ArticleThe chronicle of mentoring & coaching2022
Development and Content Validity Testing of the Mentor Behavioral Interaction Rubric.
Article in The chronicle of mentoring & coaching, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Inter-Rater Reliability of the Mentor Behavioral Interaction Rubric.The chronicle of mentoring & coaching · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Many mentor training interventions in higher education focus on improving interactions between mentors and mentees. Existing measures of interactions are based on reported perceptions of the mentor or mentee. However, there are currently no objective assessments of the mentor's behavioral skill. The purpose of this study was to develop a Mentor Behavioral Interaction (MBI) Rubric as a measure of a mentor's behavioral skill during single-episode interactions with a mentee. Subsequently, the content validity was assessed. The six items (Part 1), evaluated by five mentoring experts as quantifiable behaviors in any mentor-mentee interaction, were based on the Mentoring Competency Assessment (Fleming et al., 2013). The experts developed scoring criteria (highest, middle, and lowest performance) for each item, and created another eleven items (Part 2) to characterize the content (yes/no) of the interaction. Seven content experts rated the items and scoring criteria using a scale ranging from very (4) to not relevant (1) (Lynn, 1986). Five of the six Part 1 items and scoring criteria, and nine of the eleven Part 2 items had item content validity indices (I-CVI) ≥ 0.86. The Part 1 "motivates" item and scoring, and the Part 2 "personal/professional preferences" item were revised based on expert recommendations. One Part 2 item was deleted. Average scale content validity indices (S-CVI/Ave) were ≥ 0.90. The MBI Rubric is the first measure developed to assess single episodes of videoed mentor-mentee interactions. The Rubric may be used with other measures to assess the effectiveness of mentor training. Limitations include: evaluation of the mentor's behavior without accounting for the mentee's behavior; inability to infer cognitive processes; and focus on the quality of one interaction, rather than the effectiveness of the relationship over time. Future work will assess inter-rater reliability, sensitivity to change, and construct validity for the Rubric.
Identifiers
36713784PMC9880722What 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.