ArticleThe chronicle of mentoring & coaching2024
Short-Term Impact of Faculty Mentor Development on Mentees' Scholarly Productivity.
Article in The chronicle of mentoring & coaching, 2024. 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.
- Impact of Faculty Mentor Development Intervention on Mentees' Subjective Career Success.The chronicle of mentoring & coaching · 2025Article
- Effectiveness of a Structured Curriculum-Based Developmental Network Intervention.The chronicle of mentoring & coaching · 2025Article
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
Mentoring and mentor development, while interconnected, serve distinct purposes within the academic community. Although the effects of mentoring programs for mentees are well-documented, the impact of mentor development programs on mentee outcomes is less explored. This study investigates the effect of a faculty mentor development program on mentee scholarly productivity. The study was a randomized controlled trial involving four academic and health science institutions in the United States Southwest and Mountain West regions. This study included 94 mentees randomly assigned to the intervention or control arm. The intervention group comprised 56 mentees whose mentors participated in a comprehensive development program featuring combined virtual synchronous plus online asynchronous components. The control group, consisting of 38 mentees, had mentors who only engaged in the online asynchronous component. Mentee outcomes, extracted from curriculum vitaes, included the count of publications, presentations, and grants over the prior year, assessed at baseline, and 12- and 24-months following randomization. The primary outcome was total scholarly productivity, calculated as the sum of these three counts. Our analysis, which accounted for repeated measures, revealed no significant differences in total scholarly productivity between the intervention and control groups at 12- and 24-month intervals. These findings suggest that mentor development programs do not significantly enhance mentee scholarly productivity in the short term. Such programs may require more than 24 months to show effectiveness in improving mentee scholarly outcomes or may require studying alternative career or psychosocial outcomes. Therefore, mentor development programs may not be optimal for achieving immediate gains in mentees' scholarly output and may need to be complemented with mentee professional development programs targeting scholarly outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39726438PMC11671139What 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.