"Mentor" is a term widely used in academic medicine but for which there is no consensus on an operational definition. Further, criteria are rarely reported for evaluating the effectiveness of mentoring. This article presents the work of an Ad Hoc Faculty Mentoring Committee whose tasks were to define "mentorship," specify concrete characteristics and responsibilities of mentors that are measurable, and develop new tools to evaluate the effectiveness of the mentoring relationship. The committee developed two tools: the Mentorship Profile Questionnaire, which describes the characteristics and outcome measures of the mentoring relationship from the perspective of the mentee, and the Mentorship Effectiveness Scale, a 12-item six-point agree-disagree-format Likert-type rating scale, which evaluates 12 behavioral characteristics of the mentor. These instruments are explained and copies are provided. Psychometric issues, including the importance of content-related validity evidence, response bias due to acquiescence and halo effects, and limitations on collecting reliability evidence, are examined in the context of the mentor-mentee relationship. Directions for future research are suggested.

No abstract

This review identifies 38 methods for either setting standards or adjusting them based on an analysis of classification error rates. A trilevel classification scheme is used to categorize the methods, and 10 criteria of technical adequacy and practicability are proposed to evaluate them. The salient characteristics of 23 continuum standard-setting methods are described and evaluated in the form of a “consumer’s guide.” Specific recommendations are offered for classroom teachers, educational certification test specialists, licensing and certification boards, and test publishers and independent test contractors.

Humor produces psychological and physiological effects on our body that are similar to the health bene ts of aerobic exercise. These bene ts are some of the best kept secrets from those persons who probably have the most to gain from that information-older adults. Many of them who must live with chronic pain, arthritis, rheumatism, emphysema, memory loss, depression, and stress may be able to cope better with their conditions or nd temporary relief by using humor. This article presents an up-to-date, comprehensive synthesis of 30 years of research evidence on 15 psychophysiologica l bene ts of humor and laughter with their implications for older adults. The speci c risks for this growing segment of the population also are identi ed. Strategies for communicating this information through publications and formal presentation s by health educators working in gerontology are suggested. A curriculum outline is provided for use in developing short, feature presentations or integrating the content into existing exercise and health-related courses and programs. If these efforts are effective, eventually the health bene ts of humor and laughter will be as familiar to our senior citizens as the risk factors associated with heart disease and smoking.Physicians, nurses, psychologists, occupational therapists, and other healthcare professionals are increasingly recognizing the therapeutic value of humor (

The unified conceptualization of validity with regard to content-related evidence has been expressed succinctly by the authors of the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (AERA et al., 1985): Content-related evidence of validity is a central concern during [instrument] development, whether such development occurs in a research setting, in a publishing house, or in the context of professional practice. Expert professional judgment should play an integral part in developing the definition of what is to be measured, such as describing the universe of content, generating or selecting the content sample, and specifying the item format and scoring system. Thus, inferences about content are linked to [instrument] construction as well as to establishing evidence of validity after [an instrument] has been developed and chosen for use. (p. 11) This article has demonstrated the process of collecting content-related validity evidence in terms of the specific requirements of the Standards. Five standards were identified and interpreted according to the initial stages of instrument construction: domain specification, item development, and item, subscale, and scale content validation. The role of expert judgment during these stages and the variety of evidence that can be gathered were described. For most instruments, the review process would necessitate two meetings of 1 to 2 hours each to review the domain specifications and another two meetings to determine the match between the items and the specifications. The importance of these 8 hours or whatever additional time is needed to obtain the validity evidence was emphasized. Finally, an application of the Standards was provided to illustrate step-by-step how the judgmental review process can be planned and executed.