The National Mentoring Resource Center’s Measurement Guidance Toolkit provides recommended instruments for measuring key youth outcomes in mentoring programs as well as several risk and protective factors that may be relevant to program outcomes.
The instruments recommended here are grouped into different domains in which mentoring has well-established potential for impact. All recommended instruments have been carefully reviewed and selected by the Research Board of the National Mentoring Resource Center. Please use the links to the left to navigate the domains and recommended measures for outcomes within each domain.
Learn more about the development and contents of the Toolkit and how this resource can help your program’s evaluation efforts.
While this Toolkit can help your mentoring program measure many outcomes more effectively, the recommended instruments will be most effective if used within the context of a well-designed evaluation plan. It should be kept in mind, furthermore, that the instruments are likely to lose their value if they are changed (excepting the potential modifications that are discussed in the Toolkit for selected measures), administered incorrectly, or used in contexts where the desired outcomes are apt to be elusive due to poor program implementation or an insufficient theory of change driving program activities. Please see the Key Evaluation Considerations and Advice for Designing and Administering Evaluation Tools pages for more information about how to maximize the value of these instruments within the context of a strong overall evaluation.
The Measurement Guidance Toolkit was developed by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention’s National Mentoring Resource Center (NMRC), through the work of the NMRC Research Board. A full list of contributors to the Toolkit appears below.
The Need
Youth mentoring programs are increasingly looking to make informed decisions about strengthening their programs and convincingly demonstrate their impact to stakeholders. These needs place a premium on the availability of practical guidance for how to evaluate the impact mentoring relationships are having on youth within their unique contexts. Most programs recognize that valid and reliable measurement tools are an essential component of any high-quality evaluation.
But program staff are often challenged to find accessible surveys, scales, and other data collection instruments they can use in their work. It can be daunting to wade through the many instruments available for measuring even a single outcome and select the one that is “best” (i.e., provides a brief, yet accurate assessment of the outcome).
The goal of this Toolkit is to provide well-vetted recommendations for instruments that are suitable for use by mentoring programs and their evaluators. This should allow programs to more accurately capture their impacts, thus setting the stage for both improvements in program quality over time and, in the case of programs that show promise for effectiveness, generating a stronger and more targeted argument for programs. A further goal of the Toolkit is to create greater consistency in how youth outcomes are measured across programs. In this way, more meaningful comparisons can be made across programs. For example, does one program really improve school connectedness to a greater extent than others or is the difference due simply to how this outcome is being measured? Likewise, increased uniformity in how outcomes are assessed will provide researchers with the ability to aggregate evidence on impact across programs using common outcome metrics, thus offering an unprecedented opportunity to track and document trends in effectiveness for the youth mentoring field as a whole.
Toolkit Structure and Instrument Profiles
The Toolkit is built around six domains of youth outcomes that the NMRC Research Board identified as the most common areas in which mentoring programs could expect to have an impact: mental and emotional health, social emotional skills, healthy and prosocial behavior, problem behavior, interpersonal relationships, and academics. The Toolkit also includes recommendations for assessing different types of risk and protective factors, which can be used to capture the challenges and needs that youth bring to mentoring programs, providing valuable context for understanding other outcomes. In 2018, we added measures of relationship quality and characteristics, as assessing these factors can help ensure that youth are receiving appropriate support and that their mentoring relationships are progressing as intended and are likely to result in positive outcomes in relevant domains. Additional domains, and outcomes within domains, will be added to the Toolkit over time.
Within each domain, the Research Board identified several specific outcomes of likely interest to mentoring programs. For example, Aggression, Delinquent Behavior, and School Misbehavior are addressed as outcomes within the domain of Problem Behavior. For each outcome, the Research Board selected a recommended measure. A brief profile of the measure explains exactly what it is designed to measure, why it is recommended for use by mentoring programs, practical guidance for using the tool in real-life contexts, and information about how to access the measure. Alternative measures are also described that may be more suitable for a given mentoring program depending on its goals, the age range of the youth it serves, or other considerations.
For the Mentoring Relationship Quality and Characteristics measures, the Research Board engaged in a similar process of identifying measures that had been used previously in mentoring evaluations and had validity evidence in that context. The Board conducted a thorough review of 17 multi-faceted measures (several of which were represented by both youth- and mentor-report measures); 13 unidimensional measures; and 9 more tailored measures that had been used in youth mentoring studies, reviewing information on the measure’s characteristics, strength (e.g., how well the scale(s) holds together, measures what it intends to measure, and relates to other youth outcomes) and usage. The search yielded mostly measures that capture internal match quality, particularly the relational aspect of this component. Most reviewed measures were also from the youth’s perspective, as opposed to mentor-reported measures. Thus, as part of the selection process, the Board also considered which aspects of relationship quality were covered and strived to include at least a handful of mentor-reported measures. You can learn more about the selection criteria for these measures in the introduction to that section of the Toolkit.
You can use the navigation to the left to toggle through the various domains and measures within each.
The Toolkit also includes a section that features tips for administering instruments as well as advice for incorporating the recommended measures effectively into broader evaluation designs.
Toolkit Contributors Research Board Members:
Additional Toolkit Content and Technical Support By:
The Measurement Guidance Toolkit is built around several domains, each representing an area in which mentoring programs have demonstrated potential to benefit youth (or in the case of risk and protective factors, increase understanding of youth challenges and assets that may have important implications for effectiveness). Users can find specific recommended scales for measuring outcomes (or risk/protective factors) in each domain. These domains currently are:
The relationships that develop between youth and their mentors are thought to be the central route through which mentoring can benefit (or, inadvertently, harm) youth (Rhodes, 2005; Karcher & Nakkula, 2010a). Thus, it is important to be able to assess the salient characteristics and processes that indicate the quality of youth’s mentoring relationships.
Mentoring programs generally understand the importance of relationship quality and its potential role in fostering program benefits for youth. In fact, many programs have made relationship quality a central component of their internal evaluation activities. But programs often struggle to determine which components of relationship quality are most essential to measure and often use “homegrown” tools or limited measures of relationship satisfaction, rather than digging deeper into what happens within the relationship and how it is experienced across many dimensions or from multiple viewpoints. And when programs do try to use research-backed measures, they are faced with a dizzying array of options to choose from and it is difficult for them to gauge their relative merits and potential fit with their programs.
This section of the Measurement Guidance Toolkit is intended to help programs with this process of selecting reliable and valid tools for assessing the quality of the mentoring relationships that they are cultivating through their efforts.
Specific Facets of Relationships
To guide our selection of measures to include in the toolkit, we followed a framework developed by Nakkula and Harris (2014). This framework highlights the following aspects of relationship quality: internal match quality (consisting of relational and instrumental components), match structure, and external match quality.
Internal Match Quality encompasses how the mentor and youth feel about their relationship and each other as well as more objective indicators of quality:
Match Structure includes what the mentee/mentor want to do together, how they decide what to do, and objective measures of the types of activities in which they ultimately engage.
Finally, External Match Quality includes elements outside of the mentoring relationship that can affect its development, such as perceived program support and the degree of parent engagement in the match. We have not yet focused on this last component, limiting our review to the measurement of relationship components that occur within the relationship. Exploring measures that assess these external influences on mentoring relationships may be a priority in future additions to the Toolkit.
We selected the Nakkula and Harris (2014) framework from several strong and influential theoretical frameworks in the field (see Karcher & Nakkula, 2010a), mainly because it is extremely comprehensive in the facets of relationship quality that it includes and thus would support our goal of considering measures of a broad range of different aspects of mentoring relationships. The framework also reflects, or accounts for, elements emphasized in other important frameworks in the field. For example, early seminal work by Morrow and Styles (1995) emphasized the importance of mentor approach, with findings suggesting that a developmental approach (focusing on youth’s voice in the relationship) is most conducive to relationship success, relative to a prescriptive approach (letting the adult’s goals for youth guide the relationship). Hamilton and Hamilton’s (1992) conceptualization of mentoring focuses on the instrumental roles that mentors take on when helping youth achieve different goals (see also Hamilton, Hamilton, DuBois, & Sellers, 2016). The TEAM framework (described in Karcher & Nakkula, 2010b) emphasizes the focus, purpose and authorship of the mentoring relationship and how these factors can interact in shaping its tenor. Keller and Pryce’s (2010) framework conceptualizes all relationships in terms of power (i.e., whether the relationship is vertical as in a parent-child relationship or horizontal as in friendships) and permanence (the degree to which the relationship is obligated or voluntary). Mentoring relationships are a unique combination of these elements (i.e., both unequal in power and voluntary). A mentor’s ability to maintain this hybrid role in her or his approach is posited to be key to relationship success (Keller & Pryce, 2012). All of these conceptually rich frameworks provide some guidance in which aspects of the relationship may be important to measure and are highly recommended for review as programs consider which aspects of relationship quality may be particularly telling for their specific program.
Selected Measures
A total of ten measures of mentoring relationship quality are included in this section of the Toolkit (an overview of how the measures were selected can be found in the overview. The recommended instruments are organized into three groups.
The first group, multi-dimensional measures, consists of four measures. These measures are designed to provide insight into multiple aspects of relationship quality or, more specifically, at least two of the aspects of relationship quality outlined in the Nakkula and Harris framework (2014). These measures consist of multiple scales and thus are relatively lengthy but compensate for that length in richness and scope. The Mentoring Processes Scale, in particular, captures two of the quality dimensions suggested by the framework, but focuses on the active expression of these qualities in activities and behaviors that mentors and youth engage in (Tolan et al., 2020). Three of the multi-dimensional measures include both a mentor and a youth version.
The second category consists of unidimensional measures. These instruments assess one dimension of relationship quality, in most cases, using only one scale. The two selected measures may be particularly attractive options for programs that can ask their participants only a limited number of questions. Nakkula and Harris (2014) propose that if only one aspect of relationship quality can be assessed, the relational aspect (as described above) is most central. In fact, almost all of the instruments we reviewed focused, at least in part, on relational aspects of relationship quality—and both of the unidimensional measures cover this feature of relationships—suggesting general agreement in the field that this is one of the more telling aspects of relationship quality.
The final category consists of measures of specific facets of relationships. These measures are oriented toward assessing aspects of mentoring relationships that, although likely to be relevant to many programs, are not routinely captured by more general-purpose measures of mentoring relationship quality. Illustratively, recent survey data indicate that as many as 1 in 3 youth served by mentoring programs meet with their mentor in a group context (Garringer, McQuillin, & McDaniel, 2017). Yet, none of the recommended measures in the other two categories described above are geared toward capturing the nature and quality of the various types of interactions and group dynamics that may take place within these types of programs. Thus, one of our recommended measures in this category covers this important area.
The four facets of mentoring relationships assessed by the measures in this last category are:
We hope this section of the toolkit helps programs strategize more thoughtfully about the aspects of mentoring relationship quality that help both the relationships and youth they support to thrive and how they might go about measuring these qualities at various points in the mentoring relationship. Please also remember that any mentoring program can get free technical assistance to help think through how best to assess mentoring relationship quality in their program by requesting assistance through this website.
Quality of the mentoring relationship and dynamics thought to influence quality (e.g., structure and external support), as rated by the youth or mentor.
The 51-item YMS for 4th to 12th graders measures the mentee’s perspective on several aspects of relationship quality and match structure (i.e., the focus of match activities).
25 items assess internal relationship quality using 3 subscales: Relational Quality (e.g., feeling happy with the relationship), Instrumental Quality (instrumental benefits from the relationship), and Prescription (the extent to which mentees feel that their mentors focus too much on changing them). Items are rated on a 4-point scale: Not at all true, A little true, Pretty true, or Very true. 22 items assess match structure using 3 subscales: Fun Focus, Sharing Focus, and Growth Focus. Items are rated on a 5-point scale: Never, Less than half the time, Half the time, More than half the time, or Every time. 4 items ask about the location and frequency of mentor-youth meetings. The versions for K to 1st graders and 2nd to 3rd graders include 11 and 27 items, respectively, and measure similar aspects of mentoring dynamics.
The 71-item MCQ measures the mentor’s positive and negative perceptions of the relationship, their perceived competence, their prioritization of different match activities, and the effects of external influences on the match. In the first section, 22 items assess internal mentoring relationship quality using 5 subscales: closeness, not distant, academic support seeking, non-academic support seeking, and satisfaction. These subscales, along with 2 subscales from the third section (general and risk-related compatibility) can be combined to create an overall score or three broadscale scores for closeness (closeness, not distant, and satisfaction), compatibility (general and risk-related compatibility), and availability to support (academic and nonacademic support seeking). In the second section, 20 items assess match structure or purpose (how much mentors value different types of activities) using 5 subscales: fun, sharing/relating, character development, outlook, and academic growth. These subscales can be combined to create 2 broadscale scores for relating (sharing/relating and fun) and growth (character development, outlook, and academic growth). In the third section, 29 items assess internal quality (general and risk-related compatibility), competence (a 5-item scale), and external match quality, which includes 4 subscales: programmatic support, parental support, peer support, and interference. Finally, the measure also includes a question asking mentors to list and rank their top 3 priorities for the match. All scale items are rated on a 6-point scale that varies across these sets of items.
Intended Age Range
Youth from 4 th to 12 th grade; Mentors of all ages. Also versions for students from K to 1 st grade and 2 nd to 3 rd grade.
Rationale
These scales were selected due to their broad, unparalleled coverage of multiple aspects of mentoring relationship quality, evidence of reliability and validity, scales for use by both mentors and youth, and appropriateness for use with youth from a wide age range.
Cautions
Special Administration Information
An administration guide for the YMS can be found here.
How to Score
Scoring of each scale requires simple calculations using the selections on each youth survey. Full details are included from the developer upon request of use of the scales.
How to Interpret Findings
Higher scores on the YMS and MCQ internal relationship quality and match structure subscales (and on the MCQ external match quality subscale) reflect more positive perceptions of the mentoring relationship.
Access and Permissions
The YMS and MCQ scales are available for non-commercial use with no charge and can be requested here.
Alternatives
The Natural Mentoring Experiences (NME) Survey is a brief (8-item) alternative for assessing mentor perceptions of relationship quality. The scale is strongly correlated with the Internal Relationship Quality subscale of the MCQ and with mentor intentions to continue mentoring in the program. Information about the measure can be found here.
A youth’s reported positive and negative interactions with significant non-parental adults.
The scale consists of 22 items assessing four dimensions of social support and social rejection that youth may experience in relationships with important non-parental adults
These dimensions are: feels valued (6 items, e.g., “This person cares about me even when I make mistakes.”); trust (5 items, e.g., “I talk to this person about problems with my friends.”); mentoring (6 items, e.g., “I learn how to do things by watching and listening to this person.”); and negativity (6 items, e.g., “I feel that this person will let me down.”). Response options are Never, Rarely, Sometimes, Often, or Always.
Intended Age Range
10- to 18-year-olds.
Rationale
This measure was chosen based on its comprehensive assessment of mentoring relationship quality, evidence of reliability and validity, and support for use with diverse populations of youth and types of relationships.
Cautions
Special Administration Information
References to “this person” can be replaced by a specific individual (e.g., “my mentor”).
How to Score
Each item is scored from 1 (Never) to 5 (Always). Each subscale score is the average of the items that make up the subscale.
How to Interpret Findings
Higher scores on the 3 positive scales reflect higher levels of support within the relationship. Higher scores on the negativity scale reflect higher levels of stress and negativity within the relationship.
Access and Permissions
The scale is available for non-commercial use with no charge and is made available here.
Alternatives
10 characteristics of personal relationships (e.g., the mentoring relationship) as rated by the youth or mentor.
The NRI-SPV is a 30-item scale that includes 10 3-item subscales: Companionship, Conflict, Instrumental Aid, Antagonism, Intimate Disclosure, Nurturance, Affection, Reassurance of Worth, Relative Power, and Reliable Alliance.
Two global dimensions of relationship quality, Support and Negative Interactions, also can be computed. The items for the youth and mentor versions of the scale are identical except for slight differences in the items in the Instrumental Aid subscale (e.g., “How much do you teach this person how to do things that they don’t know?” versus “How much does this person teach you how to do things that you don’t know?”). The scale was developed to assess the quality of a wide range of relationships. However, it can also be administered focusing only on the relationship(s) of interest. The current 30-item NRI-SPV is a slightly revised version of the original NRI-SPV (Furman & Buhrmester, 1985). See the NRI manual for a description of this revision. Response options are: Little or none, Somewhat, Very much, Extremely much, or The most.
Intended Age Range
8- to 18-year-old mentees; Mentors of all ages.
Rationale
The NRI-SPV was selected because it has a strong theoretical framework, evidence of reliability and validity, and a mentor and youth version. It also assesses a variety of relationship dimensions using only a few items per dimension.
Cautions
The application of the NRI-SPV to the assessment of mentor-mentee relationship characteristics is limited to only a few studies, and these studies have used the global dimensions of relationship quality or formed a support construct by averaging the Support subscale of the NRI-SPV with other measures of relationship satisfaction. Thus, although the validity of the NRI subscales is well established, the validity of individual subscales in the context of mentoring relationships is less clear.
Special Administration Information
A description of the scale’s items and how they map on to subscales of the NRI-SPV can be found on page 3 of the NRI manual. The manual describes how to administer the scale to ask about multiple relationships in the youth’s life. Programs interested in only assessing the mentoring relationship may simply use the following introduction prior to administering the scale items: “These questions ask about your relationship with your mentor. Please think about your mentor when answering them.” A mentor-report version replaces the term “mentor” in the introduction with “mentee.”
How to Score
Each item is scored on a 5-point scale from 1 (Little or none) to 5 (The most). Subscale scores are calculated by averaging the 3 items corresponding to each of the 10 dimensions. Support is calculated by averaging items from the Companionship, Instrumental Aid, Intimate Disclosure, Nurturance, Affection, Admiration, and Reliable Alliance subscales. Negative Interactions is calculated by averaging items from the Conflict and Antagonism subscales.
How to Interpret Findings
Higher scores on NRI-SPV subscales reflect higher levels of the assessed relationship dimension.
Access and Permissions
The Network of Relationships Inventory-SPV is available for non-commercial use with no charge. You may request permission to use the measure here. A full copy of the manual and measure can be obtained here.
Alternatives
A youth and/or mentor’s experience of five mentoring processes essential in promoting strong mentoring relationships and positive youth outcomes: (a) role modeling and identification; (b) advocacy; (c) relationship and emotional support; (d) teaching and information providing; and (e) shared activities.
Youth- and mentor-report versions of the MPS are available.The 26-item youth-report measure assesses positive mentor-mentee engagement. The items are organized around the five mentoring processes; however, one study suggests the items may be best used as a single 26-item scale. Response options are Not at all true, Almost always not true, Usually not true, Somewhat true, Usually true, Almost always true, Very true.
The 39-item mentor-report measure assesses the five distinct mentoring processes: (a) role modeling and identification (10 items); (b) advocacy (6 items); (c) relationship and emotional support (9 items); (d) teaching and information providing (8 items); and (e) shared activities (6 items). Mentors respond using the same response options as youth.
Intended age range
Youth 10 to 21 years old; Mentors 18 years old or older who are mentoring a young person who is 10 to 21 years old.
Rationale
The MPS was selected because it is one of the first reliable and valid measures of relationship quality that assesses a broad range of relationship processes (e.g., activities and behaviors) involved in mentoring relationships that are theoretically linked with positive outcomes, from both the mentor and youth’s perspective.
Cautions
Evidence of reliability and validity is limited to one study. In addition, although the item wording is simple, the large number of items and 7-point response scale may be difficult for younger children or those with reading challenges. Studies also have not yet shown how well these measures perform across age, gender, racial/ethnic, or match-length differences.
Special administration information
How to score
The youth and mentor versions are scored from 1 (Not at all true) to 7 (Very true). Prior to scoring, negatively worded items are reverse scored. This includes two items in the youth scale (“My mentor does not stand up for me,” and “I don’t learn much from my mentor”) and 3 items in the mentor scale (“I do not stand up for my mentee,” “My mentee doesn’t seem to want to be like me,” and “My mentee doesn’t seem to learn much from me”).
Subscale scores are created by averaging ratings across all items within each subscale. Scores for each subscale should be calculated if at least 75% of items are completed. The overall mentoring processes score is computed as the average of items across all subscales.
A detailed scoring guide for the MPS can be found here.
How to interpret findings
Higher scores reflect more positive perceptions of the mentoring relationship.
Access and permissions
Both the youth-report and the mentor-report measures are available for non-commercial use with no charge and are made available here. A formatted version can be found here.
Alternatives
Tolan, P. H., McDaniel, H. L., Richardson, M., Arkin, N., Augenstern, J., & DuBois, D. L. (2020). Improving understanding of how mentoring works: Measuring multiple intervention processes. Journal of Community Psychology, 48(6), 2086-2107. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.22408
A youth or mentor’s perceptions of, and experiences in, the mentoring relationship.
The youth version of this scale consists of 10 items assessing both positive (6 items, e.g., “My Big has lots of good ideas about how to solve a problem”) and negative (4 items, e.g., “When I am with my Big, I feel ignored”) perceptions of the relationship with their mentor.
Youth respond on a 5-point scale: Never true, Hardly ever true, Sometimes true, Most of the time true, or Always true. The mentor version consists of 14 items assessing both positive and negative perceptions of the relationship using two subscales: Affective (10 items, e.g., “I enjoyed the experience of being a Big,” “Sometimes I feel frustrated with how few things have changed with my Little”) and Logistical (2 items, e.g., “It is hard for me to find the time to be with my Little”). Mentors respond on a 5-point scale: Strongly disagree, Disagree, Neutral, Agree, or Strongly agree.
Intended Age Range
5- to 21-year-old mentees; Mentors 17 and over (though the items also appear relevant for slightly younger mentors).
Rationale
The YSoR and MSoR scales were selected because of their brevity and the fact that they capture both negative and positive experiences within the mentoring relationship. Both mentor and youth versions also have demonstrated good reliability for the total scores and associations with match length in a sample of BBBS community-based matches.
Cautions
Although promising, evidence of reliability and validity is limited to one study.
Special Administration Information
When administering, references to “Big” can be substituted with “mentor,” and “Little” can be substituted with “mentee.”
How to Score
The mentor version is scored on a 5-point scale from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree). The youth version is scored on a 5-point scale from 1 (Not true at all) to 5 (Always true). Prior to scoring, negatively worded items are reverse scored (items 3, 4, 6, & 8 on the YSoR and items 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, & 13 on the MSoR). The total score is the average of all 10 YSoR items or 14 MSoR items. For the YSoR, subscale scores are computed as the average for the Positive (items 1, 2, 5, 7, 9, & 10) and Negative subscales (items 3, 4, 6, & 8). For the MSoR, subscale scores are computed as the average for the Affective (items 1-4, 6-9, & 11-14) and Logistical (items 5 & 10) subscales.
How to Interpret Findings
Higher scores reflect more positive perceptions of the mentoring relationship.
Access and Permissions
Both the youth-report and the mentor-report measures are available for non-commercial use with no charge and are made available here.
Alternatives
The Relationship Quality Scale (Rhodes et al., 2005) is an earlier version of the scale that was revised to become the YSoR (see link in Citations below).
Youth’s feelings of compatibility with the mentor and satisfaction with different aspects of the mentoring relationship.
This 10-item scale includes items assessing both the youth’s own feelings about and experiences within the mentoring relationship as well as perceptions of the mentor’s feelings toward him/her.
Sample items include: “I feel my mentor cares about me, even when I do things s/he does not approve of” and “My relationship with my mentor is important to me.” Youth respond on a 4-point scale: Very false, False, True, or Very true.
Intended Age Range
9- to 19-year-olds.
Rationale
This measure was selected based on its brevity and evidence of reliability and validity.
Cautions
Special Administration Information
How to Score
Each item is scored from 1 (Very false) to 4 (Very true) and averaged to create one overall score.
How to Interpret Findings
Higher scores indicate more positive youth perceptions of relationship quality.
Access and Permissions
The measure is available for non-commercial use with no charge and is made available here.
Alternatives
Specific Facets of Relationship
A youth’s report of group processes within a group mentoring program including group engagement, group cohesion, and mutual help.
The scale consists of 11 items assessing three dimensions of group climate experienced in group mentoring programs.
These dimensions are: group cohesion (4 items, e.g., “Kids in this group care about each other.”), engagement (3 items, e.g., “Do you think the activities you do in your group are interesting?”), and mutual help (4 items, e.g., “How much did the group help you deal with everyday problems?” ). Response options are: Not a lot, A little bit, Somewhat, or Very much.
Intended Age Range
14- to 18-year-olds.
Rationale
This measure was chosen based on its strong theoretical support and use with group mentoring programs, its comprehensive assessment of group mentoring processes, and its promising evidence of reliability and validity.
Cautions
Reliability and validity evidence for the measure is based on a sample of ninth grade students who were at high risk for dropping out of school. They have not been assessed with different group mentoring programs across diverse samples.
Special Administration Information
How to Score
Each item is scored from 1 (Not a lot) to 4 (Very much). Each subscale score is the average of the items that make up the subscale.
How to Interpret Findings
Higher scores on the subscales reflect more positive climate within the group mentoring program.
Access and Aermissions
The scale is available for non-commercial use with no charge and is made available here.
Alternatives
Fostering program belonging is a key goal for many group mentoring programs. A global measure of Program Belonging has been used with out-of-school-time programs and mentoring programs. This scale may be particularly useful when assessing the group mentoring experiences of fairly young children. A brief five-item version of the measure is available here.
Specific Facets of Relationship
Youth perceptions of the mentor’s support for their racial/ethnic background, culture and identity.
This instrument consists of 6 items developed for a mentoring program for girls of color, although items also appear relevant for boys.
Sample items are: “My Big/mentor is respectful of my racial/ethnic background and culture,” “My Big/mentor makes me feel proud of my racial/ethnic background and culture,” and “My Big/mentor helps me learn new things about my racial/ethnic background and culture.” Youth respond on a 4-point scale: Not at all true, A little true, Pretty true, or Very true.
Intended Age Range
10- to 14-year-olds, but items also appear appropriate for older adolescents.
Rationale
Very few existing instruments focus on issues of culture and race within a mentoring context. This measure was chosen because of its theoretical grounding in positive youth development and critical race feminism for girls of color (i.e., how society organizes itself along intersections of race, gender, and class), its use with girls of color in a mentoring program, and promising evidence of reliability and validity.
Cautions
This instrument was developed as part of a study with predominantly African American and Latina girls and has not been widely used. Thus, evidence for reliability and validity is limited to this group and has not been tested with boys of color or different race/ethnicities.
Special Administration Information
When administering, references to “Big” can be substituted with “mentor.”
How to Score
Each item is scored from 1 (Not at all True) to 4 (Very True) with one reverse-scored item (i.e., “My Big/mentor seems uncomfortable talking to me about my racial/ethnic background and culture”). The total score is the average across items.
How to Interpret Findings
Higher scores indicate more mentor support for the mentee’s racial/ethnic identity.
Access and Permissions
The scale is available for non-commercial use with no charge and is made available here.
Alternatives
Specific Facets of Relationship
Youth’s perceptions of the extent to which the activities engaged in with the mentor are centered on the youth’s interests.
This scale consists of 5 items assessing the extent to which the youth feels the mentor considers their preferences and interests when selecting activities.
Sample items include: “My mentor almost always asks me what I want to do” and “My mentor and I like to do a lot of the same things.” Youth respond on a 4-point scale: Not true at all, Not very true, Sort of true, or Very true.
Intended Age Range
10- to 18-year-olds.
Rationale
This measure was chosen because of its brevity and evidence of validity and reliability across youth of differing gender, race/ethnicity and risk profiles.
Cautions
Special Administration Information
How to Score
Each item is scored from 1 (Not true at all) to 4 (Very true). The overall perception of youth-centeredness is created by averaging across all five items.
How to Interpret Findings
Higher scores on the scale reflect higher levels of youth-centeredness in the mentoring relationship.
Access and Permissions
The scale is available for non-commercial use with no charge and is made available here.
Alternatives
Specific Facets of Relationship
Youth perceptions of a focus on personal growth and goal attainment in the mentoring relationship.
This 6-item measure assesses the degree to which the youth perceives that their mentor is working to help them achieve goals or personal growth as part of the mentoring relationship.
Sample items include: “My mentor helps me to set and reach goals” and “My mentor and I spend time working on how I can improve as a person.” Each item is rated on a 4-point scale: Very false, Mostly false, Mostly true, or Very true.
Intended Age Range
Youth aged 9 and older.
Rational
Cautions
Special Administration Information
How to Score
Each item is scored from 1 (Very false) to 4 (Very true). The scale score is the average across all items.
How to Interpret Findings
Higher scores indicate a greater perception on the part of the youth that their mentoring relationship is focused on their goal attainment and personal growth.
Access and Permissions
The measure is available for non-commercial use with no charge and is made available here.
Alternatives
Mentoring programs include a wide range of interdependent components and activities. Prominent among these are mentor recruitment, screening, and training, mentor-mentee matching, and robust support and oversight throughout all stages of mentoring relationships from initiation to closure. The multi-faceted concept of program quality encompasses the extent to which appropriate practices are in place to support such areas of activity, whether they are being implemented as intended, and, importantly, the degree to which they are experienced as helpful by youth, parents, mentors, and others to whom they are directed. Assessments of program quality, therefore, must take into account not only multiple types of activities, but also varied vantage points from the relatively objective status of extant policies and standards to the more subjective experiences of those who are on the receiving end of a program’s practices. Doing so in a reliable and valid manner, understandably, can be a daunting challenge for many programs.
This section of the Measurement Guidance Toolkit provides relatively brief and easily accessible tools that programs can use to assess the quality of their practices and service delivery. Programs are likely to find it helpful to augment these tools with other available resources for assessing program quality. These include the National Quality Mentoring System (NQMS), which is available through Affiliates of MENTOR, and the Youth Program Quality Intervention (YPQI), a continuous quality improvement approach developed for out-of-school time (OST) programs. Mentoring programs interested in these systems can find more information at the above links.
In considering measures to add to this section of the toolkit, we used the framework of MENTOR’s Elements of Effective Practice for Mentoring, Fourth Edition (Garringer et al., 2015). The original edition of the Elements focused on a set of research-informed guidelines to help develop high-quality mentoring programs. With successive editions, priority has been placed on integrating research evidence with practitioner experience in identifying standards reflecting high-quality mentoring programs. The current, fourth edition of the Elements identifies six core standards of practice: (1) Recruitment, (2) Screening, (3) Training, (4) Matching and Initiation (5) Monitoring and Support, and (6) Closure. Each core standard includes specific benchmarks and enhancements. Benchmarks are practices that must be followed to meet the core standard and are determined by two criteria: (1) evidence that the practice is associated with effective mentoring relationships; and (2) the practice is designed to protect the safety of mentees. Enhancements are practices that are not required for programs to meet the core standards, but were determined by authors of the Elements to be promising, innovative, and useful based on practitioner input and research evidence. Measures that reflected elements of these core standards were prioritized for inclusion in this section of the Measurement Guidance Toolkit.
The Elements of Effective Practice for Mentoring are informed by research that supports links between program practices and mentor commitment (Drew et al., 2020), mentoring relationship quality (Herrera et al., 2013; McMorris et al., 2018; McQuillin et al., 2015), match length (Herrera et al., 2013; Kupersmidt et al., 2017) and youth outcomes (DuBois et al., 2002; DuBois et al., 2011; Herrera et al., 2008; Jarjoura et al., 2018). Most of these studies have examined one or more program features in isolation. However, one recent study tested a more comprehensive measure which reflected all standards in the third edition of the Elements. The study included Big Brothers Big Sisters matches across the U.S. and found that the number of standards implemented (of the six possible standards), as reported by programs, predicted greater match length and having a long-term match of 24 months or more (Kupersmidt et al., 2017). A meta-analysis by DuBois and his colleagues (2002) similarly found that programs with greater numbers of practices suggested as important by theory and/or research yielded stronger youth outcomes.
Selected Measures
Six measures of mentoring program quality are included in this section of the Toolkit (a brief description of how measures are selected can be found in the Toolkit’s overview). The recommended instruments are organized by respondent (staff, mentor, youth, and caregiver).
As the individuals responsible for implementing a mentoring program’s policies and practices, staff are arguably in the best position to provide detailed information about them and their implementation. Program staff may also provide reports of their own perception of the agency’s culture and support of staff in providing services to youth and families. Staff reports of program practices have been associated with aspects of mentoring relationship quality, such as match length (Kupersmidt et al., 2017; Stelter et al., 2018). In addition, staff reports of specific program practices, such as ongoing training and regular support contacts, have been linked to lower rates of premature match closure (McQuillin & Lyons, 2021).
Of those to whom practices may be directed in mentoring programs (mentors, youth, and their caregivers), mentors are typically the recipients of the broadest variety of program practices and supports, as they are the central conduit through which the program serves youth. For these reasons, mentoring researchers have developed a variety of instruments to measure mentor experiences of program delivery (for example, their experiences of training and support procedures) as well as their perceptions of the program more broadly and the staff they have interacted with. Mentor reports of their experiences with program practices, such as matching, mentor training, and staff support contact time, have been linked with mentor commitment and satisfaction in the mentoring relationship and in their volunteer experience (Drew et al., 2020; Keller et al., 2020). Similarly, mentor perceptions of program support have been associated with more positive mentoring relationship experiences as reported by both mentors and youth (Sass & Karcher, 2013; Weiler et al., 2019). The toolkit includes reviews of two measures of mentor-reported program quality—one reflects mentor experiences across a number of practice areas, and the other provides a more focused assessment of various aspects of program support.
Youth reports of their programmatic experiences—apart from their experiences within the mentoring relationship itself—have been less common in mentoring studies than in evaluations of other types of youth-serving programs, such as site-based after-school programs in which youth typically have more frequent interactions with staff members and wider-ranging involvement in programming (e.g., curriculum-based instruction, group activities). These latter studies (e.g., Zeldin et al., 2014) suggest that youth perceptions of program qualities, such as whether they are given a voice in program decision-making and experiencing supportive relationships with program adults, are associated with youth agency and empowerment (i.e., confidence in their ability to effect change; Zeldin & Collura, 2010) and other positive outcomes such as academic attitudes and achievement (Seitz et al., 2021). In recognition of the site-based format of many mentoring programs, the toolkit includes a measure that draws from this broader out-of-school time program literature. A more preliminary measure also is included that can be used with community-based programs.
There is currently a lack of comprehensive measures that assess aspects of caregiver experiences of program practices. Thus, we know very little about how these experiences may be associated with program implementation, the development and progression of the mentoring relationship, and youth outcomes. Research, however, has yielded findings that are consistent with the importance of caregiver experiences within mentoring programs (Basualdo-Delmonico & Spencer, 2016). One study, for example, found that mentor-youth meetings were more frequent when the youth’s parent received more regular support contacts and check-ins from staff (Herrera et al., 2013). However, large-scale studies of caregivers’ experience of other program practices and how their overall program experience may affect their child’s mentoring relationship have not been conducted. Thus, while the measure reflecting caregiver experiences included in this section of the toolkit is preliminary and in need of further validation work, it was judged important to include as a tool for facilitating integration of a caregiver perspective in assessments of program quality.
We hope this section of the toolkit provides a rich set of options for tools that programs can use to assess program quality. Please remember that mentoring programs can request free technical assistance through the NMRC; MENTOR affiliates also can access the NQMS; as noted previously.
Basualdo-Delmonico, A. M., & Spencer, R. (2016). A parent’s place: Parent’s, mentors’ and program staff members’ expectations for and experiences of parental involvement in community-based youth mentoring relationships. Children and Youth Services Review, 61, 6-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2015.11.021 Drew, A. L., Keller, T. E., Spencer, R., & Herrera, C. (2020). Investigating mentor commitment in youth mentoring relationships: The role of perceived program practices. Journal of Community Psychology, 48(7), 2264-2276. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.22409 Garringer, M., Kupersmidt, J., Rhodes, J., Stelter, R., & Tai, T. (2015). Elements of Effective Practice for Mentoring (4th ed.). MENTOR: The National Mentoring Partnership. Herrera, C., DuBois, D. L., & Grossman, J. B. (2013). The role of risk: Mentoring experiences and outcomes for youth with varying risk profiles. A Public/Private Ventures project distributed by MDRC. http://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/Role%20of%20Risk_Final-web%20PDF.pdf Herrera, C., Kauh, T. J., Cooney, S. M., Grossman, J. B., & McMaken, J. (2008). High school students as mentors. Public/Private Ventures. https://www.sophe.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/mentoring_1149.pdf Jarjoura, G. R., Tanyu, M., Forbush, J., Herrera, C., & Keller, T. E. (2018). Evaluation of the Mentoring Enhancement Demonstration Program: Technical report (Office of Justice Programs’ National Criminal Justice Reference Service Document Number 252167). https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/grants/252167.pdf Keller, T. E., Drew, A.L., Clark-Shim, H., Spencer, R., & Herrera, C. (2020). It’s about time: Staff support contacts and mentor volunteer experiences. Journal of Youth Development, 15(4), 145-161. https://doi.org/10.5195/jyd.2020.879 Kupersmidt, J., Stump, K. N., Stelter, R. L., & Rhodes, J. E. (2017). Mentoring program practices as predictors of match longevity. Journal of Community Psychology, 45(5), 630-645. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.21883 McMorris, B. J., Doty, J. L., Weiler, L. M., Beckman, K. J., & Garcia-Huidobro, D. (2018). A typology of school-based mentoring relationship quality: Implications for recruiting and retaining volunteer mentors. Children and Youth Services Review, 90, 149–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2018.05.019 McQuillin, S. D., & Lyons, M. D. (2021). A national study of mentoring program characteristics and premature match closure: The role of program training and ongoing support. Prevention Science, 22(3), 334-344. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11121-020-01200-9 McQuillin, S. D., Straight, G. G., & Saeki, E. (2015). Program support and value of training in mentors’ satisfaction and anticipated continuation of school-based mentoring relationships. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 23(2), 133-148. https://doi.org/10.1080/13611267.2015.1047630 Sass, D.A., & Karcher, M.J. (2013). Analyses of the contribution of case managers to mentor support and match outcomes. In Herrera, DuBois & Grossman (Eds.), The role of risk: Mentoring experiences and outcomes for youth with varying risk profiles (pp. 120-125). New York, NY: Public/Private Ventures project distributed by MDRC. https://www.mdrc.org/publication/role-risk/file-full Seitz, S., Khatib, N., Guessous, O., & Kuperminc, G. (2021). Academic outcomes in a national afterschool program: The role of program experiences and youth sustained engagement. Applied Developmental Science, 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888691.2021.1993855 Stelter, R. L., Kupersmidt, J. B., & Stump, K. N. (2018). Supporting mentoring relationships of youth in foster care: Do program practices predict match length? American Journal of Community Psychology, 61(3-4), 398–410. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajcp.12246 Weiler, L. M., Boat, A. A., & Haddock, S. A. (2019). Youth risk and mentoring relationship quality: The moderating effect of program experiences. American Journal of Community Psychology, 63(1-2), 73-87. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajcp.12304 Zeldin, S. & Collura, J. (2010, June). Being Y-AP savvy: A primer on creating & sustaining youth-adult partnerships. Ithaca, NY: ACT for Youth Center of Excellence. https://ecommons.cornell.edu/bitstream/handle/1813/19325/YAP-Savvy.pdf Zeldin, S., Krauss, S., Collura, J., Lucchesi, M., & Sulaiman, A. H. (2014). Conceptualizing and measuring youth-adult partnership in community programs: A cross-national study. American Journal of Community Psychology, 54(3-4), 337-347. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-014-9676-9
Measures of Program Quality
A mentoring program’s alignment with the benchmark practices outlined in the Elements of Effective Practice for Mentoring, 3 rd Edition (EEP).
This is a 31-item index. Sample items include, “Do you think that the prospective mentors have a good idea of what it means to be a mentor in your program?” and “Does your agency have a stated expectation for the length of commitment for matches in your program?” Items represent the six EEP standards of recruitment, screening, training, matching, monitoring and support, and closure. For most items, response options are: Yes or No. Eleven items ask respondents to check all that apply from a list of options.
Intended Age Range
Adult mentoring program staff
Rationale
The EQUIP 3.0 scale was selected because it is easy to complete and assesses a broad range of research-informed practices. Higher scores on this measure were found to be associated with longer average match length.
Cautions
The EQUIP 3.0 is based on benchmarks established in the third edition of the EEP. Whether and how scores are associated with the use of practices outlined in the fourth edition of the EEP are not clear. An EQUIP 4.0, based on this more recent edition of the EEP, is currently being developed. Reliability of EQUIP 3.0 (e.g., consistency of scores across different respondents for a given program) has not been established.
Special Administration Information
Ideally, the measure should be completed by a staff person at the program with knowledge of the organization’s current operations and procedures across all requested areas.
How to Score
Items are first combined to represent 22 practices. A score of “1” is assigned for each practice with “Yes” responses on all relevant items. For items in which respondents select all responses that apply, scoring instructions vary. In most cases, if all responses are selected, the item is noted as “Yes”. The Total Benchmark Score is the sum of all practices and ranges from 0 to 22. A Total Standard Score representing the total number of standards implemented can also be calculated. Respondents scoring “1” for all practices within a standard receive a score of “1” for that standard; otherwise, they receive a score of “0”. The Total Standard Score ranges from 0 to 6.
How to Interpret Findings
Higher scores indicate greater compliance with the Elements of Effective Practice, 3 rd Edition benchmark practices.
Access and Permissions
This measure is available for non-commercial use with no charge. To request permission to use the measure, please contact the authors at mentoringcentral@irtinc.us.
Alternatives
For a measure that includes both program practices outlined in the EEP and aspects of infrastructure and management practices that have been identified as key to running a successful mentoring program, see the Staff Perceptions of Program Practices scale developed by Keller and his colleagues. The measure is available for non-commercial use with no charge and a list of items can be found here.
Keller, T. E., Herrera, C., Spencer, R. Unpublished manual. Portland State University. Kupersmidt, J. B., Stelter, R.L., & Rhodes, J.B. (2011). Elements quality improvement process (EQUIP) 3.0: Web-based, program self-assessment questionnaire. Innovation Research and Training. Kupersmidt, J. B., Stump, K. N., Stelter, R. L., & Rhodes, J. E. (2017). Predictors of premature match closure in youth mentoring relationships. American Journal of Community Psychology, 59(1-2), 25-35. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajcp.12124
Measure of Program Quality
Mentor experiences of program practices aligned with the Elements of Effective Practice for Mentoring (EEP).
This is a 24-item scale. Sample items include, “Prior to matching you with your mentee, to what extent did your mentoring program realistically portray the benefits and challenges of being a mentor in the program” and “Since your match was made, to what extent has your mentoring program provided suggestions and ideas for activities.” Response options are: Not at all true, Not very true, Sort of true, Mostly true, and Very true.
Intended Age Range
Rationale
The MPPP was selected because of its comprehensive assessment of components of program implementation aligned with the EEP and its validation across a wide range of mentoring programs. Scores on the MPPP have been associated with staff-reported practices and mentor reports of the quality of their relationships with their mentee and with program staff.
Cautions
Evidence of reliability and validity are limited to one study. Although the tool is designed to capture change over time in program operations, its ability to do so has not been rigorously tested.
Special Administration Information
Ideally the measure should be self-administered in a private setting, responded to anonymously, and viewed only across all respondents (i.e., in the aggregate) to ensure mentors feel comfortable providing honest responses.
How to Score
Each item is scored on a 5-point scale from 1 (Not at all true) to 5 (Very true). The total score is the average of all 24 items.
How to Interpret Findings
Higher scores on the MPPP indicate greater mentor experience of program practices aligned with the EEP.
Access and Permissions
A copy of the MPPP can be found here and is available for non-commercial use with no charge.
Alternatives
The Mentors’ Perceived Program Support Scale (MPPSS; reviewed here ) offers a more focused assessment of various aspects of support. For a brief mentor-report measure of mentoring program quality, see the 6-item program quality subscale of the Match Characteristics Questionnaire (MCQ), reviewed here.
Keller, T. E., Drew, A., Herrera, C., Clark-Shim, H., & Spencer, R. (2022). Do program practices matter for mentors?: How implementation of empirically supported practices is associated with youth mentoring relationship quality [Manuscript submitted for publication]. School of Social Work, Portland State University.
Measures of Program Quality
Mentor experiences of program support.
This 11-item scale assesses the extent to which a program provides support to mentors in four areas: emotional, informational, tangible assistance, and appraisal. Responses options are: Not at all, A little, Mostly, and Very much.
Intended Age Range
Rationale
This measure was chosen because of its evidence of reliability and validity in community-based, school-based, group, and one-to-one mentoring programs, as well as the breadth of types of support it assesses.
Cautions
The MPPSS is relatively new and has been validated in only one study with mentors who were primarily female (75%) and White (74%) and resided in rural and suburban regions. Studies have not tested the measure with other groups of mentors.
Special Administration Information
Ideally the measure should be self-administered in a private setting, responded to anonymously, and viewed only across all respondents (i.e., in the aggregate) to ensure mentors feel comfortable providing honest responses.
How to Score
Each item is scored on a 4-point scale from (1) Not at all to (4) Very Much. The total score is the average of all 11 items.
How to Interpret Findings
Higher scores reflect mentor perceptions of higher levels of program support.
Access and Permissions
A copy of the MPPSS can be found here. It is available for non-commercial use with no charge. The original validation study for the measure is noted below.
Alternatives
For a measure assessing the quality of the relationship between the mentor and mentoring program staff, see the 14-item Mentor-Staff Working Alliance scale, adapted by Keller and colleagues (Keller et al., 2022) from the Working Alliance Inventory (Horvath & Greenberg, 1989). Scores on the measure are associated with mentor reports of the implementation of several mentoring program practices and mentor-reported mentoring relationship quality. It is available for non-commercial use with no charge and listed in its entirety here.
Horvath, A. O., & Greenberg, L. S. (1989). Development and validation of the Working Alliance Inventory. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 36(2), 223-233. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.36.2.223 Keller, T. E., Drew, A., Herrera, C., Clark-Shim, H., & Spencer, R. (2022). Do program practices matter for mentors?: How implementation of empirically supported practices is associated with youth mentoring relationship quality [Manuscript submitted for publication]. School of Social Work, Portland State University. Marshall, J. H., Davis, M. C., Lawrence, E. C., Peugh, J. L., & Toland, M. D. (2016). Mentors’ Perceived Program Support Scale: Development and initial validation. Journal of Community Psychology, 44(3), 342-357. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.21772
Measures of Program Quality
Youth experiences of program supports before and during their mentoring relationship.
This is a 13-item scale. Each item begins with: “There is someone at my mentoring program (other than my mentor) who…” Items include, “…asked me about the kind of mentor I wanted” and “…who I could go to if I had a problem with my mentor.” Six items are recommended in addition to the original 7 items to obtain broader coverage of practices in the Elements of Effective Practice for Mentoring (EEP). Response options are: Not at all true, A little true, Mostly true, Very true, and Not applicable.
Intended Age Range
Rationale
This is one of the only comprehensive youth-report measures of program practices created specifically for mentoring programs and used in several large-scale mentoring evaluations. It was selected because it measures several program components included in the EEP and has broad application across youth mentoring program types.
Cautions
Although the tool has been used in several large-scale evaluations of mentoring programs, evidence of reliability and validity are limited.
Special Administration Information
Ideally the measure should be administered in a private setting, responded to anonymously, and viewed only across all respondents (i.e., in the aggregate) to ensure youth feel comfortable providing honest responses.
How to Score
Each item is scored on a 4-point scale from 1 (Not at all true) to 4 (Very true) with “Not applicable” an additional option for one item. The total score is the average of all items completed.
How to Interpret Findings
Higher scores on the YEPQ reflect experience of more practices aligned with the EEP.
Access and Permissions
A copy of the YEPQ can be found here. The measure is available for non-commercial use with no charge.
Alternatives
For group and other site-based mentoring programs in which youth experience more frequent contact with program staff and other site-based aspects of program supports, see The Big Three and Perceptions of Safety measure, reviewed here.
Herrera, C., DuBois, D. L., & Grossman, J. B. (2013). The role of risk: Mentoring experiences and outcomes for youth with varying risk profiles. A Public/Private Ventures project distributed by MDRC.
Measures of Program Quality
Youth’s experience of program quality in site-based programs.
This 24-item scale assesses three program features essential to delivering effective youth development programming: positive and sustained adult-youth relationships (7 items, e.g., “Adults at the program care for me.”), life-skill-building activities (6 items, e.g., “At the program, I learn skills that help me succeed in life.”), opportunities for participation in and leadership of valued activities (6 items, e.g., “I make meaningful contributions to the program.”). Perceptions of program safety (5 items, e.g., “My program takes place in a safe space.”) are also assessed. Response options are: Strongly disagree, Disagree, Agree, Strongly agree.
Intended Age Range
Rationale
This measure was chosen due to its strong connection to core ideas found across theoretical frameworks of program quality in site-based youth programming that youth are best equipped to report on.
Cautions
The Big Three and Perceptions of Safety measure is relatively new. Reliability and validity evidence was developed from a sample of Rwandese youth (49% female), with a subset of items further tested in a sample of Salvadoran youth (50% female). The measure was translated into Kinyarwanda and Spanish for delivery, and the results of validity and reliability testing have not yet been completed on an English version. In addition, this measure does not assess youth experiences of inclusion and equity. Additional measures should be used to evaluate these important aspects of site-based programming.
Special Administration Information
Ideally the measure should be administered in a private setting, responded to anonymously, and viewed only across all respondents (i.e., in the aggregate) to ensure youth feel comfortable providing honest responses.
How to Score
In published studies, each item is rated on a scale from (0) Completely Disagree to (100) Completely Agree. However, this response scale can be difficult to use reliably outside of a computer-based survey platform. Thus, a 4-point scale from (1) Strongly disagree to (4) Strongly agree is recommended. Items for each of the four subscales are averaged to create one score for each subscale.
How to Interpret Findings
Higher scores reflect more positive experiences of program quality in each of the four assessed areas.
Access and Permissions
The measure is available for non-commercial use with no charge and can be found here. The original validation study for the scale is noted below and available here.
Alternatives
For a measure of youth’s experience of group processes within a group mentoring program including group engagement, group cohesion, and mutual help, see a review of the Group Mentoring Climate scale here.
Tirrell, J. M., Dowling, E. M., Gansert, P., Buckingham, M., Wong, C. A., Suzuki, S., Naliaka, C., Kibbedi, P., Namurinda, E., Williams, K., Geldhof, G. J ., Lerner, J. V., Ebstyne King, P., Sim. A. T. R., & Lerner, R. M. (2019). Toward a measure for assessing features of effective youth development programs: Contextual safety and the “Big Three” components of positive youth development programs in Rwanda. Child and Youth Care Forum, 49(2), 201-222. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10566-019-09524-6
Measures of Program Quality
A caregiver’s experiences of mentoring program practices.
This is a 15-item index. Sample items include, “I have attended a program-sponsored activity or event (not training) with my child,” and “There is someone I can go to at the program if I have concerns about my child’s mentor.” Five items are recommended in addition to the original 10 items to obtain broader coverage of practices in the Elements of Effective Practice for Mentoring. Response options are: Yes, No, and Not Applicable.
Intended Age Range
Rationale
This is one of the only comprehensive measures of caregiver-focused program practices created specifically for mentoring programs and used in several large-scale mentoring evaluations. It was selected because it measures several program components included in the Elements of Effective Practice for Mentoring and has broad application across youth mentoring program types.
Cautions
Although the measure has been administered to caregivers in a wide range of mentoring programs across the U.S., it has not been validated in peer-reviewed research. No information on the reliability or validity of this measure is currently available.
Special Administration Information
Ideally the measure should be self-administered in a private setting, responded to anonymously, and viewed only across all respondents (i.e., in the aggregate) to ensure caregivers feel comfortable providing honest responses.
How to Score
Each item is scored 0 (No) or 1 (Yes), except the last item on closure which also has a “Not Applicable” option. The total score is the sum of all 15 items and ranges from 0 to 15 (or 0 to 14 for those responding “Not Applicable” to the last item). Programs may also examine subsets of program practices, summing only items of interest.
How to Interpret Findings
Higher scores on the measure reflect caregiver receipt of and/or satisfaction with a greater number of caregiver-focused program practices.
Access and Permissions
A copy of the measure can be found here and is available for non-commercial use with no charge.
Alternatives
Herrera, C., DuBois, D. L., & Grossman, J. B. (2013). The role of risk: Mentoring experiences and outcomes for youth with varying risk profiles. A Public/Private Ventures project distributed by MDRC.
Emotional outcomes include feelings of distress, such as symptoms of depression or anxiety, as well as facets of positive well-being, such as optimism, self-esteem, life satisfaction, and a sense of meaning or purpose in life. Historically, mentoring programs have devoted substantially less attention to emotional health relative to academic and behavioral outcomes.
A recent survey of mentoring programs in Illinois, for example, found that mental health outcomes were a “top 5” priority area for less than 10% of programs, whereas academic success was a top priority for over 80% and risk behavior prevention was among the chief concerns for nearly 60%. 1 A number of factors may account for this pattern. These include the reality that federal funding opportunities for mentoring programs have been most focused on education and juvenile justice–areas in which mental health is not traditionally a primary concern. Yet, there is good reason to expect that mentoring can improve emotional outcomes and that these merit greater attention within the field. DuBois et al.’s recent meta-analysis, 2 which synthesized the results of 73 evaluations of mentoring programs, found that, as a group, these studies showed evidence of positive effects on psychological/emotional outcomes. Available data also suggest that substantial numbers of youth served by mentoring programs are likely to be experiencing significant mental health concerns. In their Role of Risk study, Herrera and colleagues 3 found that almost one in four youth involved in this research reported high levels of depressive symptoms at the time of program referral.
In selecting initial mental and emotional health outcomes to consider for this Toolkit, care was taken to include outcomes on both the negative and positive sides of the continuum. The former are represented by depressive symptoms and the latter by life satisfaction, hopeful future expectations, self-esteem, and sense of meaning in life. Adaptive coping with stress also was included. This is not an emotional outcome per se. Yet, the strategies that youth rely on to manage difficult circumstances in their lives have been shown convincingly to have important implications for their mental health. 4
Even when not rising to the level of a clinical disorder, symptoms of depression reported by children and adolescents merit attention. In a 2-year longitudinal study of 435 school-age children and adolescents, for example, those with stable elevations in depressive symptoms exhibited a pattern of significantly greater impairment across several areas of functioning including clinically significant levels of anxiety, markedly lower self-esteem, and higher levels of acting-out behavior as rated by teachers. 5 Similarly, adolescent depressive symptoms, even when mild, have been found to be associated with increased health care utilization and costs, only a minority of which were attributable to mental health care. 6 In the Role of Risk study, 3 youth who were randomly assigned to receive mentoring through the Big Brothers Big Sisters community-based program improved significantly in their reports of depressive symptoms over the 13-month time period of the study in comparison to their non-mentored peers. Interestingly, it appears that the benefits observed may have been most attributable to mentoring reducing existing levels of depressive symptoms as opposed to helping youth avoid symptom onset or worsening. A recent longitudinal study of youth in the BBBS of Canada community-based program found similarly that mentored youth, especially those whose relationships lasted 12 months or more, reported significantly fewer symptoms of depression at an 18-month follow-up than did non-mentored youth. 7 Peaslee and Teye 8 also found significant reductions in reported levels of depression for BBBS mentored youth in both community- and site-based programs. These researchers recommended that mentoring agencies routinely include depressive inventories in youth outcome assessments. Many important questions remain, however. For example, to what extent are beneficial effects on depressive symptoms evident across a broader range of program models than those studied to date (e.g., cross-age peer, group)? Do they extend to youth whose symptom picture is serious enough to meet clinical criteria for a depressive disorder? If programs and researchers heed the call for more consistent measurement of this outcome, answers to such questions will begin to be developed.
It is difficult to imagine an outcome with more fundamental intuitive importance than the degree to which youth are experiencing their lives as enjoyable and rewarding while growing up. Research supports this idea, with youth who report greater life satisfaction being less prone to a wide range of maladaptive psychosocial outcomes, including feelings of depression and anxiety, loneliness, social stress, and aggressive behaviors. 9 It also appears that greater life satisfaction may promote engagement with school, with such engagement then further reinforcing feelings of life satisfaction. 10 These types of findings, coupled with the reality that many of the youth served by mentoring programs are precisely those for whom life satisfaction tends to be lower (e.g., those from lower socioeconomic status and higher-stress family environments), 10 were influential in our selection of life satisfaction as an outcome. Furthermore, although limited, available evidence suggests that mentoring can indeed promote stronger feelings of life satisfaction, with McQuillin and colleagues 11,12 providing support for this in two separate randomized control evaluations of a brief instrumental school-based mentoring program for middle schoolers.
Theoretically, mentors are in a good position to help their mentees both sustain and enhance positive views of what the future holds for them. Rhodes described how this might occur through a variety of processes, ranging from mentees directly internalizing their mentors’ optimism and confidence in their potential, to mentors’ more strategic efforts to connect their mentees to experiences and opportunities that open the door to new “possible selves” (ideas of what they would like to become). 13 In line with these possibilities, Bowers and colleagues 14 found that both the quantity and emotional closeness of youths’ relationships with important non-parental adults predicted more hopeful expectations for their futures. In contrast, in the Role of Risk study 3 , evidence of effects of mentoring program participation on youths’ scores on the Children’s Hope Scale was lacking. These mixed findings notwithstanding, there is solid evidence to indicate that any success that is achieved in cultivating hopeful future expectations will yield meaningful dividends. 15,16
Mentors would appear to be in a good position to help their mentees develop effective skills for coping. DuBois and colleagues 17 , for example, noted that “In the process of helping youth negotiate different types of stressors, mentors may model and instruct youth in skills and techniques that they can apply in similar situations.” Research suggests that it could be of particular value for mentors to foster active or so-called “approach” strategies for coping, such as seeking support, positive reframing, and problem-solving, as these (rather than more passive or avoidant strategies) have been most consistently associated with better adaptive outcomes for youth. 4 There is scant research that bears directly on the potential for mentoring to promote adaptive forms of coping. In their research with the BBBS community-based program, DuBois and colleagues 17 found no difference in mentored youths’ reported use of approached-focused coping strategies (problem-solving and support seeking) at 6 or 12 months after being matched relative to a comparison group of non-mentored youth. In research with the participants in the landmark P/PV evaluation of the BBBS community-based program, 18 reports of receiving help from a Big Brother or Sister with coping were associated with matches that lasted longer and in which outings tended to last longer. The effectiveness of mentoring programs that more intentionally target development of coping skills is also an emerging area of inquiry. Grant and colleagues, 19 for example, recently have developed and piloted an intervention that provides early adolescents in low-income urban communities with a) training in contextually relevant coping, b) connection to mentors who support youth’s developing coping strategies, and c) connection to youth-serving community organizations, where youth receive additional support.
Research suggests that youth who report higher levels of self-esteem experience fewer psychological, behavioral, academic, and economic difficulties later in life. 20,21 In light of such links, there is considerable interest in interventions aimed at strengthening youth self-esteem. Because youth relationships characterized by emotional support and social approval appear to have a positive influence on the development of self-esteem, 22 mentors may be in a good position to strengthen youth’s feelings of self-worth. In fact, some research supports this hypothesis. For example, in one study, mentoring program participants showed greater improvements in self-esteem at a 15-month follow-up than youth in a comparison group. 3 In addition, in a small randomized trial, Silverthorn and colleagues found hints that youth participating in Girl Power!–a youth mentoring program with an explicit focus on strengthening self-esteem–experienced larger gains in self-esteem than youth participating in standard BBBSA community-based mentoring. 23 Although this effect was not statistically significant, the estimated effect size of .25 is meaningful and worth noting. Natural mentoring relationships may also foster positive self-esteem, 24 and improvements in self-esteem may be one of the routes through which mentoring works. For example, DuBois and colleagues found that the positive effects of participation in BBBSA on emotional and behavior problems were explained through several variables, one of which was self-esteem. 25
Despite these promising findings, results from 3 large randomized trials found no significant impact of youth mentoring on self-esteem. 3,26,27 Thus, the viability of youth mentoring as an intervention to promote self-esteem is still an open question. Mentoring programs that place explicit emphasis on strengthening self-esteem may show particular promise in producing effects, and to the extent that mentors can effect positive change in self-esteem, youth may reap significant benefits.
Scholars studying positive youth development have begun to emphasize youth’s sense of meaning and purpose in life. 28 Youth with a sense of meaning and purpose experience greater psychological health, quality of life, and academic functioning, and engage in fewer health risk behaviors. 28,29,30 However, establishing a sense of purpose requires youth to first contemplate and actively search for their purpose and meaning in life. 31 Some research suggests that this search for meaning and purpose can be confusing and stressful for adolescents, negatively affecting their self-esteem. 31 Mentors may be well positioned to provide valuable support and guidance to youth as they explore their own meaning and purpose. In two studies of supportive adult relationships developing outside of formal mentoring programs, youth reported that significant adults in their lives (e.g., parents, teachers, staff, mentors) provided valuable guidance or inspiration in their initial search for purpose in life, and critical support as they pursued activities consistent with their identified purpose. 32,33 Another study of natural mentoring relationships involving 207 females in middle and high school 34 found an association between participation in “growth-fostering” mentoring relationships (i.e., characterized by mutual empathy and engagement, authenticity, empowerment, and the ability to deal with conflict) and engagement in purposeful activities (i.e., activities consistent with one’s purpose in life). Moreover, it was through effects on participation in purposeful activities that these mentoring relationships were associated with higher levels of self-esteem. Although these findings suggest that natural mentoring relationships may be important in fostering youth sense of meaning and purpose, studies have yet to clearly outline the role of formal, program-based mentoring relationships in this process.
Research suggests that ethnic identity–or youth’s identification with his/her ethnic group–may be an important mental health outcome, particularly for racial and ethnic minority youth. Ethnic identity is positively related to self-esteem 35,36 and negatively associated with internalizing 37 and externalizing symptoms. 38,39 Many youth served by mentoring programs are likely to be grappling with the developmentally appropriate task of identity formation as they seek to learn more about their ethnic groups, participate in its cultural practices and develop positive (or negative) feelings about their group membership. We selected a measure of ethnic identity that reflects youth’s efforts to learn about their ethnic group (i.e., exploration) and their sense of commitment to the group. In addition to the relevance of these aspects of identity to youth’s mental health, both dimensions have been shown to mitigate the negative mental health correlates of racial/ethnic discrimination, which is a common experience for racial and ethnic minority youth. 40 Few studies have examined the link between mentoring program participation and positive ethnic identity. One study found that African American boys who participated in a mentoring program had more positive Black identity scores and lower pre-encounter scores (i.e., identity attitudes that minimize racism and race-related issues). 41 Other work further suggests that ethnicity and ethnic identity may also play an important role in how mentoring influences developmental trajectories. 42,43 For example, Hurd and colleagues found that natural mentoring relationships promoted positive educational attainment for academically at-risk African American adolescents, in part through effects on racial identity. 43 Thus, ethnic identity may be worthwhile to assess not only because of its potential to be affected by mentoring, but also because of the important role it may play in shaping mentoring outcomes.
Mental and Emotional Health
Scale
Brief Multidimensional Students’ Life Satisfaction Scale – Peabody Treatment Progress Battery
