Validating an Institutional Mentoring Climate Survey at a Health Sciences Center.

A Sood, B Tigges, D Helitzer
{"title":"Validating an Institutional Mentoring Climate Survey at a Health Sciences Center.","authors":"A Sood, B Tigges, D Helitzer","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The institutional mentoring climate influences the success of mentoring programs. There currently exists no validated survey to assess this climate - a critical gap in this field.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To establish and validate a survey to assess the institutional climate for mentoring at a Health Sciences Center.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We created a survey with the following four dimensions - mentoring structure (with 13 items); mentoring programs/activities (with 11 items); and mentoring policies/guidelines (with nine items), followed by an overall value dimension (with four items). Four experts evaluated this survey for content validity. These experts rated each program item, on a score of one to four, on whether the item related to the overall conceptual framework and to the dimension in which it was placed in the survey.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The mean scores for individual items as they related to the overall conceptual framework ranged from 3.25 to 4.0. On the other hand, the mean scores for items as they related to individual dimensions were lower. Items with lower score were associated with the following - a question simultaneously asked about multiple things, the possibility that faculty respondent might be unfamiliar with leader's role outlined in the question, and binary structure or lack of clarity of the question. All 37 items were retained, with modifications as necessary.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>We established the content validity of our survey. The next step will be to establish its construct validity. Having a valid and reliable scale will help support and evaluate interventions for improving institutional mentoring climate at academic centers.</p>","PeriodicalId":74984,"journal":{"name":"The chronicle of mentoring & coaching","volume":"1 10","pages":"817-820"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10836060/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The chronicle of mentoring & coaching","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The institutional mentoring climate influences the success of mentoring programs. There currently exists no validated survey to assess this climate - a critical gap in this field.

Objective: To establish and validate a survey to assess the institutional climate for mentoring at a Health Sciences Center.

Methods: We created a survey with the following four dimensions - mentoring structure (with 13 items); mentoring programs/activities (with 11 items); and mentoring policies/guidelines (with nine items), followed by an overall value dimension (with four items). Four experts evaluated this survey for content validity. These experts rated each program item, on a score of one to four, on whether the item related to the overall conceptual framework and to the dimension in which it was placed in the survey.

Results: The mean scores for individual items as they related to the overall conceptual framework ranged from 3.25 to 4.0. On the other hand, the mean scores for items as they related to individual dimensions were lower. Items with lower score were associated with the following - a question simultaneously asked about multiple things, the possibility that faculty respondent might be unfamiliar with leader's role outlined in the question, and binary structure or lack of clarity of the question. All 37 items were retained, with modifications as necessary.

Conclusions: We established the content validity of our survey. The next step will be to establish its construct validity. Having a valid and reliable scale will help support and evaluate interventions for improving institutional mentoring climate at academic centers.

分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在卫生科学中心验证机构指导氛围调查。
背景:机构指导氛围影响着指导计划的成功与否。目前还没有有效的调查来评估这种氛围--这是该领域的一个重要空白:建立并验证一项调查,以评估健康科学中心的指导机构氛围:我们制作了一份调查表,包含以下四个维度:指导结构(13 个项目);指导计划/活动(11 个项目);指导政策/指南(9 个项目),以及总体价值维度(4 个项目)。四位专家对该调查的内容有效性进行了评估。这些专家根据每个项目是否与总体概念框架以及该项目在调查中所处的维度相关,对每个项目进行评分,分值从 1 分到 4 分不等:单个项目与整体概念框架相关性的平均得分在 3.25 至 4.0 之间。另一方面,与单个维度相关的项目平均得分较低。得分较低的项目与以下因素有关--一个问题同时涉及多个方面、教职员工可能不熟悉问题中概述的领导者角色、二元结构或问题不够清晰。我们保留了所有 37 个项目,并进行了必要的修改:我们确定了调查内容的有效性。下一步将是确定其结构效度。拥有一个有效可靠的量表将有助于支持和评估改善学术中心机构指导氛围的干预措施。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Short-Term Impact of Faculty Mentor Development on Mentees' Scholarly Productivity. Sustained Improvement of Faculty Mentoring Competency with a Mentor Development Program. Qualitative Descriptions of Developer Changes or Consistency Over Time. Reasons for Faculty Attrition, Assessed by Latent Class Analysis. Measuring Faculty Mentoring Competency: Establishing the Validity of a Short Form.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1