A Perfect Match? A Scoping Review of the Influence of Personality Matching on Adult Mentoring Relationships-Implications for Academic Medicine.

INTRODUCTION: Mentoring is a widely regarded faculty development strategy in academic medicine. However, the lack of understanding about mentoring relationship dynamics limits effective recruitment, implementation, and evaluation. Despite decades of publications describing adult mentoring initiatives, few studies examine personality influence in mentoring relationships. This scoping review examined the extent, range, and nature of the research on personality matching in mentoring relationships, and identified research gaps in the literature. METHODS: Scoping review methodology guided a search of six databases representing higher education, health sciences education, and professional contexts where mentoring is used. Consistent with the inclusive approach of a scoping review, authors included academic papers and other article types. RESULTS: The scoping review yielded 39 articles. Literature mostly originated in the United States, publication sources represented multiple disciplines, and the context for the majority of articles was the workplace. The most common publication type was a research report. Although all articles addressed personality or mentoring, only three articles examined personality matching and its contribution to the mentoring relationship. Finally, although the Big Five personality traits were cited in multiple studies, other personality frameworks were used. DISCUSSION: Academic medicine expends resources developing and supporting mentoring programs but there remains limited understanding of how best to identify and match mentors and protégés. Further understanding of the role of joint and unique personality traits in academic medicine mentoring relationships seems necessary, if the field continues to invest, time, money, and resources for mentoring programs.

Developing a taxonomy to characterise trusted adult support in the lives of adolescents.

INTRODUCTION: A systematic review of trusted adult interventions for adolescents revealed that there was no common terminology, agreed explicit definition, or detail, regarding the personal qualities, functions and roles fulfilled by trusted adults that was used consistently across the papers. To provide clarity, we therefore aimed to produce a taxonomy of trusted adult input, using evidence drawn from our review. METHODS: Data from the review findings were used to compile the taxonomy, moving from the general to the more specific, in a four stage process. This involved: (1) compilation of elements described in individual papers, (2) grouping of elements derived from stage 1 into categories, (3) examination of context and nature of the relationship, (4) development of a categorisation of trusted adult input. FINDINGS: The resulting taxonomy encapsulates core essential qualities provided by people acting in trusted adult or mentoring roles, and gives details relating to what a young person might expect from individuals they put their trust in. The taxonomy consists of six categories relating to: delivery context, roles of trusted adults, nature of support, personal qualities, actions/functions, and impact. CONCLUSIONS: The taxonomy describes key elements that define the trusted adult role, and has the potential to inform the development of policies and guidelines relating to support provision. It may be used as a framework for the reporting of trusted adult interventions within research, and act as a helpful guide if a young person is in doubt about the behaviour or qualities displayed by an adult in their environment.

Introducción a la mentoría en investigación y principales marcos teóricos para comprender y explicar sus procesos / Introduction to mentoring in research and main theoretical frameworks to understand and explain their processes

En este artículo, los autores explican el origen y el uso actual del término mentoría y describen algunos marcos teóricosque ayudan a comprender los procesos y la repercusión de la mentoría en investigación: el del aprendizaje cognitivo, eldel aprendizaje no formal, el del aprendizaje sociocultural en el contexto de comunidades de práctica, el de la mentoríacomo una forma de acumulación de capital social, el de la mentoría como un medio para el desarrollo de la identidadcomo científico, y las miradas desde la teoría social y cognitiva de la carrera.(AU)

In this article, the authors explain the origin and the current use of the term mentoring and describe some theoreticalframeworks that help to understand the processes and impact of mentoring in research: cognitive learning, non-formallearning, sociocultural learning in the context of communities of practice, mentoring as a form of social capital accumulation,mentoring as a way to develope the identity as a scientist, and the views from the social and cognitive theory of the career.(AU)

Perfiles de mentoría en investigación y evidencia de sus beneficios / Research mentoring profiles and evidence of its benefits

En esta segunda entrega de EVIDENCIA describiremos: 1) las diferentes conceptualizaciones de mentoría propuestas por Chopra (mentor tradicional, el coach, el espónsor y el conector); 2) la evidencia con la que contamos respecto de la utilidad de la mentoría (en general y en las ciencias de la salud en particular); 3) las características de una buena mentoría y diferentes perfiles de malas mentorías. (AU)

In this second article in EVIDENCE we will describe: 1) the different mentoring conceptualizations proposed by Chopra(traditional mentor, coach, sponsor and connector); 2) the evidence we have regarding the usefulness of mentoring (ingeneral and in health sciences); 3) the characteristics of a good mentoring and different profiles of bad mentoring. (AU)

Deconstructing the mantra of mentorship: in conversation with Phyllis Noerager Stern.

While much has been written about the theoretical aspects of mentoring, the actual strategies, processes, and scope of mentoring are poorly described. Much of the literature is based on a formal model of "orchestrated" mentoring, rather that the spontaneous and very effective mentoring style of academic leaders. Phyllis Noerager Stern, a mentor par excellence, describes the scope and type of established mentoring relationships. These discussions show that our present conceptualization of mentoring should be expanded to include three types of relationships: direct (traditional) mentoring, collegial mentoring, and indirect mentoring. These mentoring relationships may extend internationally and have made a profound impact on a large number of students and emerging academics. They are capable of changing over time from one type to another. In this interview, Phyllis Stern describes the positives and the negatives, and the processes, pitfalls, and outcomes of these various mentoring relationships.

The role of mentoring relationships in the career development of successful deaf persons.

A qualitative study of deaf graduates of Rochester Institute of Technology in New York State who became supervisors in primarily hearing work settings found that having a mentor was a primary and persistent element in their career success. In the deaf individual's early years, generally it was a family member or teacher who conveyed a belief in that individual's abilities, encouraged effort, and helped instill self-esteem and confidence. Parents were often their strongest advocates, and teachers were their advisors and facilitators. In the work setting, a supervisor or coworker often served as a mentor by coaching, advising, and teaching the individual what they needed to know to succeed on the job. In many ways, these "informal" mentors provided the foundation that enabled the deaf individual to break through what are often barriers to career success despite their skills and abilities. The various forms of mentorship and their impact on deaf college graduates are explored.

Tutoring in a problem-based curriculum: expert versus nonexpert.

Many studies have examined whether being an "expert" influences the success of a tutor in a problem-based learning curriculum. There are, however, no established standards by which to determine expertise. The purpose of this study was to examine whether students evaluate expert and nonexpert tutors comparably and to determine whether setting different standards to determine expertise influences the outcome of the above findings. Tutor evaluations, consisting of eight Likert-type questions completed by first-, second-, and third-year dental students, were analyzed. Tutors were ranked by the authorswithin three different categories of expertise based on the highest educational degree they had attained, familiarity with the specific subject matter, and previous problem-based learning (PBL) experience. Linear regression analyses were then performed between each category and student evaluation results. A statistically significant difference was found in the way students evaluated experts, but only when expertise was defined by the tutor's previous tutorial experience. The findings of this study underscore the importance of the retention of dental faculty with PBL experience in a PBL-based curriculum.

Gender differences in the ability to identify a mentor at morning report: a multi-institutional survey.

BACKGROUND: Prior studies have shown that mentors are very important for career development of physicians, and that many female physicians have not had a mentor during their training. However, little is known about the availability of mentors for residents. PURPOSE: To identify resident and program characteristics that were associated with the ability to identify a potential mentor at resident morning report. METHOD: We performed a cross-sectional survey of 356 internal medicine residents at a convenience sample of 13 residency programs. The instrument included questions about demographic characteristics, subspecialty fellowship plans, and ability to identify a potential mentor at morning report during the previous 6 months. RESULTS: Seventy-three percent were able to identify a potential mentor at morning report within the previous 6 months (63% of women vs. 79% of men). Among residents planning on entering general internal medicine, women were less likely than men to be able to identify a potential mentor (55% vs. 77%). The likelihood of identifying a mentor varied between the different programs, with a range from 27% to 89%. CONCLUSION: Many residents could identify a potential mentor at morning report, although there was a wide variability between programs. Female residents who were going into general internal medicine were less likely than their male colleagues to find a potential mentor. Medical educators should ensure that all residents have exposure to potential generalist mentors.