A new Mentor Evaluation Tool: Evidence of validity.
Journal
PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2020
2020
Historique:
received:
28
12
2019
accepted:
23
05
2020
entrez:
17
6
2020
pubmed:
17
6
2020
medline:
2
9
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
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. 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. 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. 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.
Sections du résumé
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.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32544185
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0234345
pii: PONE-D-19-35869
pmc: PMC7297334
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0234345Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Références
Acad Med. 2005 Jan;80(1):66-71
pubmed: 15618097
Int J Med Educ. 2011 Jun 27;2:53-55
pubmed: 28029643
Med Educ Online. 2015 Sep 16;20:28327
pubmed: 26384479
Acad Med. 2009 Jan;84(1):140-4
pubmed: 19116494
J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2007 Spring;27(2):86-93
pubmed: 17576629
Acad Med. 2010 Mar;85(3):484-9
pubmed: 20182122
Acad Med. 2006 Jul;81(7):668-73
pubmed: 16799296
Acad Med. 2009 Jan;84(1):135-9
pubmed: 19116493
Clin Transl Sci. 2009 Jun;2(3):216-21
pubmed: 19774102
Mayo Clin Proc. 2000 May;75(5):535-7
pubmed: 10807085
Med Teach. 2014 Jul;36(7):608-14
pubmed: 24804918
Med Educ. 2003 Sep;37(9):830-7
pubmed: 14506816
Acad Med. 2004 Sep;79(9):845-50
pubmed: 15326007
Med Teach. 2006 Aug;28(5):404-8
pubmed: 16973451
Acad Med. 2003 Mar;78(3):328-34
pubmed: 12634219
JAMA. 2006 Sep 6;296(9):1103-15
pubmed: 16954490
Am J Med. 2011 May;124(5):453-8
pubmed: 21531235
Nurse Educ Today. 2000 Oct;20(7):555-62
pubmed: 12173259
Clin Transl Sci. 2012 Jun;5(3):273-80
pubmed: 22686206
Ethn Dis. 2017 Apr 20;27(2):179-188
pubmed: 28439189
Clin Transl Sci. 2010 Jun;3(3):104-8
pubmed: 20590679
BMC Med Educ. 2015 Nov 09;15:201
pubmed: 26553241
Acad Med. 2013 Jan;88(1):82-9
pubmed: 23165266
Acad Med. 2012 Dec;87(12):1757-61
pubmed: 23095917
Clin Transl Sci. 2012 Feb;5(1):71-7
pubmed: 22376261
J Gen Intern Med. 2002 Nov;17(11):845-51
pubmed: 12406356
Acad Med. 2013 May;88(5):710-23
pubmed: 23524921
Med Educ Online. 2010 Apr 23;15:
pubmed: 20431710
Am J Med Sci. 2017 Feb;353(2):151-157
pubmed: 28183416
BMC Med Educ. 2017 Aug 8;17(1):132
pubmed: 28789660
J Gen Intern Med. 2006 Apr;21(4):340-5
pubmed: 16686809
Clin Transl Sci. 2011 Oct;4(5):353-8
pubmed: 22029808
Acad Med. 2013 Jul;88(7):1002-8
pubmed: 23702534
Nurse Educ Today. 2016 May;40:20-8
pubmed: 27125145
Acad Med. 2008 Mar;83(3):217-25
pubmed: 18316865