Assessing mentoring: A scoping review of mentoring assessment tools in internal medicine between 1990 and 2019.
<h4>Background</h4>Mentoring's success in enhancing a mentee's professional and personal development, and a host organisations' reputation has been called into question, amidst a lack of effective tools to evaluate mentoring relationships and guide oversight of mentoring p...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
2020-01-01
|
| Series: | PLoS ONE |
| Online Access: | https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0232511&type=printable |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1832540014525808640 |
|---|---|
| author | Yong Xiang Ng Zachary Yong Keat Koh Hong Wei Yap Kuang Teck Tay Xiu Hui Tan Yun Ting Ong Lorraine Hui En Tan Annelissa Mien Chew Chin Ying Pin Toh Sushma Shivananda Scott Compton Stephen Mason Ravindran Kanesvaran Lalit Krishna Lalit Krishna |
| author_facet | Yong Xiang Ng Zachary Yong Keat Koh Hong Wei Yap Kuang Teck Tay Xiu Hui Tan Yun Ting Ong Lorraine Hui En Tan Annelissa Mien Chew Chin Ying Pin Toh Sushma Shivananda Scott Compton Stephen Mason Ravindran Kanesvaran Lalit Krishna Lalit Krishna |
| author_sort | Yong Xiang Ng |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | <h4>Background</h4>Mentoring's success in enhancing a mentee's professional and personal development, and a host organisations' reputation has been called into question, amidst a lack of effective tools to evaluate mentoring relationships and guide oversight of mentoring programs. A scoping review is proposed to map available literature on mentoring assessment tools in Internal Medicine to guide design of new tools.<h4>Objective</h4>The review aims to explore how novice mentoring is assessed in Internal Medicine, including the domains assessed, and the strengths and limitations of the assessment methods.<h4>Methods</h4>Guided by Levac et al.'s framework for scoping reviews, 12 reviewers conducted independent literature reviews of assessment tools in novice mentoring in PubMed, Embase, Scopus, ERIC, Cochrane, GreyLit, Web of Science, Open Dissertations and British Education Index databases. A 'split approach' saw research members adopting either Braun and Clarke's approach to thematic analysis or directed content analysis to independently evaluate the data and improve validity and objectivity of the findings.<h4>Results</h4>9662 abstracts were identified, 187 full-text articles reviewed, and 54 full-text articles included. There was consensus on the themes and categories identified through the use of the split approach, which were the domains assessed and methods of assessment.<h4>Conclusion</h4>Most tools fail to contend with mentoring's evolving nature and provide mere snap shots of the mentoring process largely from the mentee's perspective. The lack of holistic, longitudinal and validated assessments propagate fears that ethical issues in mentoring are poorly recognized and addressed. To this end, we forward a framework for the design of 'fit for purpose' multi-dimensional tools.<h4>Practice points</h4>Most tools focus on the mentee's perspective, do not consider mentoring's evolving nature and fail to consider mentoring holistically nor longitudinallyA new tool capable of addressing these gaps must also consider inputs from all stakeholders and take a longitudinal perspective of mentoring. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-019fc2325041449eb311985e144279a3 |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 1932-6203 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2020-01-01 |
| publisher | Public Library of Science (PLoS) |
| record_format | Article |
| series | PLoS ONE |
| spelling | doaj-art-019fc2325041449eb311985e144279a32025-02-05T05:33:03ZengPublic Library of Science (PLoS)PLoS ONE1932-62032020-01-01155e023251110.1371/journal.pone.0232511Assessing mentoring: A scoping review of mentoring assessment tools in internal medicine between 1990 and 2019.Yong Xiang NgZachary Yong Keat KohHong Wei YapKuang Teck TayXiu Hui TanYun Ting OngLorraine Hui En TanAnnelissa Mien Chew ChinYing Pin TohSushma ShivanandaScott ComptonStephen MasonRavindran KanesvaranLalit KrishnaLalit Krishna<h4>Background</h4>Mentoring's success in enhancing a mentee's professional and personal development, and a host organisations' reputation has been called into question, amidst a lack of effective tools to evaluate mentoring relationships and guide oversight of mentoring programs. A scoping review is proposed to map available literature on mentoring assessment tools in Internal Medicine to guide design of new tools.<h4>Objective</h4>The review aims to explore how novice mentoring is assessed in Internal Medicine, including the domains assessed, and the strengths and limitations of the assessment methods.<h4>Methods</h4>Guided by Levac et al.'s framework for scoping reviews, 12 reviewers conducted independent literature reviews of assessment tools in novice mentoring in PubMed, Embase, Scopus, ERIC, Cochrane, GreyLit, Web of Science, Open Dissertations and British Education Index databases. A 'split approach' saw research members adopting either Braun and Clarke's approach to thematic analysis or directed content analysis to independently evaluate the data and improve validity and objectivity of the findings.<h4>Results</h4>9662 abstracts were identified, 187 full-text articles reviewed, and 54 full-text articles included. There was consensus on the themes and categories identified through the use of the split approach, which were the domains assessed and methods of assessment.<h4>Conclusion</h4>Most tools fail to contend with mentoring's evolving nature and provide mere snap shots of the mentoring process largely from the mentee's perspective. The lack of holistic, longitudinal and validated assessments propagate fears that ethical issues in mentoring are poorly recognized and addressed. To this end, we forward a framework for the design of 'fit for purpose' multi-dimensional tools.<h4>Practice points</h4>Most tools focus on the mentee's perspective, do not consider mentoring's evolving nature and fail to consider mentoring holistically nor longitudinallyA new tool capable of addressing these gaps must also consider inputs from all stakeholders and take a longitudinal perspective of mentoring.https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0232511&type=printable |
| spellingShingle | Yong Xiang Ng Zachary Yong Keat Koh Hong Wei Yap Kuang Teck Tay Xiu Hui Tan Yun Ting Ong Lorraine Hui En Tan Annelissa Mien Chew Chin Ying Pin Toh Sushma Shivananda Scott Compton Stephen Mason Ravindran Kanesvaran Lalit Krishna Lalit Krishna Assessing mentoring: A scoping review of mentoring assessment tools in internal medicine between 1990 and 2019. PLoS ONE |
| title | Assessing mentoring: A scoping review of mentoring assessment tools in internal medicine between 1990 and 2019. |
| title_full | Assessing mentoring: A scoping review of mentoring assessment tools in internal medicine between 1990 and 2019. |
| title_fullStr | Assessing mentoring: A scoping review of mentoring assessment tools in internal medicine between 1990 and 2019. |
| title_full_unstemmed | Assessing mentoring: A scoping review of mentoring assessment tools in internal medicine between 1990 and 2019. |
| title_short | Assessing mentoring: A scoping review of mentoring assessment tools in internal medicine between 1990 and 2019. |
| title_sort | assessing mentoring a scoping review of mentoring assessment tools in internal medicine between 1990 and 2019 |
| url | https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0232511&type=printable |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT yongxiangng assessingmentoringascopingreviewofmentoringassessmenttoolsininternalmedicinebetween1990and2019 AT zacharyyongkeatkoh assessingmentoringascopingreviewofmentoringassessmenttoolsininternalmedicinebetween1990and2019 AT hongweiyap assessingmentoringascopingreviewofmentoringassessmenttoolsininternalmedicinebetween1990and2019 AT kuangtecktay assessingmentoringascopingreviewofmentoringassessmenttoolsininternalmedicinebetween1990and2019 AT xiuhuitan assessingmentoringascopingreviewofmentoringassessmenttoolsininternalmedicinebetween1990and2019 AT yuntingong assessingmentoringascopingreviewofmentoringassessmenttoolsininternalmedicinebetween1990and2019 AT lorrainehuientan assessingmentoringascopingreviewofmentoringassessmenttoolsininternalmedicinebetween1990and2019 AT annelissamienchewchin assessingmentoringascopingreviewofmentoringassessmenttoolsininternalmedicinebetween1990and2019 AT yingpintoh assessingmentoringascopingreviewofmentoringassessmenttoolsininternalmedicinebetween1990and2019 AT sushmashivananda assessingmentoringascopingreviewofmentoringassessmenttoolsininternalmedicinebetween1990and2019 AT scottcompton assessingmentoringascopingreviewofmentoringassessmenttoolsininternalmedicinebetween1990and2019 AT stephenmason assessingmentoringascopingreviewofmentoringassessmenttoolsininternalmedicinebetween1990and2019 AT ravindrankanesvaran assessingmentoringascopingreviewofmentoringassessmenttoolsininternalmedicinebetween1990and2019 AT lalitkrishna assessingmentoringascopingreviewofmentoringassessmenttoolsininternalmedicinebetween1990and2019 AT lalitkrishna assessingmentoringascopingreviewofmentoringassessmenttoolsininternalmedicinebetween1990and2019 |