In it for the long-term

Defining the mentor-protégé relationship in a clinical research training program

Nanette Santoro, Aileen P. McGinn, Hillel W. Cohen, Frederick J. Kaskel, Paul R. Marantz, Michael Mulvihill, Ellie Schoenbaum

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

7 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

PURPOSE: To define the characteristics of effective mentor- protégé relationships in a Clinical Research Training Program (CRTP) and to assess the agreement among mentors and protégés regarding those attributes. METHOD: The authors administered an anonymous survey to protégés who completed the Albert Einstein College of Medicine's CRTP during its first seven years (2000-2006) and their mentors. Statements included aspects of mentoring thought to be important within the program, such as availability (Statement 1) and oversight of the thesis process (Statements 2-4). Additional statements were related both to career development (e.g., looking out for the best interests of the scholar and assisting in negotiations for a faculty position after program completion [Statements 5 and 6]) and to the expectation that the mentor would continue to be a resource for the protégé in years to come (Statement 7). The authors assessed overall agreement among mentors and protégés, using matched pair analysis. RESULTS: Overall response was 70.7% (133/188), with fewer matched pairs (n = 50, 50%). Seventy-five percent of respondents agreed strongly or somewhat with all statements. Analysis indicated significant agreement with Statements 2, 4, 6, and 7. Median scores from protégés did not differ whether their mentor responded (paired) or not (unpaired); however, mentor-protégé pairs had significantly greater agreement with Statements 3-7 than unpaired mentors and protégés (P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: Mentors and protégés seemed to agree that mentors within a CRTP demonstrated effective mentor attributes, including fostering a long-term relationship with the protégé.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1067-1072
Number of pages6
JournalAcademic Medicine
Volume85
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 2010

Fingerprint

Mentors
training program
Education
Research
Matched-Pair Analysis
mentoring
Foster Home Care
Clinical Medicine
Negotiating
career
medicine

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)
  • Education

Cite this

In it for the long-term : Defining the mentor-protégé relationship in a clinical research training program. / Santoro, Nanette; McGinn, Aileen P.; Cohen, Hillel W.; Kaskel, Frederick J.; Marantz, Paul R.; Mulvihill, Michael; Schoenbaum, Ellie.

In: Academic Medicine, Vol. 85, No. 6, 06.2010, p. 1067-1072.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{c68f54ad45a84dc29a72ec29154fabf5,
title = "In it for the long-term: Defining the mentor-prot{\'e}g{\'e} relationship in a clinical research training program",
abstract = "PURPOSE: To define the characteristics of effective mentor- prot{\'e}g{\'e} relationships in a Clinical Research Training Program (CRTP) and to assess the agreement among mentors and prot{\'e}g{\'e}s regarding those attributes. METHOD: The authors administered an anonymous survey to prot{\'e}g{\'e}s who completed the Albert Einstein College of Medicine's CRTP during its first seven years (2000-2006) and their mentors. Statements included aspects of mentoring thought to be important within the program, such as availability (Statement 1) and oversight of the thesis process (Statements 2-4). Additional statements were related both to career development (e.g., looking out for the best interests of the scholar and assisting in negotiations for a faculty position after program completion [Statements 5 and 6]) and to the expectation that the mentor would continue to be a resource for the prot{\'e}g{\'e} in years to come (Statement 7). The authors assessed overall agreement among mentors and prot{\'e}g{\'e}s, using matched pair analysis. RESULTS: Overall response was 70.7{\%} (133/188), with fewer matched pairs (n = 50, 50{\%}). Seventy-five percent of respondents agreed strongly or somewhat with all statements. Analysis indicated significant agreement with Statements 2, 4, 6, and 7. Median scores from prot{\'e}g{\'e}s did not differ whether their mentor responded (paired) or not (unpaired); however, mentor-prot{\'e}g{\'e} pairs had significantly greater agreement with Statements 3-7 than unpaired mentors and prot{\'e}g{\'e}s (P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: Mentors and prot{\'e}g{\'e}s seemed to agree that mentors within a CRTP demonstrated effective mentor attributes, including fostering a long-term relationship with the prot{\'e}g{\'e}.",
author = "Nanette Santoro and McGinn, {Aileen P.} and Cohen, {Hillel W.} and Kaskel, {Frederick J.} and Marantz, {Paul R.} and Michael Mulvihill and Ellie Schoenbaum",
year = "2010",
month = "6",
doi = "10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181dbc5c7",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "85",
pages = "1067--1072",
journal = "Academic Medicine",
issn = "1040-2446",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - In it for the long-term

T2 - Defining the mentor-protégé relationship in a clinical research training program

AU - Santoro, Nanette

AU - McGinn, Aileen P.

AU - Cohen, Hillel W.

AU - Kaskel, Frederick J.

AU - Marantz, Paul R.

AU - Mulvihill, Michael

AU - Schoenbaum, Ellie

PY - 2010/6

Y1 - 2010/6

N2 - PURPOSE: To define the characteristics of effective mentor- protégé relationships in a Clinical Research Training Program (CRTP) and to assess the agreement among mentors and protégés regarding those attributes. METHOD: The authors administered an anonymous survey to protégés who completed the Albert Einstein College of Medicine's CRTP during its first seven years (2000-2006) and their mentors. Statements included aspects of mentoring thought to be important within the program, such as availability (Statement 1) and oversight of the thesis process (Statements 2-4). Additional statements were related both to career development (e.g., looking out for the best interests of the scholar and assisting in negotiations for a faculty position after program completion [Statements 5 and 6]) and to the expectation that the mentor would continue to be a resource for the protégé in years to come (Statement 7). The authors assessed overall agreement among mentors and protégés, using matched pair analysis. RESULTS: Overall response was 70.7% (133/188), with fewer matched pairs (n = 50, 50%). Seventy-five percent of respondents agreed strongly or somewhat with all statements. Analysis indicated significant agreement with Statements 2, 4, 6, and 7. Median scores from protégés did not differ whether their mentor responded (paired) or not (unpaired); however, mentor-protégé pairs had significantly greater agreement with Statements 3-7 than unpaired mentors and protégés (P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: Mentors and protégés seemed to agree that mentors within a CRTP demonstrated effective mentor attributes, including fostering a long-term relationship with the protégé.

AB - PURPOSE: To define the characteristics of effective mentor- protégé relationships in a Clinical Research Training Program (CRTP) and to assess the agreement among mentors and protégés regarding those attributes. METHOD: The authors administered an anonymous survey to protégés who completed the Albert Einstein College of Medicine's CRTP during its first seven years (2000-2006) and their mentors. Statements included aspects of mentoring thought to be important within the program, such as availability (Statement 1) and oversight of the thesis process (Statements 2-4). Additional statements were related both to career development (e.g., looking out for the best interests of the scholar and assisting in negotiations for a faculty position after program completion [Statements 5 and 6]) and to the expectation that the mentor would continue to be a resource for the protégé in years to come (Statement 7). The authors assessed overall agreement among mentors and protégés, using matched pair analysis. RESULTS: Overall response was 70.7% (133/188), with fewer matched pairs (n = 50, 50%). Seventy-five percent of respondents agreed strongly or somewhat with all statements. Analysis indicated significant agreement with Statements 2, 4, 6, and 7. Median scores from protégés did not differ whether their mentor responded (paired) or not (unpaired); however, mentor-protégé pairs had significantly greater agreement with Statements 3-7 than unpaired mentors and protégés (P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: Mentors and protégés seemed to agree that mentors within a CRTP demonstrated effective mentor attributes, including fostering a long-term relationship with the protégé.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=77953144810&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=77953144810&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181dbc5c7

DO - 10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181dbc5c7

M3 - Article

VL - 85

SP - 1067

EP - 1072

JO - Academic Medicine

JF - Academic Medicine

SN - 1040-2446

IS - 6

ER -