Dataset Information

MERIT: a mentor reflection instrument for identifying the personal interpretative framework.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Essential to the professional development of mentors is making explicit and critically challenging the knowledge and beliefs underpinning their mentoring practice. This paper reports on the development of a survey instrument called MERIT, MEntor Reflection InstrumenT, which was designed to support mentors' systematic reflection on the how, what and why of their practice.

Methods

In 2019, a twenty-item survey instrument was developed and piloted. Initial validation data (N?=?228) were collected by distributing the survey through the authors' network. An exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted and internal consistency reliability coefficients were calculated.

Results

The Principal Axis EFA with Direct Oblimin rotation (Delta?=?0) resulted in four factors: 1) supporting personal development, 2) modelling professional development, 3) fostering autonomy, and 4) monitoring performance. The four factors explained 43% of the total variance of item scores. The Cronbach's alphas for the subscale scores were between .42 and .75.

Conclusions

The MERIT can help mentors reflect on their beliefs and professional knowhow. These reflections can serve as input for the faculty development initiatives mentors undertake, which may ultimately improve their knowledge and skills as a mentor.

SUBMITTER: Loosveld LM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7934546 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

MERIT: a mentor reflection instrument for identifying the personal interpretative framework.

Loosveld Lianne M LM Van Gerven Pascal W M PWM Driessen Erik W EW Vanassche Eline E Artino Anthony R AR

BMC medical education 20210304 1

<h4>Background</h4>Essential to the professional development of mentors is making explicit and critically challenging the knowledge and beliefs underpinning their mentoring practice. This paper reports on the development of a survey instrument called MERIT, MEntor Reflection InstrumenT, which was designed to support mentors' systematic reflection on the how, what and why of their practice.<h4>Methods</h4>In 2019, a twenty-item survey instrument was developed and piloted. Initial validation data ...[more]

PMID: 33663496

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIn studies publishing identifying personal information, obtaining consent is regarded as necessary, as it is impossible to ensure complete anonymity. However, current journal practices around specific points to consider when obtaining consent, the contents of consent forms and how consent forms are managed have not yet been fully examined. This study was conducted to identify potential issues surrounding consent to publish identifying personal information.MethodsContent analysis was carried out on instructions for authors and consent forms developed by academic journals in four fields (as classified by Journal Citation Reports): medicine general and internal, genetics and heredity, pediatrics, and psychiatry. An online questionnaire survey of editors working for journals that require the submission of consent forms was also conducted.ResultsInstructions for authors were reviewed for 491 academic journals (132 for medicine general and internal, 147 for genetics and heredity, 100 for pediatrics, and 112 for psychiatry). Approximately 40% (203: 74 for medicine general and internal, 31 for genetics and heredity, 58 for pediatrics, and 40 for psychiatry) stated that subject consent was necessary. The submission of consent forms was required by 30% (154) of the journals studied, and 10% (50) provided their own consent forms for authors to use. Two journals mentioned that the possible effects of publication on subjects should be considered. Many journal consent forms mentioned the difficulties in ensuring complete anonymity of subjects, but few addressed the study objective, the subjects' right to refuse consent and the withdrawal of consent. The main reason for requiring the submission of consent forms was to confirm that consent had been obtained.ConclusionApproximately 40% of journals required subject consent to be obtained. However, differences were observed depending on the fields. Specific considerations were not always documented. There is a need to address issues around the study objective, subjects' right to refuse consent and the withdrawal of consent. Whether responsibility for ensuring that the consent form has been signed lies with publishers also needs to be discussed.

Dataset Information

MERIT: a mentor reflection instrument for identifying the personal interpretative framework.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

MERIT: a mentor reflection instrument for identifying the personal interpretative framework.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets