees successfully published a manuscript(s). The I3 program has helped generate roughly $12.1 million dollars in investigator-initiated funding after two years in the program.The I3 program allows for shared costs between institutions and increased availability of successful subject matter experts. Study results imply that the I3 mentoring program provides transformative mentorship for junior faculty. Using our findings, we developed courses and an annual "snapshot" of mentee performance for mentors.
Project description:<h4>Aims</h4>Increasing the diversity of the biomedical sciences workforce is a national priority. Having a mentor, and more crucially, a <i>personal network of mentors</i>, improves the likelihood that an individual will pursue an advanced degree and career in the biomedical sciences. The chief mission of the National Research Mentoring Network (NRMN) is to reduce racial and ethnic disparities in the biosciences workforce through the mentoring of historically underrepresented individuals.<h4>Methods</h4>To address this need, we created MyNRMN, an online mentoring platform that connects mentors and mentees nationwide. The platform enables multiple forms of mentoring and recommends connections to mentees that will help them build their personal networks.<h4>Results</h4>The MyNRMN online platform has registered more than 13,500 active mentors and mentees across all 50 states and from more than 2100 institutions. Black and Hispanic mentees are highly represented.<h4>Discussion</h4>MyNRMN has expanded opportunities for mentorship in the biomedical sciences, particularly among those not from a culture or institution that historically supports mentorship. The platform's robust search and recommendation capabilities and graph database technology enable members to grow their personal network of mentors.<h4>Conclusion</h4>The MyNRMN online platform has proven successful in connecting mentees and mentors nationwide, expanding the pipeline in biomedical science careers to attract a more diverse workforce.
Project description:Visual Abstract Highlights • Mentees are more satisfied with their mentorship experience when they have had more than 3 mentors or a mentor from outside of their practice/institution.• Satisfaction with the mentoring relationship is significantly associated with perceived satisfaction in achieving professional goals.• Sex and race/ethnicity concordance in mentoring relationships is associated with positive outcomes.• Characteristics that mentees desire in a mentor tend to change with time/career stage. Summary The effects of mentorship on measurable outcomes of success and the aspects of mentorship that are most valuable in promoting the careers of cardiologists are unclear. To address this, we conducted a large-scale survey of cardiologists in a real-world setting. We identified factors that enhance the mentorship experience, and found that mentee needs change with career stage. Importantly, satisfaction with the mentoring relationship is significantly associated with perceived satisfaction in achieving professional goals. Furthermore, we found that gender and race concordance in mentoring relationships is an important variable with the potential to increase diversity in the field of cardiology.
Project description:The mounting global cancer burden has generated an increasing demand for oncologists to join the workforce. Yet, students report limited oncology exposure in undergraduate medical curricula, while undergraduate oncology mentorships remain underutilised. We established an undergraduate oncology society-led mentorship programme aimed at medical students across several UK universities to increase medical student oncology exposure. We electronically recruited and paired oncologist mentors and medical student mentees and distributed a dedicated questionnaire (pre- and post-mentorship) to compare mentees' self-reported cancer specialty knowledge and oncology career motivation after undertaking a 6-week mentorship. We also determined students' interest across specialties and subspecialties and measured mentor availability via percentage programme uptake. Statistical analysis included univariate inferential tests on SPSS software. Twentynine (23.4%) of 124 oncology specialists agreed to become mentors. The mentorship was completed by 30 students across three medical schools: 16 (53.3%) Barts, 10 (33.3%) Birmingham, and 4 (13.3%) King's; 11 (36.7%) mentored by medical oncologists, 10 (33.3%) by clinical/radiation oncologists, and 9 (30%) by surgical oncologists. The mentorship generated a statically significant increase in students' knowledge of the multidisciplinary team and all oncology-related specialties including academia/research but not interest towards a career in oncology. Undergraduate oncology mentoring is an effective educational, networking and motivational tool for medical students. Student societies are a valuable asset in cultivating medical student oncology interest by connecting students to faculty and increasing mentor accessibility. Further research should focus on developing an optimal mentorship structure and evaluating long-term outcomes of such educational initiatives.
Project description:Effective networking and mentorship are critical determinants of career satisfaction and success in academic medicine. The American Society of Pediatric Hematology/Oncology (ASPHO) mentoring program was developed to support Early Career (EC) members. Herein, the authors report on the initial 2-year outcomes of this novel program.Mentees selected mentors with expertise in different subspecialties within the field from mentor profiles at the ASPHO Web site. Of 23 enrolled pairs, 19 mentors and 16 mentees completed electronic program feedback evaluations. The authors analyzed data collected between February 2013 and December 2014. The authors used descriptive statistics for categorical data and thematic analysis for qualitative data.The overall response rate was 76% (35/46). At the initiation of the relationship, career development and research planning were the most commonly identified goals for both mentors and mentees. Participants communicated by phone, e-mail, or met in-person at ASPHO annual meetings. Most mentor-mentee pairs were satisfied with the mentoring relationship, considered it a rewarding experience that justified their time and effort, achieved their goals in a timely manner with objective work products, and planned to continue the relationship. However, time constraints and infrequent communications remained a challenge.Participation in the ASPHO mentoring program suggests a clear benefit to a broad spectrum of ASPHO EC members with diverse personal and professional development needs. Efforts to expand the mentoring program are ongoing and focused on increasing enrollment of mentors to cover a wider diversity of career tracks/subspecialties and evaluating career and academic outcomes more objectively.
Project description:<h4>Background</h4>Safe, high-quality surgical care in many African countries is a critical need. Challenges include availability of surgical providers, improving quality of care, and building workforce capacity. Despite growing evidence that mentoring is effective in African healthcare settings, less is known about its role in surgery. We examined a multimodal approach to mentorship as part of a safe surgery intervention (Safe Surgery 2020) to improve surgical quality. Our goal was to distill lessons for policy makers, intervention designers, and practitioners on key elements of a successful surgical mentorship program.<h4>Methods</h4>We used a convergent, mixed-methods design to examine the experiences of mentees, mentors, and facility leaders with mentorship at 10 health facilities in Tanzania's Lake Zone. A multidisciplinary team of mentors worked with surgical providers over 17 months using in-person mentorship, telementoring, and WhatsApp. We conducted surveys, in-depth interviews, and focus groups to capture data in four categories: (1) satisfaction with mentorship; (2) perceived impact; (3) elements of a successful mentoring program; and (4) challenges to implementing mentorship. We analyzed quantitative data using frequency analysis and qualitative data using the constant comparison method. Recurrent and unifying concepts were identified through merging the qualitative and quantitative data.<h4>Results</h4>Overall, 96% of mentees experienced the intervention as positive, 88% were satisfied, and 100% supported continuing the intervention in the future. Mentees, mentors, and facility leaders perceived improvements in surgical practice, the surgical ecosystem, and in reducing postsurgical infections. Several themes related to the intervention's success emerged: (1) the intervention's design, including its multimodality, side-by-side mentorship, and standardization of practices; (2) the mentee-mentor relationship, including a friendly, safe, non-hierarchical, team relationship, as well as mentors' understanding of the local context; and (3) mentorship characteristics, including non-judgmental feedback, experience, and accessibility. Challenges included resistance to change, shortage of providers, mentorship dose, and logistics.<h4>Conclusions</h4>Our study suggests a multimodal mentorship approach is promising in building the capacity of surgical providers. By distilling the experiences of the mentees, mentors, and facility leaders, our lessons provide a foundation for future efforts to establish effective surgical mentorship programs that build provider capacity and ultimately improve surgical quality.