ArticleNurse education today2025
Psychometric evaluation of the Collaboration for Leadership and Innovation in Mentoring survey: An instrument of PhD student mentorship quality.
Article in Nurse education today, 2025. 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundQuality mentorship plays a crucial role in shaping the intellectual and professional growth of PhD students and is therefore a pivotal component of their education. Despite the recognized importance of mentorship, few rigorously validated instruments exist to measure the multifaceted dimensions of mentorship quality. Our Collaboration for Leadership and Innovation in Mentoring (CLIM) survey, which comprehensively assesses PhD mentorship quality, was previously developed in a nursing student population yet has not been robustly validated.
objectivesThe purpose of this study was to conduct a psychometric evaluation of the CLIM Survey including 1) reducing the number of items and 2) identifying dimensions and testing reliability and validity in a diverse PhD student sample.
designThis was cross sectional instrument development and validation study.
participantsA total of 819 PhD students representing 19 departments at a large public university.
methodsWe administered the 44-item CLIM instrument via anonymous surveys. To reduce the number of items and assess structural validity, we used principal component analysis (PCA). We included components with eigenvalues >1.0 and items with component loadings >0.3 on one component. The instrument was reduced to 22 items across 6 components: 1) Working Together, 2) Mentor Availability, 3) Mentoring Teams and Goals, 4) Shared Research Interests, 5) Mutual Respect, and 6) Mentor Benefit.
resultsStrong internal consistency reliability of the resulting instrument (CLIM-22) was demonstrated by an α = 0.89; total scores ranged from 15 to 110 (mean = 81.57; SD = 15.42), with higher scores indicating higher mentorship quality.
conclusionsThese results support the reliability and validity of the new CLIM-22 instrument, offering a standardized tool to assess PhD mentorship experiences. Effectively measuring the quality of mentor-mentee relationships in PhD programs should be integrated with targeted interventions to enhance doctoral education, student experiences, and mentor-mentee relationships.
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.