Mentor Self-efficacy and Perceived Program Support

scale: M-SEPPS

Suzannah Vallejo Calvery, PhD

National Mentoring SummitJanuary 25, 2013

THE AGENDA

Down the Rabbit Hole: Lit Review and Design

Fun with Scales: Instrumentation

Psychometric Joy: Validity and Reliability

Back out of the looking glass: Implications and Applications

THE BIG QUESTION Funding is increasingly focused on:

Outcomes-based assessment Best-practices

Only proven interventions are receiving the funding necessary to implement solutions.

DOWN THE RABBIT HOLE: DOES MENTORING WORK?

Best practices gleaned over time Match quality Match length Program infrastructure

2002 vs. 2011 findings of DuBois et al. studies (2002, 2011)

WHAT ABOUT THE MENTOR? Dyadic construct

with monadic research base

Best practices tied to mentor self-efficacy

NEW INSTRUMENT PREPARATION & VALIDATION

M-SEPPS InstrumentResearch Questions:1) What are the

psychometric properties of the proposed measure?

2) Are there significant differences between demographic groups?

FUN WITH SCALES1. Literature Review2. Item Construction*3. Pilot4. Item Refinement5. Data Collection

6. Analysis: • Assumptions• Exploratory Factor

Analysis• Item analysis• Reliability

estimation* Bandura, 2006; Fowler, 2009; Gefen & Straub, 2005; Netemeyer, Bearden, & Sharma, 2003; Nunnally, 1978; Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994; Pett, Lackey, & Sullivan, 2003.

METHOD

Participants

Original scale/item pool: General self-efficacy Personal teaching

efficacy Mentor/tutor self

efficacy Program Support

PRINCIPAL AXIS FACTORING 104 participants in remaining analysis 18 total items 3 latent constructs

Process: 1. PAF (Pett, Lackey, & Sullivan, 2003, Tabachnik &

Fidell, 2007)2. Direct Oblimin rotation w/delta level of -.5*3. 5 original factors extracted, 3 retained*Pett et al.

PSYCHOMETRIC JOY!

RELIABILITY ESTIMATESFactor M SD 1 2 31. General self-efficacy (n = 8) 64.21 8.091 0.882. Perceived Program Support

(n = 4) 32.53 4.973 0.257 0.833. Mentor/Tutor self-efficacy (n

= 6) 46.88 5.863 0.511 0.172 0.78Total Scale (n = 18) 144 14.763 0.892Factor Correlations and Factor Alpha Coefficients for the M-SEPPS Scale

Per Research Question #2:Original Demographic data variables:

Age, Gender, Ethnicity, Level of education, Previous experience tutoring, Years tutoring.

Age was the only demographic variable that had significant differences between levels on Factors 2 an 3.

BACK OUT OF THE LOOKING GLASS:LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH

Limitations: Sample size Test-retest reliability Scale redundancy

Next Steps: CFA Larger sample Scale reduction

AND AFTER THAT? IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Program Evaluation Dynamic program assessment Building support for implementation of

best practices

Thank you for attending.

Q & A