To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Mentoring is an important developmental tool for academic scientists. The match between mentor and mentee is a critical factor than can influence outcomes for mentees. However, we know little about what factors should be considered when matching mentors and mentees. We draw on person-environment fit theory to examine how different factors related to the fit between mentors and mentees may influence outcomes for mentees in health-related scientific disciplines.
Methods:
Data were collected from 76 mentor-mentee pairs who participated in a nine-month mentoring program for scientists interested in clinical and translational research. An index of supplementary fit was calculated to reflect mentor-mentee similarity in terms of race/ethnicity, gender, academic discipline, professional track, percent time allocated to research, and type of research. Complementary fit reflected the proportion of skills mentees identified as needs that their mentor felt comfortable providing. Mentee outcomes assessed included satisfaction with one’s mentor, learning and development experiences, and short-term research output.
Results:
As predicted, we found that supplementary fit was positively related to mentee satisfaction with the mentor. We found no support for the expected relationship between complementary fit and mentee learning development experiences or short-term research output. Supplementary analyses explored other non-hypothesized relationships among study variables.
Conclusions:
This research underscores the need to consider different types of fit when matching academic mentors and mentees in clinical and translational science-related disciplines. Our results can be leveraged during the matching process in academic mentoring programs to maximize the success of mentoring relationships for scientists in health-related fields.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.