Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32384090›Full record

ArticlePloS one2020

Assessing mentoring: A scoping review of mentoring assessment tools in internal medicine between 1990 and 2019.

Yong Xiang Ng, Zachary Yong Keat Koh, Hong Wei Yap, Kuang Teck Tay, Xiu Hui Tan, Yun Ting Ong, Lorraine Hui En Tan, Annelissa Mien Chew Chin, Ying Pin Toh, Sushma Shivananda and 4 more

Open access · goldAbstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 46 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
46citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
19.7field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

46 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 112 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Transitioning from Teaching to Mentoring in Medical Sciences.The Indian journal of radiology & imaging · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.

Yong Xiang NgYong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.
Zachary Yong Keat KohYong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.
Hong Wei YapDivision of Supportive and Palliative Care, National Cancer Centre Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.
Kuang Teck TayYong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID 0000-0002-2703-7052
Xiu Hui TanYong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.
Yun Ting OngYong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.
Lorraine Hui En TanYong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.
Annelissa Mien Chew ChinMedical Library, National University of Singapore Libraries, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.
Ying Pin TohDepartment of Family Medicine, National University Health System, Singapore, Singapore.
Sushma ShivanandaDivision of Supportive and Palliative Care, National Cancer Centre Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.
Scott ComptonEducation Department, Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore, Singapore.
Stephen MasonCancer Research Centre, Marie Curie Palliative Care Institute, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, England, United Kingdom.
Ravindran KanesvaranYong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.
Lalit KrishnaYong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID 0000-0001-6995-1646
National University of Singapore · SGUniversity of Liverpool · GBDuke-NUS Medical School · SGNanyang Technological University · SGNational Cancer Centre Singapore · SGNational University Health System · SG

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMentoring's success in enhancing a mentee's professional and personal development, and a host organisations' reputation has been called into question, amidst a lack of effective tools to evaluate mentoring relationships and guide oversight of mentoring programs. A scoping review is proposed to map available literature on mentoring assessment tools in Internal Medicine to guide design of new tools.

objectiveThe review aims to explore how novice mentoring is assessed in Internal Medicine, including the domains assessed, and the strengths and limitations of the assessment methods.

methodsGuided by Levac et al.'s framework for scoping reviews, 12 reviewers conducted independent literature reviews of assessment tools in novice mentoring in PubMed, Embase, Scopus, ERIC, Cochrane, GreyLit, Web of Science, Open Dissertations and British Education Index databases. A 'split approach' saw research members adopting either Braun and Clarke's approach to thematic analysis or directed content analysis to independently evaluate the data and improve validity and objectivity of the findings.

results9662 abstracts were identified, 187 full-text articles reviewed, and 54 full-text articles included. There was consensus on the themes and categories identified through the use of the split approach, which were the domains assessed and methods of assessment.

conclusionMost tools fail to contend with mentoring's evolving nature and provide mere snap shots of the mentoring process largely from the mentee's perspective. The lack of holistic, longitudinal and validated assessments propagate fears that ethical issues in mentoring are poorly recognized and addressed. To this end, we forward a framework for the design of 'fit for purpose' multi-dimensional tools. PRACTICE POINTS: Most tools focus on the mentee's perspective, do not consider mentoring's evolving nature and fail to consider mentoring holistically nor longitudinallyA new tool capable of addressing these gaps must also consider inputs from all stakeholders and take a longitudinal perspective of mentoring.

Indexed as

MentoringMentorsEducational MeasurementHumansInternal Medicine

Identifiers

PMID32384090
PMCPMC7209188
OpenAlexW3023815104

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.