The Munich-Evaluation-of-Mentoring-Questionnaire (MEMeQ) – a novel instrument for evaluating protégés’ satisfaction with mentoring relationships in medical education

BMC Medical Education

Konstantinos Dimitriadis²  Philip von der Borch³  Martin R. Fischer¹  Severin Pinilla²  Tanja Pander¹  Matthias Schäfer¹ 

[1]Institut für Didaktik und Ausbildungsforschung in der Medizin, Klinikum der Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität (LMU), Munich, Germany

[2]Department of Neurology, Munich University Hospital, Ludwig-Maximilians-University (LMU), Munich, Germany

[3]Medizinische Klinik und Poliklinik IV, Klinikum der Universität München, Ziemssenstr. 1, München, 80336, Deutschland

关键词: Medical education;    Weighted satisfaction;    Questionnaire;    Evaluation;    Mentoring;   

Others  :  1233361
DOI  :  10.1186/s12909-015-0469-0

 received in 2015-08-08, accepted in 2015-10-20,  发布年份 2015

【 摘 要 】

Background

Despite the widespread recognition of the importance of mentoring in medical education, valid and reliable instruments for evaluating the relationship of mentors and protégés are lacking. The aim of this study was to develop a feasible instrument to measure the satisfaction with mentoring relationships.

Methods

Based on two existing questionnaires, the authors developed an instrument to evaluate the weighted satisfaction of mentoring relationships, emphasizing the protégés' individual expectations and needs. Protégés first define individual areas of interest in their mentoring relationship, then assign relative levels of personal importance to them and finally rate their individual level of satisfaction with their mentors' support in each area of interest. In order to evaluate psychometric properties as well as acceptance and feasibility the investigators conducted a multi-method-study.

Results

134 protégés were included in the study. The instrument was neither perceived as distressing nor time-consuming. The two scores of the questionnaire correlated closely with the overall satisfaction regarding mentoring relationships (OSM, Rho: 0.66, p <.001 and Rho: 0.53, p < .001).

Conclusions

The authors propose MEMeQ as a reliable, valid and flexible instrument for measuring the weighted satisfaction of protégés with their individual mentoring relationship in medical education. Further research is needed to evaluate the generalizability of MEMeQ across other institutions and mentoring programs to add to its validity.

【 授权许可】

   
2015 Schäfer et al.

【 图 表 】

Fig. 1.

Fig. 2.

Fig. 3.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Sambunjak D, Straus SE, Marusic A. A systematic review of qualitative research on the meaning and characteristics of mentoring in academic medicine. J Gen Intern Med. 2010; 25:72-78.
• [2]Gray J, Armstrong P. Academic health leadership: looking to the future. Proceedings of a workshop held at the Canadian Institute of Academic Medicine meeting Quebec., Que., Canada, Apr. 25 and 26, 2003. Clin. Invest. Med. 2003; 26:315-326.
• [3]DeAngelis CD. Professors not professing. JAMA. 2004; 292:1060-1061.
• [4]Reynolds HY. In choosing a research health career, mentoring is essential. Lung. 2008; 186:1-6.
• [5]Zink BJ, Hammoud MM, Middleton E, Moroney D, Schigelone A. A comprehensive medical student career development program improves medical student satisfaction with career planning. Teach Learn Med. 2007; 19:55-60.
• [6]Murr AH, Miller C, Papadakis M. Mentorship through advisory colleges. Acad Med. 2002; 77:1172-1173.
• [7]Goldstein EA, Maclaren CF, Smith S, Mengert TJ, Maestas RR, Foy HM et al.. Promoting fundamental clinical skills: a competency-based college approach at the University of Washington. Acad Med. 2005; 80:423-433.
• [8]Zier K, Friedman E, Smith L. Supportive programs increase medical students’ research interest and productivity. J Invest Med. 2006; 54:201-207.
• [9]Macaulay W, Mellman LA, Quest DO, Nichols GL, Haddad J, Puchner PJ. The advisory dean program: a personalized approach to academic and career advising for medical students. Acad Med. 2007; 82:718-722.
• [10]Scandura TA. Dysfunctional mentoring relationships and outcomes. J. Manag. 1998; 24:449-467.
• [11]Berk RA, Berg J, Mortimer R, Walton-Moss B, Yeo TP. Measuring the effectiveness of faculty mentoring relationships. Acad Med. 2005; 80:66-71.
• [12]Meagher E, Taylor L, Probsfield J, Fleming M. Evaluating research mentors working in the area of clinical translational science: A review of the literature. Clin Transl Sci. 2011; 4:353-358.
• [13]Allen TD, Eby LT, Poteet ML, Lentz E, Lima L. Career benefits associated with mentoring for protégés: a meta-analysis. J. Appl. Psychol. 2004; 89:127-136.
• [14]Ragins BR, Cotton JL, Miller JS. Marginal Mentoring: The effects of type of mentor, quality of relationship, and program design on work and career attitudes. Acad Manage J. 2000; 6:1177-1194.
• [15]Xu X, Payne SC. Quantity, quality, and satisfaction with mentoring: what matters most? J. Career Dev. 2014; 41:507-525.
• [16]Eby LT, Allen DA, Hoffman BJ, Baranik LE, Sauer JB, Baldwin S et al.. An interdisciplinary meta-analysis of the potential antecedents, correlates, and consequences of protégé perception of mentoring. Psychol Bull. 2013; 139:441-476.
• [17]Ragins BR, Cotton JL. Mentor functions and outcomes: a comparison of Men and women in formal and informal mentoring relationships. J. Appl. Psychol. 1999; 84:529-550.
• [18]Von der Borch P, Dimitriadis K, Störmann S, Meinel FG, Moder S, Reincke M, Tekian A, Fischer MR. A Novel Large-scale Mentoring Program for Medical Students based on a Qualitative and Qualitative Needs Analysis. GMS Zeitschrift für Medizinische Ausbildung. 2011; 28(2):Doc26. Published online 2011 May 16. doi:10.3205/zma000738
• [19]Straus SE, Johnson MO, Marquez C, Feldman MD. Characteristics of successful and failed mentoring relationships: a qualitative study across Two academic health centers. Acad Med. 2013; 88:82-89.
• [20]Cho CS, Ramanan RA, Feldman MD. Defining the ideal qualities of mentorship: a qualitative analysis of the characteristics of outstanding mentors. Am J Med. 2011; 124:453-458.
• [21]Fegg MJ, Kramer M, L’hoste S, Borasio GD. The schedule for meaning in life evaluation (SMiLE): validation of a new instrument for meaning-in-life research. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2008; 35:356-364.
• [22]Brandstätter M, Kögler M, Baumann U, Fensterer V, Küchenhoff H, Borasio GD et al.. Experience of meaning in life in bereaved informal caregivers of palliative care patients. Support Care Cancer. 2014; 22:1391-1399.
• [23]Störmann S, von der Borch P, Dimitriadis K. Online matchmaking enables large-scale individual mentoring. Med Educ. 2010; 44:492-493.
• [24]Willis G. Cognitive interviewing. A tool for improving questionnaire design. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA; 2005.
• [25]Wanous JP, Reichers AE, Hudy MJ. Overall Job satisfaction: How good Are single-item measures? J. Appl. Psychol. 1997; 82:247-252.
• [26]Wagner GG. Wie die 11er-Skala in das SOEP kam - ein Beitrag zu den Problemen und Möglichkeiten multidisziplinärer Forschung und zugleich eine Fußnote zum Design der SOEP-Stichprobe. Arbeitsmarkt- und Sozialpolitikforschung im Wandel – Festschrift für Christof Helberger zum 65. Geburtstag Schwarze J, editor. Kovac, Hamburg; 2007.
• [27]Wasserstein AG, Quistberg DA, Shea JA. Mentoring at the University of Pennsylvania: Results of a Faculty Survey. J Gen Intern Med. 2007; 22:210-214.
• [28]Nulty DD. The adequacy of response rates to online and paper surveys: what can be done? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. 2008; 33:301-314.