Is Relationship Quality Between a Mentor and Mentee Related to Psychosocial Problems?
Masterthesis Forensische Orthopedagogiek Graduate School of Child Development and Education University of Amsterdam Sander van Gils (11076119) Supervisors: Prof. Dr. Geert-Jan Stams, Dr. Òscar Prieto-Flores & Msc. Levi van Dam Girona, July 2018
Abstract
In this pilot study, we examined the association between relationship quality and psychosocial problems in formal mentoring. Mentors and mentees filled in questionnaires after eight months of participation in the Nightingale mentoring program in Girona, Spain. The sample consisted of 25 mentees (9-16 years old, M = 12.88, SD = 1.73) of foreign origin who recently arrived in Spain, and 21 mentors. Relationship quality proved to be negatively associated with psychosocial problems when reported by mentors. This study demonstrated that relationship quality between mentor and mentee can play an important role in the development of less psychosocial problems of the mentee. Implications for further research into the quality of the formal mentoring relationships are discussed.
Is Relationship Quality Between a Mentor and Mentee Related to Psychosocial Problems?
There is a growing body of literature that recognizes the positive effects of youth mentoring programs. Data from several studies suggest that the relationship between a young person and a non-parental adult can have a positive effect on favorable youth outcomes, intercultural competences, and psychosocial problems (DuBois, Holloway, Valentine, & Cooper, 2002; DuBois, Portillo, Rhodes, Silverthorn, & Valentine, 2011; Goldner, 2008; Prieto-Flores, Feu, & Casademont, 2016; Rhodes, Spencer, Keller, Liang, & Noam, 2006; Van Dam et al., 2018). The mentor, who could be a supportive adult, neighbor, family member or volunteer, provides opportunities for social and academic development, guidance and support (Freedman, 1993; Rhodes, 2002). Also, youth who participated in a mentor program were less likely to develop problem behavior, become delinquent, use marijuana and alcohol than youth who did not participate in a mentoring program (Beier, Rosenfeld, Spitalny, Zansky, & Bontempo, 2000; Zimmerman, Bingenheimer, & Notaro, 2002).
Mentoring can broadly be divided into natural or informal mentoring and formal mentoring. When the supportive older person is a family member, volunteer, teacher or neighbor who is not introduced by a mentor program, he or she is designated as a natural mentor (Erickson, McDonald & Elder, 2009; Hurd & Zimmerman, 2010; Zimmerman, Bingenheimer & Behrendt, 2005). For youth, it is not always easy to find a suitable adult person in their own network who could act as a mentor. Therefore, formal mentoring could be a solution. In formal mentoring programs, the mentor and the meetings could be initiated by a school or community. Those programs are likely to be focused on youth who are at risk for poor academic, social and psychosocial outcomes (Schwartz & Rhodes, 2016).
Volunteering mentor programs are becoming increasingly popular. For example, in the United States, there are yearly two and a half million mentors matched with a mentee trough a
mentoring program (Raposa, Dietz, & Rhodes, 2017). In both types of mentoring, support from the mentor can encompass several topics, such as introduction to a community, learning about a culture, giving advice about education or work and/or providing social and emotional support (Erickson et al., 2009; Van Dam et al., 2017). Besides, the mentor could also be a role model, especially for those youth who have negative experiences with caregivers or other adults in the past. Because of the new, positive relationship with the mentor, the mentee learns that positive relationships with older persons are possible (Rhodes, Contreras & Mangelsdorf, 1994; Southwick, Morgan, Vythilingam & Charney, 2007). Thoughts about role models can be adjusted, causing the mentee to gain new, positive experiences (DuBois & Silverthorn, 2005; Rhodes, Reddy, Roffman & Grossman, 2005).
Since 1997, the Nightingale mentoring program is part of a European network of mentoring programs. It found its origin in Malmö, Sweden, where students of the university of Malmö became mentor of younger children from foreign origin. In the region of Catalonia, Spain, the Nightingale program was introduced in 2006 as well as in eight other European countries. The Nightingale project, Rossinyol in Catalan, has an intensive training course at the beginning of each academic year. The mentors are getting more knowledge about social inclusion, immigration, interculturality, (cultural) diversity and overall mentoring tasks. After the training course, the mentor will spend three hours a week with the mentee. In those meetings, the couples develop a personal relationship while doing leisure activities. Secondly, the mentors teach the mentees Catalan language and culture (Feu, 2015; Prieto-Flores, Feu & Casademont, 2016). Furthermore, the mentor can become a positive role model, providing support and guidance by enhancing a strong and personal relationship with the mentee. By caring and providing emotional support, the mentor can turn previous negative experiences with adults into positive relationships, especially for mentees who had unsatisfactory relationships (e.g., with family or parents) in the past (Rhodes et al., 2005).
A considerable amount of literature has been published about mentoring. These studies primarily focused on the social, emotional and academic outcomes of mentoring. Results from several studies showed a small significant and positive effect of mentoring on youth outcomes (DuBois et al., 2002; DuBois et al., 2011). Several studies examined the effectiveness of formal mentoring programs in youth at risk, showing small but significant effects on (re)offending (Jolliffe & Farrington, 2007; Tolan et al., 2013), and academic outcomes (Wheeler & DuBois, 2010).
As much as children differ from each other, so are mentoring relationships. Not all the relationships will be as positive and deeply connected, and could even have negative effects on the mentee (Grossman, Chan, Schwartz, & Rhodes, 2012; Hurd, Varner, & Rowley, 2013; Parra, DuBois, Neville, Pugh‐Lilly, & Povinelli, 2002; Rhodes et al., 2006). All those studies showed effects of mentoring programs, but the mechanisms that are thought to be responsible for positive effects are not fully understood yet. To identify factors that are associated with effective mentoring, relationship processes should be examined because several studies have highlighted relationship length as an important factor for more positive outcomes (DuBois et al., 2002; Grossman et al., 2012). For example, Grossman et al. (2012) found that longer relationships between mentor and mentee were associated with more positive outcomes for the mentee. Also, Grossman and Rhodes (2002) found stronger effects for mentoring programs on positive youth outcomes when the relationship between the mentee and mentor persisted for longer than one year. Additionally, relationship quality appears to be an important antecedent of relationship length and more positive outcomes, because it can influence how long the mentor and mentee are willing to continue their relationship (Goldner & Mayseless, 2009). Moreover, Rhodes et al. (2005) created a model about the importance of youth mentoring, where strong interpersonal connections between the mentor and mentee are
considered to be highly important for creating positive youth outcomes in mentoring programs.
Recently, Van Dam et al. (2018) found a significant association between quality of informal mentoring relationships and youth outcomes in a meta-analysis of 24 independent studies. This finding supports the idea that quality of the (natural) mentoring relationship is significantly associated with more positive youth outcomes. In another relevant study, Goldner and Mayseless (2009) found that the formal mentoring relationship was positively associated with more favorable youth outcomes. A mentee who scored himself higher on closeness to the mentor also scored higher on well-being, social support and learning. In addition, a relation was found between closeness, reported by the mentee, and the improvement in social functioning, as reported by the teacher. There is still uncertainty, however, about the effect of the quality of the relationship between a mentor and mentee on youth outcomes in community-based mentoring programs, especially with respect to psychosocial problems. It would be relevant to ascertain whether the outcomes of earlier research, mostly conducted in the United States, can be generalized to other parts of the world, such as Southwestern Europe. Besides, it would also be relevant to explore limitations and possibilities of mentoring relationships in other cultures.
This study examined the association between mentor-mentee relationship quality and internalizing and externalizing psychosocial problems. We hypothesized that higher relationship quality between a formal mentor and mentee would be related to less psychosocial problems. Furthermore, this study examined exploratory (background)variables such as age, sex, the duration and length of the mentor program and the possibility of changes in the mentor and mentee pairs. At last, relationship length and the number of meetings were included as control variables. We hypothesized that relationship length and number of
meetings would be positively associated with the quality of the relationship between mentor and mentee.
Method Participants
The participants of this study (N = 46) are mentees and mentors who participated in the Nightingale Mentoring program. When looked at the data, four mentors were excluded because it was not possible to match them with a mentee, leaving 21 mentor-mentee couples for the statistical analyses. All the mentors and mentees were inhabitants of the department of Girona. Overall, there are nine regions in the department of Girona.
Of the total of 25 mentees, six mentees were from the city of Girona (24%), four from Olot (16%) and the rest from other regions. About half of the mentees were girls (n = 12, 48%) and 52% were boys (n = 13). The mean age of the mentees was 12.88 (n = 24, range 9-16, SD = 1.73). Seven mentees were born in Honduras (28%), five in Spain (20%), two in Gambia, Bolivia and Ukraine (8% each). The others were born in Morocco, Uruguay, Argentina, Venezuela, The Netherlands or India.
The 21 mentors who participated in the current study are mostly woman (76.2%). Most of the mentors are born in Spain (66.7%). The seven other mentors are born in other countries, such as China, Peru or Russia (33.3%). When looked at the regions of Girona, four of the mentors participated in the city of Girona (19%) and Olot (19%). Furthermore, 14.3% of the mentors participated in Santa Coloma and Palamos (14.3%).
The Nightingale mentoring program is a community-based mentoring program which is part of a European network of mentoring programs. It found its origin in Malmö, Sweden, where students of the university of Malmö became mentor of children from foreign origin. In the region of Catalonia, Spain, the Nightingale program was introduced in 2006. In this program, college students were matched with children between 10-16 years old with immigrant background. Before the program starts, the mentors receive an intensive training course. In this training course, the mentors are getting more knowledge about social inclusion, immigration, interculturality, (cultural) diversity and overall mentoring tasks. After the training course, the mentor and mentee will spend about three hours per week together from October to May. It is relevant to mention that in this mentoring program, where the mentor is a role model for children, there is also attention for the mentees’ family, friends and culture. Measures
Relationship quality between mentor and mentee. The quality of the relationship between mentor and mentee was measured by the Strength of Relationship scales, which consists out the Mentor Strength of Relationship Scale (MSoR) and the Youth Strength of Relationship Scale (YSoR) (Rhodes, Schwartz, Willis, & Wu, 2017). The original scales were in English, but were translated to Catalan by a staff member of the Nightingale project. For this study the word ´little´ was replaced by ´mentee´ and ‘big’ was replaced by ‘mentor’.
The MSoR scale consists of 14 questions that record both the negative and positive experiences in the relationship with the mentee. For example: ´I think my mentee and I are well-matched´ or ´I expected that being a mentor would be more fun than it actually is´. All the questions were scored on a 5-point Likert scale, from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The internal consistency of the MSoR was good (Cronbachs α = 0.86).
The YSoR scale was filled in by the mentee and consisted of 10 items. For example, ´My relationship with my mentor is very important to me´ and ´When I´m with my mentor, I
feel bored´. These items were also scored on a 5-point Likert scale, from 1 (not at all true) to 5 (always true). The internal consistency was good (Cronbachs α = 0.84).
Both scales used a number of negatively formulated items. These items were coded, so that a higher score reflects a more positive relationship. In addition, the average score for both scales was calculated, with a higher average score indicating a higher quality of relationship.
Psychosocial problems. The Brief Problem Monitor for Youth (BPM-Y) was used to measure psychosocial problems (Achenbach, McConaughy, Ivanova, & Rescorla, 2011). The original questionnaire consists of 19 items, divided over 3 scales: internalizing, attention and externalizing problems. For this study, we excluded the scale for attention problems. The remaining 13 items are scored on a 3-point Likert scale, from 0 (not true) to 2 (very true). For example, ‘I argue a lot’ and I am unhappy, sad or depressed’. To visualize the Likert scale answer options, the ‘Resilience Monkeys’ were used (Ungar & Liebenberg, 2011). The internal reliability for this study on the externalizing scale was marginally reliably, with Cronbachs α = .64 for mentees and Cronbachs α = .57 for mentors. For the internalizing scale, the reliability was good; Cronbachs α = .76 for mentees and Cronbachs α = .80 for mentors. Furthermore, the original questionnaire is in English, but was translated into Catalan by a staff member of the Nightingale project.
Procedure
The data collection took place during the last month of the Nightingale project. The mentors were first informed of this study by e-mail. Subsequently, the parents of the mentees were approached to give permission for participation in this study. After that, mentors and mentees, who had permission from their parents, filled in the questionnaire via an online link. This took place during a trip with the Nightingale project, where researchers and employees of the project were present to answer practical questions about the questionnaire. It is
important to mention that the mentees filled in the online questionnaire without their mentor in the direct area, to avoid the possible influence of the mentor and social desirability.
Completing the questionnaire was voluntary and all respondents gave permission to use the results for this study. Furthermore, it was communicated that all data were processed anonymously. The final questionnaire consisted of 40 questions for the mentees, and 44 for the mentors, including the items from the questionnaires described above. In addition, 11 questions for the mentees, and 10 questions for the mentors were asked about background variables.
Completing the questionnaire took about approximately 15 minutes. During the data collection the mentor and mentee were asked to fill in the mentors’ birthday, so they could be matched. When several matches could not be made based on the date of birth of the mentor, some more matches were created by an employee of the Nightingale project by using the date of birth of the mentee. Lastly, we were uncertain whether the data of four mentors was correct, because of the fact they filled in the same date of birth. Besides, there was no possibility to match them with a mentee based on other background variables. Due the fact that the mentors filled in questionnaires about the mentees, we were unsure about which mentee was a match with those mentors. Therefore, the data of 4 mentors was excluded in the current study.
Analyses
This study should be considered as a pilot study. Therefore, a significance level of p < .10 was used for all statistical tests. When testing the association between relationship quality and psychosocial problems, mean scores were used, and eventually a correlational analysis was conducted. Furthermore, preliminary analysis was performed to investigate the correlation between background variables, such as gender, length of the relationship and the number of meetings, and outcomes variables.
Results Preliminary analyses
To begin with, the associations between the mentors’ and mentees’ report on the quality of relationship were not significant r(20) = .09, p = .229. This implies that they have different experiences and no shared perception about the quality of the relationship. Subsequently, when relationship quality was reported by mentors, mentee girls had a significant better relationship with their mentors than boys r(21) = .46, p = .035.
Besides, we further examined the association across the mentors’ and mentees’ reported experiences on internalizing and externalizing psychosocial problems. In the first place, no significant associations were found, implying that both mentors and mentees had a different perception of psychosocial problems. Internalizing psychosocial problems showed a correlation of r(20) = .248, p = .146, and externalizing problems r(20) = .10, p = .332. Length of the relationship was significantly and negatively associated with both internalizing (r = -.55, p .006) and externalizing (r = -.50, p = .014) problems, as reported by the mentee, while number of sessions was significantly and negatively associated with externalizing problems (r = -.29, p = .084), as reported by the mentee. No significant associations were found between length of relationship, number of sessions and quality of mentoring relationships. Therefore,
is was not necessary to control for intensity of relationship quality in subsequent correlational analysis of the association between mentor-mentee relationship quality and resilience.
The association between the quality of relationship and psychosocial problems
As hypothesized, there were associations between relationship quality and psychosocial problems. Table 1 shows that there was a significant negative association between relationship quality and internalizing problems on mentors report r(21) = -.30, p = .091. Furthermore, when reported by mentors, there was a significant negative association between relationship quality and mentees’ externalizing problems r(21) = -.36, p = .057.
Table 1 Association between relationship quality and psychosocial problems Variable Mentees’ report
on internalizing psychosocial problems Mentors’ report on internalizing psychosocial problems Mentees’ report on externalizing psychosocial problems Mentors’ report on externalizing psychosocial problems Relationship quality (mentees’ report) .27 .26 .08 -.02 Relationship quality (mentors’ report) -.11 -.30* -.18 -.36* Note. N = 20-24, * p < .10 (one-tailed). Discussion
The present study was designed to determine whether there is an association between relationship quality and psychosocial problems. The results of this study showed that there was a clear association; when reported by mentors, higher scores on relationship quality contributed to less psychosocial problems. A secondary objective of this study was to
determine whether psychosocial problems were affected by background variables (e.g. age, sex, length and number of meetings). As hypothesized, length of the relationship was associated with less internalizing and externalizing problems, and number of sessions was associated with less externalizing problems too, but only if reported by the mentee.
The importance of relationship quality in mentoring programs is consistent with the findings of previous studies, which showed that the quality of relationship contributed to more positive youth outcomes (Goldner & Mayseless, 2009; Van Dam et al., 2018). Furthermore, as expected and similar to previous studies, relationship length is an influential factor for less psychosocial problems (DuBois et al., 2002; Grossman et al., 2012).
One unanticipated finding was that mentees and mentors have different experiences about the association between relationship length and psychosocial problems. When reported by mentees, there are significantly less internalizing and externalizing problems if the length of the relationship is longer. Those findings were consistent with conclusions from research into mentoring relationships (DuBois et al., 2002; Grossman et al., 2012). This result may be explained by the fact that the mentors do not see the mentees as much as mentees see themselves. Mentors only meet the mentees in the context of the mentoring program, while the mentees handle with themselves all day in multiple contexts.
Besides, there is another likely cause for the observed correlation between relationship length and internalizing psychosocial problems when reported by mentees, as has been stated in several other studies. In accordance with the present results, previous studies have demonstrated that self-reports lead to a stronger relation with internalizing problems than peer-reports (Bouman et al., 2012; Graham, Bellmore & Juvonen 2003; Hawker & Boulton, 2000). Similarly, Raposa et al. (2018) found that effect sizes between school and teacher reports vary from self-reports. Self-reports yielding higher effect sizes than other informants.
At last, gender played a role in the extent to which mentors evaluated their relationship quality with mentees. When reported by mentors, girls had a better relationship with their mentor than boys. Due to the fact that in the current study mentors were mostly women (76,2%) and about half of the mentees were boys (52%), this discrepancy in relationship quality may be explained by social learning. Social learning theory assumes that children identify more easily with caregivers of the same gender (Bussey & Bandura, 1999). Also, research on informal mentoring showed that mentor characteristics contributed to the quality of the mentoring relationship. Namely, when the mentor was more familiar with the mentees’ personal background, for example same gender, they were able to offer more appropriate guidance (Whitney, Hendricker, & Offutt, 2011). Furthermore, mentee boys and girls tend to participate in mentoring programs for different reasons. Mentee boys often search for a male role model, whereas girls participate more often because of relational problems with
caregivers (Rhodes, 2002). Looking at the percentage of male mentors (23,8%) in the current study, it is possible that relationship quality with mentee boys could be improved with more male mentors.
Surprisingly, our study showed that there was no shared perspective between mentors and mentees on relationship quality. A possible explanation for this result may be the lack of adequate matching. Given that relationship quality between mentor and mentee was significantly associated with less psychosocial problems, it is important that mentoring programs give more attention to the matching process, because adequate matching may increase relationship quality (Eby et al., 2013). For example, by matching the mentor and mentee based on cultural and personal background variables.
Despite the fact that proper matching is the base of the relationship, attention should be payed to the development of the relationship itself. If the relationship does not prosper during the program, it is unlikely that the relationship will lead to positive outcomes (Collins
& Miller, 1994). Moreover, research into mind-mindedness supposed that it can be seen as an important part of the relationship quality between caregiver and child (Barreto, Fearon, Osório, Meins, & Martins, 2016). Mind-mindedness is defined as a proclivity from caregivers to approach children as individuals with their own minds and abilities (Meins, 1997). Hereby, there is a task for the caregiver to respond to the mental state of the child and name feelings, wishes, desires and thoughts of the child in an appropriate way (Colonnesi et al., 2013; Colonnesi, Polanen, Tavechhio & Fukkink, 2017). Hence, it is conceivable that these findings could be extrapolated to mentors as caregivers for the mentees. Therefore, it may be that mentors and mentees will benefit from a mind-mindedness training during the program. Regarding this, a training in mind-mindedness could enhance the ability of mentors to react more adequately to the mentees’ emotions and thoughts and make the relationship stronger.
Although the given results and the innovative character of this study, there are also several limitations that should be mentioned. To start with, the study lacks power due a relatively low number of respondents. Moreover, the respondents were not randomly selected, and the study did not include a control group. Also, the results only showed the relationship among a single mentoring program, in a specific region of Spain. Therefore, the results could not be generalized to other mentoring programs. Regarding the design of the study, it is noteworthy that the results need to be interpreted with caution because of the correlational nature. Besides, other variables could possible been unseen and could have impact on the outcomes.
In spite of these limitations, this study provides important implications for developing further research. Firstly, future studies with a larger number of respondents are needed for the confirmation of findings of the current study. Secondly, with the use of mixed-methods for collecting data, more relevant information would be available (Hoogsteder & Dias, 2016). More specifically, using more than only questionnaires is recommended, because a recent
meta-analysis into mentoring showed that questionnaires cause significantly larger effect sizes than other research methods (Raposa et al., 2018). Besides questionnaires, applying observations to score relationship quality could be interesting because there will be less subjectivity than by the questionnaire answers from respondents (Bryman, 2012). Thirdly, implying pre- and posttests could provide a better understanding of changes in relationship quality and psychosocial problems over time, and could lead to dynamic transactional data. Lastly, further studies could assess the long-term effects of relationship quality between mentor and mentees on psychosocial problems, by implementing follow-ups after a longer period of time, preferably in a (quasi-)experimental study.
In sum, this study provides an innovative contribution to the research field of (formal) mentoring programs and reveals the importance of researching this topic. Moreover, we believe that mentoring studies in general, and this one in particular, give high value and meaning to the hundreds of mentoring projects that are being carried out around the world. In addition, it should be noted that this is the first study that increased knowledge on the
association between relationship quality and psychosocial problems by mentees in formal mentoring programs in South-western Europe. Besides, it is also one of the first studies that examined relationship quality and psychosocial problems from the perspective of both the mentor and mentee.
Most studies on formal mentoring programs have been carried out in the USA, showing small but positive effects on several youth outcomes. Notably, in the domain of externalizing behavior problems there is empirical evidence showing that evidence-based interventions in the USA can be transported to Europe without loss of effectiveness. It would be interesting to examine whether this is also true for formal mentoring programs targeting both internalizing and externalizing problems, and if quality of mentor-mentee relationships is a moderator or mediator of the effectiveness of these programs. We conclude that given
recent empirical evidence for the effectiveness of both informal and formal mentoring in recent meta-analysis (Raposa et al., 2018; Van Dam et al., 2018), more research on mentoring programs is necessary in Europe, focusing on factors that might further increase the
effectiveness of those programs.
References
Achenbach, T. M., McConaughy, S. H., Ivanova, M. Y., & Rescorla, L. A. (2011). Manual for the ASEBA brief problem monitor (BPM). Burlington, VT: ASEBA, 1-33.
Barreto, A. L., Fearon, R. P., Osório, A., Meins, E., & Martins, C. (2016). Are adult mentalizing abilities associated with mind-mindedness? International Journal of Behavioral Development, 40, 296–30. doi: 10.1177/0165025415616200
Beier, S. R., Rosenfeld, W. D., Spitalny, K. C., Zansky, S. M., & Bontempo, A. N. (2000). The potential role of an adult mentor in influencing high-risk behaviors in
adolescents. Archives of pediatrics & adolescent medicine, 154, 327-331. doi: 10.1001/archpedi:154.4.327
Bouman, T., van der Meulen, M., Goossens, F. A., Olthof, T., Vermande, M. M., & Aleva, E. A. (2012). Peer and self-reports of victimization and bullying: Their differential
association with internalizing problems and social adjustment. Journal of School Psychology, 50, 759-774.
Bryman, A. (2016). Social research methods. Oxford university press.
Bussey, K., & Bandura, A. (1999). Social cognitive theory of gender development and differentiation. Psychological Review, 106, 676–713. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.106.4.676
Collins, N. L., & Miller, L. C. (1994). Self-disclosure and liking: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 457-475. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.116.3.457
Colonnesi, C., Wissink, I. B., Noom, M. J., Asscher, J. J., Hoeve, M., Stams, G. J. J. M., ... Kellaert-Knol, M. G. (2013). Basic trust: an attachment-oriented intervention based on mind-mindedness in adoptive families. Research on Social Work Practice, 23, 179-188. doi: 10.1177/1049731512469301
Colonnesi, C., Van Polanen, M., Tavecchio, L. W., & Fukkink, R. G. (2017).
Mind-mindedness of male and female caregivers in childcare and the relation to sensitivity and attachment: An exploratory study. Infant Behavior and Development, 48, 134-146. doi: 10.1016/j.infbeh.2017.04.006
DuBois, D. L., Holloway, B. E., Valentine, J. C., & Cooper, H. (2002). Effectiveness of mentoring programs for youth: A meta‐analytic review. American journal of community psychology, 30, 157-197. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014628810714
DuBois, D. L., Neville, H. A., Parra, G. R., & Pugh-Lilly, A. O. (2002). Testing a new model of mentoring. New Directions for Student Leadership, 2002, 21-57. doi:
10.1002/yd.23320029305
DuBois, D. L., Portillo, N., Rhodes, J. E., Silverthorn, N., & Valentine, J. C. (2011). How effective are mentoring programs for youth? A systematic assessment of the
evidence. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 12, 57-91. doi: 10.1177/1529100611414806
DuBois, D. L., & Silverthorn, N. (2005). Characteristics of natural mentoring relationships and adolescent adjustment: Evidence from a national study. Journal of Primary Prevention, 26, 69-92. doi: 10.1007/s10935-005-1832-4
Eby, L. T. D. T., Allen, T. D., Hoffman, B. J., Baranik, L. E., Sauer, J. B., Baldwin, S., ... & Evans, S. C. (2013). An interdisciplinary meta-analysis of the potential antecedents,
correlates, and consequences of protégé perceptions of mentoring. Psychological blletin, 139(2), 441. doi: 10.1037/a0029279
Erickson, L. D., McDonald, S., & Elder Jr, G. H. (2009). Informal mentors and education: Complementary or compensatory resources? Sociology of education, 82, 344-367. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/003804070908200403
Feu, J. (2015). How an intervention project contributes to social inclusion of adolescents and young people of foreign origin. Children and youth services review, 52, 144-149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2014.11.008
Freedman, M. (1993). The kindness of strangers: Adult mentors, urban youth, and the new volunteerism. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Goldner, L., & Mayseless, O. (2008). Juggling the roles of parents, therapists, friends and teachers–a working model for an integrative conception of mentoring. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 16, 412-428.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13611260802433783
Goldner, L., & Mayseless, O. (2009). The quality of mentoring relationships and mentoring success. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38, 1339-1350. doi:10.1007/ s10964-008-9345-0
Graham, S., Bellmore, A., & Juvonen, J. (2003). Peer victimization in middle school: When self-and peer views diverge. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 19, 117-137. https://doi.org/10.1300/J008v19n02_08
Grossman, J. B., Chan, C. S., Schwartz, S. E., & Rhodes, J. E. (2012). The test of time in school‐based mentoring: The role of relationship duration and re‐matching on academic outcomes. American Journal of Community Psychology, 49, 43-54. doi:
Grossman, J. B., & Rhodes, J. E. (2002). The test of time: Predictors and effects of duration in youth mentoring relationships. American journal of community psychology, 30, 199-219. doi: 10.1023/A:1014680827552
Hawker, D. S., & Boulton, M. J. (2000). Twenty years' research on peer victimization and psychosocial maladjustment: A meta-analytic review of cross-sectional studies. The Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 41, 441-455. doi: 10.1111/1469-7610.00629
Hurd, N. M., & Zimmerman, M. A. (2010). Natural mentoring relationships among
adolescent mothers: A study of resilience. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 20(3), 789-809. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-7795.2010.00660.x
Hurd, N. M., Varner, F. A., & Rowley, S. J. (2013). Involved-vigilant parenting and socio-emotional well-being among black youth: The moderating influence of natural mentoring relationships. Journal of youth and adolescence, 42, 1583-1595. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10
Jolliffe, D., & Farrington, D. P. (2007). A rapid evidence assessment of the impact of mentoring on re-offending: A summary. London: Home Office.
Leijten, P., Melendez-Torres, G. J., Knerr, W., & Gardner, F. (2016). Transported versus homegrown parenting interventions for reducing disruptive child behavior: A multilevel meta-regression study. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 55, 610-617. doi:10.1016/j.jaac.2016.05.003
Meins, E. (1997). Security of attachment and maternal tutoring strategies: Interaction within the zone of proximal development. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 15, 129–144. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-835X.1997.tb00730.x
Parra, G. R., DuBois, D. L., Neville, H. A., Pugh‐Lilly, A. O., & Povinelli, N. (2002).
Mentoring relationships for youth: Investigation of a process‐oriented model. Journal of community psychology, 30, 367-388. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.10016
Prieto-Flores, Ò., Feu, J., & Casademont, X. (2016). Assessing Intercultural Competence as a Result of Internationalization at Home Efforts: A Case Study From the Nightingale Mentoring Program. Journal of Studies in International Education, 20, 437-453. doi: 10.1177/1028315316662977
Raposa, E. B., Dietz, N., & Rhodes, J. E. (2017). Trends in volunteer mentoring in the United States: Analysis of a decade of census survey data. American Journal of Community Psychology, 59, 3-14. doi: 10.1002/ajcp.12117
Raposa, E.B., Stams, G. J. J. M., Card, N., Schwartz, S. E. O., Burton, S., Sykes, l. Y., Kanchewa, S., Kupersmidt, J., Hussein, S., & Rhodes, J. (2018). The effects of youth mentoring programs: A meta-analysis of outcome studies. Submitted
Rhodes, J. E., Contreras, J. M., & Mangelsdorf, S. C. (1994). Natural mentor relationships among Latina adolescent mothers: Psychological adjustment, moderating processes, and the role of early parental acceptance. American Journal of Community Psychology, 22, 211-227. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02506863
Rhodes, J., Reddy, R., Roffman, J., & Grossman, J. B. (2005). Promoting successful youth mentoring relationships: A preliminary screening questionnaire. Journal of Primary Prevention, 26, 147-167. doi: 10.1007/s10935-005-1849-8
Rhodes, J. E. (2002). Stand by me: The risks and rewards of mentoring today’s youth. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Rhodes, J., Schwartz, S., Willis, M. M. & Wu, M. V. (2017) Validating a mentoring
relationship quality scale: Does match strength predict match length? Youth & Society, 49, 415-437. doi: 10.1177/0044118X14531604
Rhodes, J. E., Spencer, R., Keller, T. E., Liang, B., & Noam, G. (2006). A model for the influence of mentoring relationships on youth development. Journal of community psychology, 34, 691-707. doi: 10.1002/jcop.20124
Southwick, S. M., Morgan, C. A., Vythilingam, M., & Charney, D. (2007). Mentors enhance resilience in at-risk children and adolescents. Psychoanalytic Inquiry, 26, 577-584. doi: 10.1080/07351690701310631
Schwartz, S. E. O., & Rhodes, J.E. (2016). From treatment to empowerment: New approaches to youth mentoring. American Journal of Community Psychology, 58, 150-157. doi: 10.1002/ajcp.12070
Tolan, P., Henry, D., Schoeny, M., Bass, A., Lovegrove, P., & Nichols, E. (2013). Mentoring interventions to affect juvenile delinquency and associated problems: A systematic review. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 9. doi: 10.4073/csr.2008.16
Ungar, M., & Liebenberg, L., (2011). Assessing resilience across cultures using mixed-methods: Construction of the child and youth resilience measure-28. Journal of Mixed-Methods Research, 5, 126-149. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.04.301
Van Dam, L. V., Neels, S., de Winter, M., Branje, S., Wijsbroek, S., Hutschemaekers, G., & Stams, G. J. (2017). Youth initiated mentors: Do they offer an alternative for out-of-home placement in youth care? The British Journal of Social Work, 47, 1764-1780. doi: 10.1093/bjsw/bcx092
Van Dam, L., Wildschut, B., Smit, D., Branje, S., Rhodes, J., Assink, M., Stams, G. J., (2018). Does natural mentoring matter? A multilevel meta-analysis on the association between natural mentoring and youth outcomes. American Journal of Community Psychology, 0, 1-18. doi: 10.1002/ajcp.12248
Wheeler, M. E., & DuBois, D. L. (2010). Recent Randomized Trials of School-Based Mentoring: Making Sense of Mixed Findings”.
Whitney, S. D., Hendricker, E. N., & Offutt, C. A. (2011). Moderating factors of natural mentoring relationships, problem behaviors, and emotional well-being. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 19, 83-105. doi: 10.1080/13611267.2011.543573. Zimmerman, M. A., Bingenheimer, J. B., & Behrendt, D. E. (2005). Natural mentoring
relationships. Handbook of youth mentoring, 143-157.
Zimmerman, M. A., Bingenheimer, J. B., & Notaro, P. C. (2002). Natural mentors and adolescent resiliency: A study with urban youth. American journal of community psychology, 30, 221-243. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014632911622
