2011
DOI: 10.1002/jcop.20475
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Randomized evaluation of a single semester transitional mentoring program for first year middle school students: a cautionary result for brief, school-based mentoring programs

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
27
0

Year Published

2013
2013
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 24 publications
(27 citation statements)
references
References 25 publications
0
27
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Thus, the context and structures within the school environment may attenuate the influences of the relational mechanisms thought to be active in mentoring programs. In response to these findings, some researchers reasoned that the contextual limitations of the school environment may prohibit long‐lasting, close youth‐adult relationships and have suggested that school‐based programs emphasize goal‐directed activities as the primary mechanism for producing change (Cavell & Elledge, ; McQuillin, Smith, & Strait, ).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Thus, the context and structures within the school environment may attenuate the influences of the relational mechanisms thought to be active in mentoring programs. In response to these findings, some researchers reasoned that the contextual limitations of the school environment may prohibit long‐lasting, close youth‐adult relationships and have suggested that school‐based programs emphasize goal‐directed activities as the primary mechanism for producing change (Cavell & Elledge, ; McQuillin, Smith, & Strait, ).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To illustrate the importance of collaboration and innovation in mentoring programmes, we review two iterative randomized trials designed to evaluate and improve a brief SBM programme for middle school students (McQuillin, Smith, & Strait, 2011;McQuillin, Strait, Smith, & Ingram, 2013). The first study is a previously published work and the second is currently under review for publication at the writing of this paper.…”
Section: Comparison Of Two Experimental Evaluationsmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…Participants McQuillin et al (2011) conducted the first study in the fall semester of 2009. Mentors were freshman at the University of South Carolina (USC) and were involved in a preexisting service learning initiative.…”
Section: The Ineffective Sbm Programmementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Not only is length of match associated with more positive outcomes (Grossman & Johnson 1998;Rhodes et al 2005;Karcher et al 2006;Herrera et al 2007), but also a broken or foreshortened match can actually lead to negative and harmful outcomes for the youth Diversi & Mecham 2005;Karcher 2005;Rhodes 2007;Bernstein et al 2009;McQuillin et al 2011). For example, Bernstein et al (2009) found that matches lasting less than 6 months were actually more harmful to a child when compared with the youth's pre-match state (no mentor).…”
Section: Importance Of Match Lengthmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…One of the most consistent findings in the mentoring research literature is the difficulty and importance of maintaining a sufficiently long mentoring match (Grossman & Johnson 1998;Rhodes et al 2005;Karcher et al 2006;Herrera et al 2007). Foreshortened matches can be worse than ineffective; matches lasting less than 6 months can harm a child, leading to feelings of abandonment and negative outcomes Diversi & Mecham 2005;Rhodes 2007;Bernstein et al 2009;McQuillin et al 2011;Bartle-Haring et al 2012). Consequently, one of the critical issues facing the field of mentoring is how to encourage strong, meaningful and high quality matches, with particular attention paid to vulnerable populations.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%