ArticleThe chronicle of mentoring & coaching2023
Inter-Rater Reliability of the Mentor Behavioral Interaction Rubric.
Article in The chronicle of mentoring & coaching, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
An objective assessment of a mentor's behavioral skills is needed to assess the effectiveness of mentor training interventions in academic settings. The Mentor Behavioral Interaction (MBI) Rubric is a newly developed, content-valid, observational measure of a mentor's behavioral skill during single-episode interactions with a mentee. The purpose of this study was to assess the inter-rater reliability (IRR) of the MBI Rubric when used to assess video-recorded mentor-mentee interactions. Three of a pool of four faculty raters with expertise in mentor training synchronously rated 26 videos of mentor-mentee interactions using structured guidelines. The MBI Rubric includes six items (Part 1), each with ratings on a 3- or 4-point scale, and ten yes/no items (Part 2) that characterize the content of the interaction. After initial individual ratings were completed, the three raters met, reviewed disagreements, and reached decisions about final item scores by either consensus or majority vote. Mean total Part 1 scores ranged between 1.42-2.69. IRRs ranged from
Identifiers
38187466PMC10768924What 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.