ArticleThe chronicle of mentoring & coaching2022
Mentoring Award: Importance, Availability and Association With Mentoring Outcomes.
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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- A scalable dissemination model for training faculty in mentor development and networking.Medical research archives · 2026Article
- Improving academic mentorship practices.Nature human behaviour · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Intrinsic and extrinsic awards may motivate mentors and thus strengthen the organizational mentoring climate (OMC). Several institutions offer extrinsic awards for mentoring to recognize exceptional mentorship by individuals who support junior faculty in their career development. Mentees, peers, or institutions may nominate mentors for these awards. However, the faculty's perception of the importance of these awards and the association between their availability and mentoring outcomes remain unclear. We conducted secondary data analysis of a cross-sectional survey of 298 individuals (5%) from a pool of 6,152 faculty from the University of New Mexico (Main Campus and Health Sciences Center) and Arizona State University. The mentoring award's importance to faculty subgroups and the relationship of its perceived availability with providing/receiving and confidence in mentoring was determined. Participants completed the online OMC importance and availability draft scales, containing one item each on the award. Of all participants, 60.4% rated an award as very or somewhat important. Only 7% reported award availability (reaching 19% for ASU faculty). Women and Hispanic faculty rated the award as more important than their respective counterparts. Although availability was not associated with providing mentorship, faculty reporting unavailability were less likely to be receiving mentorship than others. Mean self-reported confidence in mentoring was higher among those reporting availability than in other groups. University faculty, particularly women and Hispanic, rate a mentoring award as important, yet few report their availability. Although availability is not associated with providing mentorship, it is associated with receiving mentorship and confidence in mentoring. The study's cross-sectional nature, low participation rate, and inability to independently confirm award availability limit its findings. Organizations need to establish and raise awareness of a faculty mentorship award as part of efforts to strengthen the OMC.
Identifiers
36713787PMC9880858W4318542428What 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.