Is relationship quality between mentor and mentee related to resilience?

Is Relationship Quality Between Mentor and Mentee Related to Resilience?

Masterthesis Forensische Orthopedagogiek Graduate School of Child Development and Education University of Amsterdam Kristel Brekelmans (11371951) 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 in formal mentoring relationships and youth resilience. 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 significantly and positively associated with resilience, both in reports of mentors and mentees. This study demonstrated that relationship quality between mentor and mentee can play an important role in the development of resilience. Implications for further research on the quality of the formal mentoring relationships are discussed.

Is Relationship Quality Between Mentor and Mentee Related to Resilience?

Mentor relationships are one of the most important relationships that children develop with people other than their parents, such as teachers, neighbors or volunteers (Klaw & Rhodes, 1995). Research showed that a supportive relationship with a non-parental adult can have a positive effect on youth development (Raposa et al., 2018; Van Dam et al., 2018). In addition, it can be a protective factor for various negative behaviors, for instance, buffering against drug use and school failure (DuBois, Portillo, Rhodes, Silverthorn, & Valentine, 2011).

Mentoring relationships are generally characterized as a supporting and strong relationship between a youth and a non-parental adult (Rhodes, 2002). A distinction can be made between formal and informal mentoring. In informal mentoring, the mentor is a familiar person (e.g., relative, neighbor or friend) from the pre-existing social network of the mentee (Hurd & Zimmerman, 2010a). For youth, it is not always easy to find a suitable person in their own network who could act as a mentor. For them, formal mentoring could be a solution.

In formal mentoring programs, the mentor and the meetings between a mentor and a mentee could be initiated by a school or community, so the youth does not have to arrange it himself. Those programs are likely focused on youth who are at risk for poor developmental outcomes (Schwartz & Rhodes, 2016). As with informal mentoring, there can be a lot of variation in formal mentoring programs, but most programs share the goal of matching children with non-parental volunteers who are trained to provide support (Allen & Eby, 2007; Raposa, Dietz, & Rhodes, 2017).

Youth mentoring programs have become extremely popular during the past years. It is estimated that there are now yearly 2.5 million mentors in the United States who are matched with a mentee through a mentoring program (Raposa et al., 2017). Even though mentoring programs seem to have a positive effect on youth development, the effects vary between

different studies (Raposa et al., 2018). A recent meta-analysis on informal mentoring showed that although the presence of an informal mentor proved to be significantly associated with positive youth outcomes, almost a double effect size was found when the quality of the relationship was taken into account (Van Dam et al., 2018). This emphasizes the importance of relationship quality in informal mentoring relationships. Nevertheless, little is known about the extent to which relationship quality positive influences these outcomes in formal

mentoring programs (Rhodes, Spencer, Keller, Liang, & Noam, 2006; Wheeler, Keller, & Dubois, 2010). It can be hypothesized that relationship quality is even more important in formal mentoring, because the mentor and mentee do not know each other before the start of the program. There still has to evolve a bond, in which trust, empathy, respect, sensitivity and attunement are important. Without this bond, it is unlikely that the relationship will lead to positive outcomes (Collins & Miller, 1994). To maximize the effects of formal mentoring programs, more research on the effect of relationship quality on youth outcomes is needed.

Mentoring programs can be described as relation-based interventions (Rhodes, Grossman, & Roffman, 2002), where the relationship between two people is an important working principle. Considering the fact that the relationship between two people also forms the basis in many therapies, the relationship between mentor and mentee is sometimes

described on the basis of working alliance (Rhodes, Schwartz, Willis, & Wu, 2017). Working alliance is defined as an affective bond and collaboration (i.e., agreement on tasks and goals) between therapist and client, which may be affected by the internal working model of

attachment of both mentor and mentee (Bordin, 1979; Elvins & Green, 2008; Zack, Castonguay, & Boswell, 2007).

Meta-analyses on working alliance showed that there is a significant relation between a strong working alliance and positive therapy outcomes in child psychotherapy (Karver, Handelsman, Fields, & Bickman, 2006; McLeod, 2011; Shirk & Karver, 2003; Roest,

Welmers van de Pol, Hoeve, & Stams, 2018). These findings suggest that when youth, in a mentoring relationship, have a more positive working alliance with their mentor, they will benefit from more positive outcomes. Furthermore, it can be hypothesized by attachment theory that a mentor, who is characterized as consistent and responsive, can provide more stability and predictability in the life of the mentee. If the mentee knows that the mentor will support and protect him in times of danger, the mentee will experience a sense of security from which he can start to explore and develop more knowledge and skills (Bowlby, 1988; Rhodes et al., 2006; Zilberstein & Spencer, 2017). Overall, these theories highlight the working principles and importance of the relationship between mentor and mentee for the contribution to more positive outcomes.

Like other relationships, the relationship between mentor and mentee can vary in closeness and duration. Not all the relationships will be as positive and deeply connected and could even have negative effects on the mentee (Grossman & Rhodes, 2002). Several studies have highlighted relationship length as an important factor for more positive outcomes (DuBois, Neville, Parra, & Pugh-lilly, 2002; Grossman, Chan, Schwartz, & Rhodes, 2012). For example, Grossman et al. (2012) found that longer relationships between mentor and mentee were associated with more positive youth outcomes. Moreover, relationship quality appeared 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).

As mentioned before, mentoring programs can be a protective factor for various negative behaviors (DuBois et al., 2011). However, it is still not fully understood which mechanisms contribute to these outcomes. Resilience theory may be an important framework explaining these mechanisms. Resilience can be described as a process of adaption of youth who have been exposed to one or more risk factors (Hurd & Zimmerman, 2010a; Masten,

2011; Ungar, 2015). There is also a role for the environment of the individual, which helps the individual in interactive processes to avoid potential threat to the development of the

individual (Fergus & Zimmerman, 2005). As suggested by resilience theory, risk factors increase the chance of developing negative outcomes. In contrast, protective factors can contribute to positive outcomes or buffer against negative outcomes. These protective factors can be present in the personality of the youth, but can also come from the environment. For example, the presence of a mentor may be a protective factor (Hurd & Zimmerman, 2010a; Southwick, Morgan, Vythilingam, & Charney, 2007).

Given that a mentoring relationship can buffer against negative outcomes, research has been done into how mentoring may contribute to resilience in African American adolescents (Hurd & Zimmerman, 2010b) and employees (Kao, Rogers, Spitzmueller, Lin, & Lin, 2014). However, to the best of our knowledge, the association between quality of mentoring

relationships and resilience in youth mentoring programs has not been studied yet. As expected, Kao et al. (2014) found that having a mentor was positively associated with resilience in a work environment. It is important to notice that the respondents did not

participate in a formal mentoring program, but ‘mentor’ was defined as a person who provides the employee support. Furthermore, longitudinal research among African American adults indicated that having an informal mentor contributes to resilience (Hurd & Zimmerman, 2010b). Respondents with an informal mentor turned out to show less depressive symptoms and less sexual risk behavior over time than respondents without a mentor. Overall, these findings from Hurd and Zimmerman (2010b) assume that having a mentor can buffer against negative outcomes.

In conclusion, there is still uncertainty about the effect of quality of the relationship between mentor and mentee on youth outcomes in community-based mentoring programs, in particular with regard to resilience. It would be relevant to ascertain whether the outcome of

earlier research on relationship quality between mentor and mentee, mostly conducted in the United States, can be generalized to other parts of the world, such as Southwestern Europa. In this context, specific attention should be paid to the association between quality of the

mentoring relationship and resilience in a formal mentoring program.

The primary goal of the present study was to examine the association between mentoring relationship quality and resilience. We hypothesized that relationship quality between mentors and mentees would be positively associated with resilience. Furthermore, this study explored different background variables, such as gender, relationship length and number of meetings. Moreover, relationship length and number of meetings, as measures for the intensity of the relationship, were included in this study as control variables. We

hypothesized that relationship length and number of meetings would be positively associated with mentor-mentee relationship quality and resilience

Method Participants

The participants of this study (N = 46) were mentees and mentors who participated in the Nightingale Mentoring program. 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 years (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 research were mostly woman (76.2%). Most of the mentors were born in Spain (66.7%). The seven other mentors were born in other countries, such as China, Peru or Russia (33.3%). When looking 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%).

Setting

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 mentors 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 mentors are 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 with the Strength of Relationship scales, which consists out the Mentor Strength of Relationship Scale (MSoR) and the Youth Strength of Relationship Scale (YSoR) (Rhodes et al., 2017). The original scales were in English, but

were translated into 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 (α = .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). As with the MSoR, a good internal consistency was found for the YSoR in the current study (α = .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 higher relationship quality.

Resilience. The Child and Youth Resilience Measure (CYRM) was used in this study to measure resilience of the mentee (Ungar & Liebenberg, 2011). The original

questionnaire consists of 28 questions, but in this study, we used the shortened questionnaires of 12 items (Liebenberg, Ungar, & LeBlanc, 2013). Furthermore, the shortened questionnaires were in English, but were translated into Catalan by a staff member of the Nightingale project.

The mentee filled in the 12 items of the CYRM child version. For example, ´My friends stand by me during difficult times´ and ‘My parent(s)/caregiver(s) know a lot about me´. The items were scored on a 5-point scale, from 1 (not at all) to 5 (a lot). In the current study we found a moderately good internal consistency for the CYRM filled in by the mentees

(α = .71). To visualize the 5 answer options, the ‘Resilience Smiley Faces’ were used (Ungar & Liebenberg, 2011).

Additionally, the mentor filled in the CYRM-PMK, which is designed for caregivers or persons who play an important role in the life of the mentees (Ungar & Liebenberg, 2011). The mentors answered 12 items about the mentee, such as: ‘The mentee has people he/she looks up to’ and ‘The mentee’ s caregiver(s) will stand by him/her during difficult times’. In this study, the word ‘youth’ was replaced by ‘mentee’. The items were scored on a 5-point scale, from 1 (not at all) to 5 (a lot). Moreover, negatively formulated items were reverse coded, so that a higher score reflects a higher resilience score. The internal consistency, in terms of Cronbach’s standardized items alpha, was .86

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 would be 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 as 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 using the date of birth of the mentee. At last, 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 matched with those mentors. Therefore, the data of 4 mentors were excluded in the current study.

Analyses

This study must be seen 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 resilience, mean scores were used, and eventually a correlational analysis was conducted. Furthermore, this study also included preliminary analyses of associations between various background variables, such as gender and intensity of the relationship (length and number of meetings) and outcomes variables (relationship quality and resilience).

Results Preliminary analyses

First of all, the associations between mentors’ and mentees’ report on relationship quality were not significant r(20) = .09, p = .229 (one-tailed). Also, no significant association was found between their perceptions of resilience r(18) = .08, p = .378 (one-tailed). These findings suggest that mentors and mentees had different experiences and no shared

perspective on the quality of their relationship and resilience.

Further analyses showed that, as hypothesized, some background variables were associated with better outcomes on relationship quality and resilience. For example,

relationship length (r = .48, p = .023) and number of meetings (r = .53, p = .010), when reported by the mentee, were significantly associated with higher scores on resilience. Interestingly, this association was not found when reported by mentors and no significant associations were found between the intensity of the relationship and relationship quality. Therefore, is was not necessary to control for intensity of relationship quality in subsequent correlational analyses of the association between mentor-mentee relationship quality and resilience. Furthermore, if relationship quality was reported by mentors, girls did show a better relationship with their mentor than boys r(21) = .46, p = .035 (two-tailed).

Association between the quality of relationship and resilience

As hypothesized, and as can be seen from the correlations in Table 1, respondents who reported high levels of relationship quality also reported significantly more resilience. For example, relationship quality as reported by mentees was significantly and positively associated with better resilience outcomes, r(23) = .29, p = .087. Additionally, there was an even larger significant correlation between mentor-mentee relationship quality and resilience, as reported by mentors r(20) = .67, p = .001.

Table 1 Association between the quality of relationship and resilience

Outcomes Resilience (mentees’ report) Resilience (mentors’ report) Mentees’ report on relationship quality .29* .09 Mentors’ report on relationship quality .12 .67***

Discussion

The current study examined the relation between mentor-mentee relationship quality and the mentees’ resilience. The results of this study indicated that high levels of relationship quality were associated with higher levels of resilience. This association was found in both mentor and mentee reports after participation in the Nightingale project. Moreover, intensity of the relationship (relationship length and number of meetings) was associated with more resilience if reported by mentees, but not with relationship quality.

These results support previous research into mentoring relationships, which indicated that having a mentor contributes to resilience (Hurd & Zimmerman, 2010b). In addition, when specifically looked at the quality of the relationship, several prior studies showed that the quality of the relationship contributed to more positive youth outcomes (Goldner & Mayseless, 2009; Van Dam et al., 2018).

Furthermore, the finding that relationship length and number of meetings were related to more resilience is consistent with conclusions from earlier conducted research into

mentoring relationships (DuBois et al., 2002; Grossman et al., 2012). Surprisingly, the current study found that relationship length and number of meetings only had a significant effect when reported by mentees. A possible explanation for this might be that mentees see themselves in multiple contexts, while the mentor can only observe the change in resilience during agreed meetings. Besides, it should be noted that effect sizes can vary significantly across informants, where in general youth self-report showed larger effect sizes than when reported by other informants (Raposa et al., 2018).

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, the present 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 and positively associated with resilience, it is important that formal mentoring programs give more attention to the matching process, because adequate matching may increase relationship quality (Eby et al., 2013). For example, by matching mentors and mentees based on cultural and personal background variables.

Despite the fact that proper matching is the base of the relationship, attention should be also payed to the development of the relationship. 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 mind-mindedness can be seen as an important part of 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 caregivers 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., 2012; 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. For example, because it could enhance the ability of mentors to react more adequately to the mentees’ emotions and thoughts and make the relationship stronger.

Although this pilot study sheds light on the association between relationship quality and resilience, some limitations should be mentioned. To start with, the study lacks power due a relatively low number of respondents. Moreover, not all the participants of the Nightingale project joined the current study, and they were not randomly selected. For this reason, the results cannot be generalized to other mentoring programs. In fact, it only showed the relation among a single mentoring program in a specific region of Spain. 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 are possible unseen and could have impact on the outcomes.

Despite these limitations, this study provides important implications for developing further research. First, further studies with a larger number of respondents are needed to be carried out in order to confirm the findings of the current study. If possible, it is recommended to use other methods of assessment. A recent meta-analysis into mentoring programs showed that questionnaires cause significantly larger effect sizes than behavioral observation (Raposa et al., 2018). Second, a longitudinal study with a pre- and posttest can provide a better

understanding of changes in relationship quality and resilience over time. A further study could also assess the long-term effects of the relationship between mentor and mentee on resilience by implementing follow-ups after a longer period, preferably in a (quasi)

experimental study. Last, given the above implications, further studies are needed to validate the effect of relationship quality on, especially, resilience.

In sum, this study was conducted to increase knowledge on the association between relationship quality and mentees’ resilience who participated in formal mentoring programs. Considering the results and the fact this association does not seem to have been studied before, this research can be seen as an innovative contribution to research on formal mentoring.

References

Allen, T. D., & Eby, L. T. T. (2007). The Blackwell handbook of mentoring: A multiple perspectives approach. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

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

Bordin, E. S. (1979). The generalizability of the psychoanalytic concept of the working alliance. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research & Practice, 16, 252-260.

doi:10.1037/h0085885

Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base: Parent-child attachment and healthy human development. New York: Basic Books.

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., 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? Asystematic assessment of the evidence. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 12, 57–91.

doi:10.1177/1529100611414806

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 bulletin, 139, 441. doi: 10.1037/a0029279

Elvins, R. & Green, J. (2008). The conceptualization and measurement of therapeutic alliance: An empirical overview. Clinical Psychology Review, 28, 1167–1187.

doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2008.04.002

Fergus, S., & Zimmerman, M. A. (2005). Adolescent resilience: A framework for

understanding healthy development in the face of risk. Annual Review of Public Health, 26, 399–419. doi: 10.1146/annurev.publhealth.26.021304.144357

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

Goodman, R. (1997). The strengths and difficulties questionnaire: A research note. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 38, 581-586. doi: 10.111/j.1469-7610.1997.tb01545.x Grossman, J. B., Chan, C., Schwartz, S. E. O., & Rhodes, J. E. (2012). The test of time in

outcomes. American Journal of Community Psychology, 49, 43-54. doi: 10.1007/s10464-011-9435-0

Grossman, J. B., & Rhodes, J. E. (2002). The test of time: Predictors and effects of duration in youth mentoring programs. American Journal of Community Psychology, 30, 199-206. doi: 10.1023/A:1014680827552

Hurd, N. M., & Zimmerman, M. A. (2010a). Natural mentoring relationships among adolescent mothers: A study of resilience. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 20, 789-809. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-7795.2010.00660.x

Hurd, N. M., & Zimmerman, M. A. (2010b). Natural mentors, mental health and risk behaviors: A longitudinal analysis of African American adolescents transitioning into adulthood. American Journal of Community Psychology, 46, 36-48. doi:

10.1007/s10464-010-9325-x

Kao, K. Y., Rogers, A., Spitzmueller, C., Lin, M. T., & Lin, C. H. (2014). Who should serve as my mentor? The effects of mentor's gender and supervisory status on resilience in mentoring relationships. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 85, 191-203. doi:

10.1016/j.jvb.2014.07.004

Karver, M. S., Handelsman, J. B., Fields, S., & Bickman, L. (2006). Meta-analysis of therapeutic relationship variables in youth and family therapy: The evidence for

different relationship variables in the child and adolescent treatment outcome literature. Clinical Psychology Review, 26, 50-65. doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2005.09.001

Klaw, E. L., & Rhodes, J. E. (1995). Mentor relationships and the career development of pregnant and parenting African-American teenagers. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 19, 551–562. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-6402.1995.tb00092.x.

Liebenberg, L., Ungar, M., &LeBlanc, J. C. (2013). The CYRM-12: A brief measure of resilience. Canadian Public Health Association, 104, 131-135. doi:

10.17269/cjph.104.3657

Masten, A. (2011). Resilience in children threatened by extreme adversity: Frameworks for research, practice, and translational synergy. Development and Psychopathology, 23, 493–506. doi: 10.1017/S0954579411000198

McLeod, B. D. (2011). Relation of the alliance with outcomes in youth psychotherapy: A meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 31, 603-616. doi:

10.1016/j.cpr.2011.02.001

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

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. (2002). Stand by me: The risks and rewards of mentoring today’s youth. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press

Rhodes, J. E., Grossman, J. B., & Roffman, J. (2002). The rhetoric and reality of youth mentoring. New Directions for Student Leadership, 2002, 9-20. doi:

Rhodes, J. E., Schwartz, S. E. O., 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

Roest, J.J., Welmers van de Pol, M., J., Hoeve, M., & Stams, G.J.J.M. (2018). A multi-level meta-analysis of the alliance-outcome association in youth. Submitted

Shirk, S. R., & Karver, M. S. (2003). Prediction of treatment outcome from relationship variables in child and adolescent therapy: A meta-analytic review. Journal of

Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71, 452-464. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.71.3.452 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

Ungar, M. (2015). Practitioner review: diagnosing childhood resilience–a systemic approach to the diagnosis of adaptation in adverse social and physical ecologies. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 56, 4-17. doi: 10.1111/jcpp.12306

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., 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

Watson, J. C., & Geller, S. M. (2005). The relation among the relationship conditions, working alliance, and outcome in both process–experiential and cognitive–behavioral psychotherapy. Psychotherapy Research, 15, 25-33. doi:

10.1080/10503300512331327010

Wheeler, M. E., Keller, T. E., & DuBois, D. L. (2010). Review of three recent randomized trials of school-based mentoring: making sense of mixed findings. Social Policy Report, 24, 3-21.

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. Zack, S. E., Castonguay, L. G., & Boswell, J. F. (2007). Youth working alliance: A core

clinical construct in need of empirical maturity. Harvard Review of Psychiatry, 15, 278-288. doi:10.1080/10673220701803867

Zilberstein, K., & Spencer, R. (2017). Breaking bad: an attachment perspective on youth mentoring relationship closures. Child & Family Social Work, 22, 67-76. doi: 10.1111/cfs.12197