Assessing mentoring: A scoping review of mentoring assessment tools in internal medicine between 1990 and 2019

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 and Lalit Krishna

PLOS ONE, 2020, vol. 15, issue 5, 1-18

Abstract: Background: 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. Objective: 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. Methods: 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. Results: 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. Conclusion: 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. Practice points:

Date: 2020
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0232511 (text/html)
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id= ... 32511&type=printable (application/pdf)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:plo:pone00:0232511

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0232511

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in PLOS ONE from Public Library of Science
Bibliographic data for series maintained by plosone ().