↓ Skip to main content

Development and validation of the Medical Student Scholar-Ideal Mentor Scale (MSS-IMS)

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Education, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
43 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Development and validation of the Medical Student Scholar-Ideal Mentor Scale (MSS-IMS)
Published in
BMC Medical Education, August 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12909-017-0969-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stephen M. Sozio, Kitty S. Chan, Mary Catherine Beach

Abstract

Programs encouraging medical student research such as Scholarly Concentrations (SC) are increasing nationally. However, there are few validated measures of mentoring quality tailored to medical students. We sought to modify and validate a mentoring scale for use in medical student research experiences. SC faculty created a scale evaluating how medical students assess mentors in the research setting. A validated graduate student scale of mentorship, the Ideal Mentor Scale, was modified by selecting 10 of the 34 original items most relevant for medical students and adding an item on project ownership. We administered this 11-item assessment to second year medical students in the Johns Hopkins University SC Program from 2011 to 2016, and performed exploratory factor analysis with oblique rotation to determine included items and subscales. We correlate overall mentoring quality scale and subscales with four student outcomes: 'very satisfied' with mentor, 'more likely' to do future research, project accepted at a national meeting, and highest SC faculty rating of student project. Five hundred ninety-eight students responded (87% response rate). After factor analysis, we eliminated three items producing a final scale of overall mentoring quality (8 items, Cronbach's alpha = 0.92) with three subscales: advocacy, responsiveness, and assistance. The overall mentoring quality scale was significantly associated with all four student outcomes, including mentor satisfaction: OR [(95% CI), p-value] 1.66 [(1.53-1.79), p < 0.001]; likelihood of future research: OR 1.06 [(1.03-1.09), p < 0.001]; abstract submission to national meetings: OR 1.05 [(1.02-1.08), p = 0.002]; and SC faculty rating of student projects: OR 1.08 [(1.03-1.14), p = 0.004]. Each subscale also correlated with overall mentor satisfaction, and the strongest relationship of each subscale was seen with 'mentor advocacy.' Mentor quality can be reliably measured and associates with important medical student scholarly outcomes. Given the lack of tools, this scale can be used by other SC Programs to advance medical students' scholarship.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 43 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 43 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 16%
Student > Master 5 12%
Other 4 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 7%
Other 10 23%
Unknown 10 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 47%
Social Sciences 4 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 2%
Psychology 1 2%
Other 3 7%
Unknown 12 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 August 2017.
All research outputs
#13,565,862
of 22,996,001 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#1,730
of 3,362 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#160,681
of 317,853 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#36
of 68 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,996,001 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,362 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.3. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 317,853 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 68 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.