ArticleCBE life sciences education2024
What Makes a Good Match? Predictors of Quality Mentorship Among Doctoral Students.
Article in CBE life sciences education, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Satisfaction with academic supervision among nursing postgraduate students in China: a national multicenter cross-sectional study.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Racism, sexism, and classism: The uneven terrain of student belonging in introductory biology classrooms.CBE life sciences education · 2026Article
- Course-specific performance and mentor characteristics in an undergraduate tutorial system in medical education.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Mentorship as a secure base: an attachment and mentalizing perspective on academic development.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Measuring the interpersonal component of the mentoring relationship: The mentorship working alliance scale - mentee version.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2025Article
- Finding the right fit: How mentor-mentee fit impacts outcomes for academic mentees.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Quality mentoring promotes graduate student success. Despite an abundance of practical advice, empirical evidence regarding how to match mentees and mentors to form quality mentoring relationships is lacking. Here, we examine the influence of variables theorized to predict mentorship support and quality in a national sample of 565 science doctoral students from 70 universities in 38 states. Our structural equation modeling results indicate that mentor rank, mentee capital, and the relationship matching mechanism (direct admissions, rotations) were not associated with higher-quality relationships. We found no support for the widely held belief that students whose mentors shared their gender, race, or ethnicity experienced greater mentorship quality. Rather, mentees who shared attitudes, beliefs, and values with their mentor, or whose mentors displayed greater cultural awareness experienced more supportive, higher quality mentoring. Furthermore, these patterns were largely consistent across both mentee and mentor demographic groups. These results highlight the potential benefits of pairing mentees and mentors who share personal and intrinsic qualities rather than demographic or surface-level attributes. Our findings also indicate that graduate students from marginalized backgrounds can be effectively mentored by faculty who are demographically dissimilar if their mentors engage in culturally aware mentorship.
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.