ArticleMentoring & tutoring2019
Assessing Mentor Academy Program Effectiveness using Mixed Methods.
Article in Mentoring & tutoring, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Mentoring across differences: Introducing hidden curriculum competencies for scientific mentors.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2025Article
- A scoping review of mentorship in a CTSA context: A summary of past work and an agenda for future research.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2025Review
- Mentoring as an Appropriate Strategy for Medical Faculty Member Development in Higher Education: A Systematic Review.Journal of advances in medical education & professionalism · 2023Review
- Clinical and translational science award T32/TL1 training programs: program goals and mentorship practices.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2022Article
- Clinical research coordinators' instructional preferences for competency content delivery.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The purpose of our study was to assess how an academic health center (AHC) mentor academy program affected mentor competence and optimized mentor-mentee relationship. Mixed methods were used to assess the effectiveness of an AHC mentor program at a clinical translational science institute (CTSI). Twenty biomedical research faculty mentors took a validated survey and submitted reflective writings to discover if they corroborated or refuted statistically significant survey results. There was significant improvement in participants' confidence of mentor skills, integral mentoring quality and the extent to which they fulfill mentees' expectations. Males provided constructive feedback and helped mentees develop goal strategies more often compared to females. Reflective writings supported these findings yet refuted two survey findings. The use of a mixed methods approach offers novel insight into how mentoring programs benefit translational research mentoring capacity building and raises questions about the sole use of surveys as evidence of program effectiveness.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.