Improving understanding of how mentoring works: Measuring multiple intervention processes

Abstract

The objective is to develop and test dimensionality and validity of a new measure of five mentoring intervention processes drawn from emphases across prior mentoring efforts that might be the basis for effects: identification with the mentor, social and emotional support, teaching and education, and advocacy, and shared time and activity. Partial validation of value was drawn from moderation role in a meta‐analysis of mentoring (Tolan, Henry, Lovegrove, Schoeny, & Nichols, 2014. J. Exp. Criminol., 10, 179–201). Data collected of candidate items completed by 740 mentors and 302 mentees (mean age = 16.59 years) were subjected to confirmatory factor analyses based on the five theorized dimensions. Scales derived from best‐fitting solutions were examined for convergent validity in relation to other indicators of mentoring relationship qualities. A bifactor model with five specific factors was supported for adult mentor reports while a simplified single factor model fit youth reports. Correlations between derived scale scores and validity indicators of mentoring relationship qualities were consistent with expectations. Multiple activities that comprise mentoring can be identified in adult mentor reports but not youth reports. This scale provides a promising basis for testing how variation in emphasis during mentoring affects impact and help guide training emphases.

Mentoring roles in an afterschool STEM mentoring program: an investigation of why mentors enact different roles

“…Researchers have offered multiple definitions for mentoring. Shared characteristics of mentoring relationships include that they occur between one or more mentors and one or more mentees, with some power or structural difference between the mentor(s) and mentee(s), they extend over a period of time, and the mentee is in a position to learn and benefit from the relationship (Tolan et al, 2020). Youth mentoring is an "individualized relationship between a young person and a non-parental adult that promotes positive development" (Lakind et al, 2015, p. 52).…”

“…Mentors enact multiple roles as they work with mentees (Goldner and Mayseless, 2008;Pryce, 2010, 2012;Lakind et al, 2015;Rhodes et al, 2006;Tolan et al, 2020). It is an inherently flexible activity that shifts for several reasons, including the mentees' needs, the mentors' beliefs, and the passage of time (Goldner and Mayseless, 2008;Herrera et al, 2013;Lakind et al, 2015;Lucas, 2001;Spencer, 2007).…”

Supporting autonomy in youth mentoring relationships

“…For example, health psychologists find that parents' role modeling of fruit and vegetable intake influences subsequent child intake (Harris & Ramsey, 2015). Similarly, role modeling is considered one of the primary means by which mentors positively influence young people (Tolan et al, 2020). Role modeling presents a relatively safe bet, with very little downside, for promoting healthy behavioral autonomy while avoiding controlling or coercive mentor behavior.…”

“…Mentors provide role modeling through interactions and experiences which evoke admiration, respect, feelings of similarity, and connection (Tolan et al, 2020). When these interactions and experiences are paired with observations of mentor decision making (e.g., food choice selection, prioritizing academic work over television, etc.…”

“…We highlight five specific areas of influence that have implications for developing healthy autonomy in adolescence: role modeling; encouraging; providing access to resources, relationships, and experiences; advocacy; and conversations about behavior change. These five avenues of influence are core aspects of effective mentoring relationships and represent the means through which young people often experience psychosocial benefits from mentoring programs, such as increased ability to overcome challenges, enhanced motivation to meet goals, and increased self‐efficacy (DuBois et al, 2011; Lyons et al, 2019; Rhodes et al, 2006; Tolan et al, 2020). In discussing these five areas of influence, we seek to inform future research and program development by highlighting putative risks and opportunities for promoting healthy autonomy development through mentoring relationships (see Figure 2).…”