Why mentor? A validation study of the volunteer functions inventory for use in youth mentoring

Abstract

This study explores the functional motivations of volunteers in youth mentoring programs and tests the validity of the Volunteer Functions Inventory (VFI) for this population. Participants included 473 volunteer mentors matched within a one‐to‐one mentoring program. The study utilizes a mixed‐methods approach to validate the VFI, which was administered before the match. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were employed to test for content validity and determine fit. These were complemented by an emergent theme analysis from a semi‐structured interview, which included questions assessing mentor motivations. Findings suggest a five‐factor structure model best captures functional motivations. In addition, results from the qualitative analysis suggest there may be previously unexplored domains to consider for contemporary volunteer populations. These include community/civic responsibility, organizational structure and reputation, and self‐concept. Future research should seek to refine scales that are uniquely predictive of mentor motivations to expand practical applications for use.

Examining holistically the experiences of mentors in school‐based programs: A logic analysis

“…However, it also suggests interesting areas of inquiry that future research could better address. Moreover, it further supports the case for deeming the VFI a too narrow instrument to account for all the functions served by mentoring (Bufali, 2022;Teye & Peaslee, 2020). The analysis relied on qualitative data to provide rich insights into the varied range of mentors' motivations and outcomes, describing in depth the content domain of these dimensions of mentors' experience.…”

“…Study participants not only discussed gains aligned with their original motives for mentoring (i.e., realized motivations) but also a wide range of unanticipated positive outcomes, so that stated gains, overall, outstripped both the reasons to volunteer and negative consequences experienced. Prior research has widely stressed the importance of seeking direct insights from mentors on their initial motivations, to better help them meet their goals and satisfy their needs (Caldarella et al, 2010; Stukas & Tanti, 2005; Stukas et al, 2013; Teye & Peaslee, 2020). Nonetheless, according to mentors' self‐reports, the positive outcomes perceived appeared to be, in most of the cases, neither intentionally sought at the moment mentors signed up nor seen as a potential by‐product of the experience.…”

“…These include the need: to give effect to prosocial values (“Values”); to learn more about oneself, others and the world, (“Understanding”) or gain experiences/skills/contacts that can pay off in terms of professional advancement (“Career”); to strengthen ties with social reference groups (“Social”); and, finally, to pursue ego protection (“Protective”) or development (“Enhancement”). In addition to this, elements from extant academic sources informed the conceptualization of: mentors' additional motives and rewards (Ferro, 2012; Teye & Peaslee, 2020); unanticipated negative outcomes and feelings (McGill et al, 2015; Stukas et al, 2009); or processual barriers and facilitators (Harris & Nakkula, 2008; Martin & Sifers, 2012; McGill et al, 2015; Rubin & Thorelli, 1984). An iterative process of refinement led to the final codebook, which includes both the initial and conclusive sub‐themes.…”

Putting school-based mentors' experience into context: a mixed-methods cross-country comparison

“…An initial framegrounded in the functional approach (Clary et al, 1998) guided the conceptualization of the motives and positive outcomes of mentors' participation. Supplementary sources provided the grounds for including provisional themes about additional motives and benefits (Ferro, 2012;Teye and Peaslee, 2020), as well as possible interpretations of the mentor role (Crutcher, 2007;DeJong, 2004;Ganser, 1994). The trustworthiness of the qualitative analysis was enhanced through several strategies (Nowell, 2017).…”

“…More specifically, respondents rated how confident they felt, when they joined the SBMPs, in supporting youth in a number of areas such as goal setting, problem-solving or academic issues. To assess the relative importance attributed by each group to altruistic and self-serving initial motivations for volunteering (Hp4), we employed the Volunteer Functions Inventory (VFI; Clary et al, 1998;Teye and Peaslee, 2020), including an integrative item that captured the respondent's desire to volunteer to give back to the community. The corresponding positive outcomes were measured by six items, as in the original version of the VFI, reworded following the mentor-specific application developed by Caldarella et al (2010).…”