Mentee Assessment of Mentoring Competencies at an Academic Health Sciences Center

Abstract

The Oklahoma Center for Mentoring Excellence (OCME) initiated faculty workshops to enhance their mentoring skills and establish an intercampus network for faculty specializing in clinical and biomedical sciences. The initial importance of mentoring competencies based on early career faculty members’ perception and experience had not yet been determined. The Mentoring Competency Assessment validated by Fleming et al. (2013b) was used to rate the perceived importance of competencies and assess senior faculty members’ competencies using a seven-point range, Likert-type response scale. Responses were analyzed by presence or absence of a mentor, previous formal mentor training, sex, and health science discipline. Junior faculty (n = 144) rated each competency as important or greater across all categories. A majority (70%) reported not having a current mentor. Junior faculty with current mentors rated senior faculty competencies higher than junior faculty without; participation in formal mentor training as well as a clinical faculty appointment were independently associated with higher assessment scores. This study identifies specific population characteristics that may serve to enhance the effectiveness of OCME workshops and demonstrates that junior faculty identify mentoring as significantly important in their academic career success in a research and clinical health setting.

SKILLED FACULTY MENTORS are identified as critical contributors to the professional growth, retention, and career advancement of junior faculty in research and clinical academic health science settings (DeCastro et. al., 2014; Fleming et al. 2013a; Feldman et al., 2010; Steiner, Curtis, Lanphear, Vu, & Main, 2004). Institutions that are ineffective in cultivating a collaborative environment may stifle scientific innovation, reduce job satisfaction, and fail to retain faculty members (Feldman et al., 2009; Handelsman, Pfund, Lauffer, & Pribbenow, 2005). Fleming et al. (2013b) developed and validated a Mentoring Competency Assessment (MCA) that has been used to help assess mentoring programs in an array of medical, academic, and research settings to include programs specifically designed to increase diversity (Pfund et al., 2014; Johnson & Gandhi, 2015; Mickel, Wiskur, James, VanWagoner, & Williams, 2018). This metric may be ideal for institutions that are actively developing mentoring initiatives.

The Oklahoma Center for Mentoring Excellence (OCME) was established to enhance mentoring opportunities for clinical and translational research-focused faculty. The OCME has initiated faculty mentor workshops intended to help enhance faculty mentoring skills that will assist in cultivating an intercampus mentoring network. Evaluating the effectiveness of mentor training workshops and impact of an intercampus mentoring network required measurement of baseline perceptions of mentoring competencies as experienced by current health science mentors and by junior faculty. The purpose of this study was to 1) establish a clear definition of mentee, 2) use a modified MCA to elucidate mentee perceptions about the importance of mentorship competencies, and 3) establish a baseline of mentee perceptions about their mentor’s skills relative to mentor competencies (Healy & Welchert, 1990; Cohen et al., 2007).

The authors hypothesize that junior faculty recognize the importance of mentorship and that there is a direct correlation between perceived importance of mentoring by junior faculty mentees who have mentors or have had prior participation in mentor training. The authors further hypothesize that junior faculty mentees with current mentors or who have participated in mentoring training will rate their mentors’ competencies higher than those that do not have current or previous mentors. This study contributes to the framework for an evidence-based approach designed to strengthen the mentor-mentee relationship(s) and identifies specific population characteristics within the institution that may serve to enhance the effectiveness of mentoring workshops for mentors and mentees. Overall, this study reinforces the conclusion that junior faculty perceive mentorship as integral to their academic career success.

Methods

The MCA Instrument

This study used the Mentoring Competency Assessment designed and validated by Fleming to assess mentoring skills of research mentors (Fleming et al., 2013b). The instrument was later modified and validated to measure the self-assessed mentoring competencies of clinical and research mentors (Mickel et al., 2018); the modified instrument was used for this study with data collected in 2018. The categories and associated items to rate are listed in Table 1. This study continues the use of the assessing understanding and addressing diversity items that were added by Mickel et al. to the original MCA. Specifically, the assessing understanding component includes two additional items for participants to rate their mentor’s competencies:

1. Accurately assessing my mentees’ level of ability to publish research.

2. Accurately assessing my mentees’ level of ability to submit grants.

Table 1.

Mentoring Competency Assessment Items

Addressing Diversity

aAbility to identify perceived inequity within the campus environment

aLeading programs for mentees designed to increase diversity in research

Participating in programs specifically designed to increase diversity

Taking into account the biases/ prejudices I bring to the mentor/mentee relationship

Working effectively with a mentee’s whose personal background is different from my own (age, race, gender, class, region, culture, religion, family composition, etc.)

Aligning Expectations

Aligning my expectations with my mentee’s expectations

Considering how personal and professional differences between me and my mentee may impact our individual expectations

Helping a mentee develop strategies to meet goals

Working with a mentee to set clear expectations of the mentoring relationship

Working with a mentee to set research goals

Assessing Understanding

aAccurately assessing a mentee’s level of ability to publish research

aAccurately assessing a mentee’s level of ability to submit grants

Accurately estimating a mentee’s level of ability to conduct research

Accurately estimating a mentee’s level of scientific knowledge

Employing strategies to enhance my mentee’s knowledge and abilities

Fostering Independence

Acknowledging a mentee’s professional contributions

Building my mentee’s confidence

Motivating a mentee

Negotiating a path to professional independence with a mentee

Stimulating a mentee’s creativity

Maintaining Effective Communication

Actively listening when my mentee is talking

Coordinating effectively with a mentee and his or her other mentors

Employing strategies to improve communication with a mentee

Establishing a mentor/mentee relationship based on trust

Identifying and accommodating different communication styles

Providing constructive feedback

Promoting Professional Development

Helping a mentee acquire resources (e.g. grants, stipends, etc.)

Helping a mentee balance work with their personal life

Helping a mentee network effectively

Helping a mentee set career goals

Understanding my impact as a role model

The addressing diversity component includes three additional items to rate:

1. Ability to identify perceived inequity within the campus environment.

2. Participating in programs specifically designed to increase diversity.

3. Actively organizing and/or leading programs specifically designed to increase diversity within the academic/research careers.

The modified instrument was again validated in this study (Table 3). This study is similar to the studies presented by Fleming et al. (2013b) and Mickel et al. in that faculty participants (characterized in Table 2a–b) rated their perception of the importance of mentoring competencies based on their experience (Table 4a–b). This study differs from the Mickel et al. study in that faculty participants assessed the mentoring competencies of their own current or former faculty mentors (not their personal performance as a mentor) (Table 5a–b).

Table 3.

Original/Modified MCA Comparison and Self-Assessment of Core Mentoring Competencies Based on Experience

	MCA Comparison
	Original	Modified
aAddressing Diversity	.90	.94
Aligning Expectations	.94	.94
aAssessing Understanding	.88	.94
Fostering Independence	.95	.95
Maintaining Effective Communication	.95	.95
Promoting Professional Development	.96	.96

Table 2a.

Junior Faculty Characteristics: Mentor Definition and Demographics

Characteristic		Frequency	Percent
Agree with Mentor Definition
	Yes	139	97.2
	No	2	1.4
	Not Sure	2	1.4
Agree with Mentee Definition
	Yes	138	96.5
	No	3	2.1
	Not Sure	2	1.4
Age in Years (range)
	Did Not Report	24	16.8
	25–34 years	13	9.1
	35–44 years	66	46.1
	45–54 years	23	16.1
	55–64 years	16	11.2
	65–74 years	1	0.7
Gender
	Did Not Report	25	17.5
	Female	69	48.2
	Male	49	34.3
Ethnicity
	Did Not Report	33	23.1
	Asian American	11	7.7
	Black or African American	5	3.5
	Hawaiian or Pacific Islander	1	0.7
	Hispanic or Latino	1	0.7
	International/Temporary Resident	2	1.4
	Multi-Ethnic	1	0.7
	Native American or American Indian	3	2.1
	White	86	60.1

Table 2b.

Junior Faculty Characteristics: Career and Mentoring Experience

Characteristic		Frequency	Percent
Research Emphasis
	Biomedical Sciences	22	15.4
	Clinical Sciences	80	55.9
	Public Health/Other	41	28.7
Academic Rank
	Assistant Professor	127	88.8
	Clinical Instructor/Educator	16	11.2
Have a Formal Mentor
	Yes	42	29.4
	No	101	70.6
Have a Formal, Non-Faculty Mentor
	Did Not Report	1	0.7
	Yes	11	91.6
	No	131	7.7
Attended Mentor Training Within Past 3 Years
	Yes	34	23.8
	No	109	76.2

Table 4a.

Self-Assessment of Core Mentoring Competencies Based on Experience

Experience Based Self-Assessment (n= 119)	No Current Mentor Mean (SD) n = 82	Current Mentor Mean (SD) n = 37	No Mentor Training Mean (SD) n = 92	Mentor Training Mean (SD) n = 27	Female Mean (SD) n=69	Male Mean (SD) n=49
Addressing Diversity	3.4 (1.6)	3.7 (1.7)	3.4(1.6)	3.7 (1.5)	3.8 (1.6)	3.0 (1.6)
Aligning Expectations	5.1 (1)	5.2 (1)	5.1 (1.0)	5.1 (1.1)	5.3 (0.9)	4.8 (1.1)
Assessing Understanding	5.1 (1.1)	4.9 (1.2)	5.1 (1.0)	4.8 (1.3)	5.1 (1.1)	5.0 (1.1)
Fostering Independence	5.2 (0.9)	5.2 (0.8)	5.1 (0.9)	5.3 (0.9)	5.2 (0.9)	5.1 (0.9)
Maintaining Effective Communication	5.2 (0.8)	5.1 (0.8)	5.3 (0.7)	5.0 (1.0)	5.2 (0.7)	5.2 (0.8)
Promoting Professional Development	5.4 (0.6)	5 (0.8)	5.3 (0.6)	5.1 (0.9)	5.3 (0.6)	5.2 (0.8)

^*p<0.05,

^**p<.001

Table 4b.

Self-Assessment of Core Mentoring Competencies Based on Experience

Experience Based Self-Assessment (n = 119)	Biomedical Mean (SD) n = 18	Clinical Mean (SD) n = 65	Public Health Mean (SD) n = 26	Other Mean (SD) n = 10
Addressing Diversity	3.6 (1.5)	3.3 (1.6)	3.5 (1.7)	3.7(1.5)
Aligning Expectations	5.1 (0.8)	5.1 (1.1)	5.1 (0.9)	5.2 (0.8)
Assessing Understanding	4.9 (1.5)	5 (1.1)	5.3 (0.8)	4.8 (0.9)
Fostering Independence	5.2 (0.5)	5.1 (1)	5.3 (0.7)	5.1 (0.9)
Maintaining Effective Communication	5.4 (0.6)	5.1 (0.9)	5.2 (0.6)	5.3 (0.7)
Promoting Professional Development	5.1 (0.4)	5.3 (0.8)	5.4 (0.6)	5.0 (0.9)

^*p<0.05,

^**p<.001

Table 5a.

Mentee Assessment of Core Mentoring Competencies of Faculty Mentors

Mentor Assessment (n = 88)	No Current Mentor Mean (SD) n = 52	Current Mentor Mean (SD) n = 36	No Mentor Training Mean (SD) n = 61	Mentor Training Mean (SD) n = 25	Female Mean (SD) n = 57	Male Mean (SD) n = 28
Addressing Diversity	4.2 (1.5)	5.0 (1.3)**	4.5 (1.5)	5.4 (1.1)*	4.3 (1.5)	5.0 (1.3)*
Aligning Expectations	4.4(1.6)	5.3 (1.3)**	4.2 (1.5)	5.0 (1.3)**	4.6 (1.6)	5.2 (1.2)
Assessing Understanding	4.5 (1.5)	5.3 (1.1)**	4.9 (1.5)	5.6 (1.3)*	4.7 (1.5)	5 (1.2)
Fostering Independence	4.9 (1.5)	5.7 (1.3)*	4.5 (1.6)	5.3 (1.3)*	5 (1.6)	5.5 (1.1)
Maintaining Effective Communication	4.8 (1.5)	5.5 (1.2)*	4.5 (1.5)	5.4 (1.3)*	4.9 (1.6)	5.5 (1.1)*
Promoting Professional Development	4.5 (1.5)	5.4 (1.3)**	4.8 (1.5)	5.5 (1.2)*	4.7 (1.5)	5.2 (1.2)*

^*p<0.05,

^**p<001

Table 5b.

Mentee Assessment of Core Mentoring Competencies of Faculty Mentors

Mentor Assessment (n = 86)	Biomedical Mean (SD) n = 11	Clinical Mean (SD) n = 45	Public Health Mean (SD) n = 21	Other Mean (SD) n = 9
Addressing Diversity	4.5 (1.6)	4.9 (1.3)	3.8 (1.5)	4.1 (1.6)
Aligning Expectations	4.7 (1.7)	5.2 (1.2)***	3.7 (1.8)***	4.6 (1.6)
Assessing Understanding	5.0 (1.8)	5.0 (1.3)	4.4 (1.4)	4.5 (1.5)
Fostering Independence	5.1 (1.4)	5.5 (1.1)***	4.0 (2.0)***	4.9 (1.7)
Maintaining Effective Communication	5.1 (1.3)	5.5 (1.1)***	4(1.7)	4.8 (1.7)
Promoting Professional Development	5.0 (1.4)	5.3 (1.2)***	3.9 (1.7)***	4.5 (1.6)

^*p<0.05,

^**p<.001

Administration and analysis of the MCA

Full-time assistant professors that had between one and five years within rank or at the institution were the primary population selected for this study (n = 383). Qualtrics^© was used to deliver the instrument via the University’s email system directly to eligible participants. The study was approved by the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center IRB (#7622). A brief explanation of the study purpose and option to decline the survey were provided. Three follow-up emails were used to increase the response rate. The survey focused on the six core mentorship competencies (Table 1), which included 31 total statements to rate.

In this study, participants responded with agreement or disagreement to provided definitions for both a mentor and mentee (Table 2a). The definition of mentor was previously defined by Mickel et al. (2018); however, the current study introduces a definition for mentee as an individual engaged in their own professional development who seeks and obtains guidance from a more experienced individual (a mentor) in an active partnership, over a continuous time period of at least six-months, and through which the individual expects to be constructively challenged, and to acquire counsel, advice, technical guidance and other input to build personal and professional knowledge, skills and aptitude for advancement in a discipline, field of study, or inter-professional area, scholarly credibility, career and personal growth.

The statistical methodology used in this study was previously described (Mickel et al., 2018; Fleming et al., 2013b). Competency assessment items were based on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from ‘Not at all Skilled’ to ‘Extremely Skilled’, with the option to select “not applicable.” Demographic information collected about each respondent included: age range, gender, ethnicity, professional discipline, academic rank, years in rank, if they had a current faculty mentor, and whether they had attended formal mentoring training. Responses were characterized by descriptive statistics in Table 2a–b. Mentee self-assessment about the importance of the six mentor competencies based on experience was measured by mean scores and standard deviations (SD) for the 31 items to rate within the six core mentorship competencies (Table 4a–b). Assessment of mentoring competency responses were grouped by participants with a current faculty mentor and those that had participated in previous mentor training (Table 5a–b). Student’s t-tests and Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) were used to compare the means at 95% confidence interval (Levene, 1960).

Results

Characteristics of the Study Sample

Characteristics of the study sample are reported in Table 2a–b. This study consisted of 144 faculty responses from an eligible pool of 383 faculty members (a 38% response rate). Additional demographic data such as age, gender, ethnicity, and time-in-rank were requested from survey respondents and the majority reported. The majority of respondents were between 35–44 years of age and female. Self-reported ethnic categorization utilized the Integrated Post-Secondary Education Data System of respondents which includes Asian American, Black or African American, Hispanic, international or temporary resident, Native American, White, and non-reported. The vast majority of respondents were white and were faculty members for less than two years. Research emphasis among respondents included biomedical sciences, clinical sciences, and Public Health/Other. Faculty respondents were predominately from the clinical sciences and at an assistant professor rank. The vast majority of respondents reported that they did not have a current, formal faculty mentor or non-faculty mentor. Demographic characteristics of respondents are similar to that of institutional characteristics excluding international faculty who were under-represented among respondents.

Original/Modified MCA comparison

This study utilized the modified version of the Fleming et al. (2013b) MCA (26 total items to rate) and contains five additional items in two categories (31 total items to rate) as previously verified (Mickel et al., 2018). Use of the additional items used in the Mickel et al. MCA in the present study did not result in significant differences within any of the competency categories (Table 3). The additional items that were used in the modified MCA are annotated with an ^a in Table 1.

Self-Assessment of the Definition of Mentoring and the Importance of the Core Mentoring Competencies Based on Experience

Mentee respondents were in nearly complete agreement with the survey’s definition of a mentor and a mentee. Respondents rated the importance of six core mentoring competencies based on their experience independent of gender or career emphasis (Table 4a). All core competencies excluding addressing diversity were rated as important to very important based on their experience (Table 4a–b). Addressing diversity ranked lower than the other competencies but was still rated as important. Mentees with current mentors and/or those who had participated in mentor training did not self-assess their mentoring experiences to have any significantly greater or lesser importance than their counterparts. Additionally, faculty members did not self-assess their mentoring experiences to be of any significantly greater or lesser importance than their counterparts regardless of gender or research emphasis.

Assessment of Faculty Mentor’s Six Core Mentoring Competency Skills

Addressing Diversity

Mentee faculty respondents that have current mentors rated mentors’ ability to address diversity higher than that of those that did not (Table 5a–b). Junior faculty that participated in mentoring training within the last three years rated mentors’ ability to address diversity higher than those without recent training. Male junior faculty rated mentors’ ability to address diversity higher than their female counterparts. No differences were observed within junior faculty based on career emphasis.

Aligning Expectations

Mentee respondents that have current mentors rated mentors’ ability to align expectations higher than that of those that did not (Table 5a–b). Junior faculty that participated in mentoring training within the last three years rated mentors’ ability to align expectations higher than those that did not. No difference was observed between male and female junior faculty in the mentors’ ability to align expectations. Differences were observed, however, within junior faculty based on research experience. Public health faculty mentors were rated lower than clinical.

Assessing Understanding

Mentee respondents with current mentors rated mentors’ ability to assess understanding higher than that of those that did not have a current mentor (Table 5a–b). Junior faculty that participated in mentoring training within the last three years rated mentors’ ability to assess understanding higher than those that did not. No difference was observed between male junior faculty and female junior faculty in the mentors’ ability to assess understanding. No differences were observed in assessing understanding between biomedical, clinical, and public health or other.

Fostering Independence

Mentee respondents that have current mentors rated mentors’ ability to foster independence higher than that of those that did not. Junior faculty that participated in mentoring training within the last three years rated mentors’ ability to foster independence higher than those that did not (Table 5a–b). No difference was observed between male junior faculty and female junior faculty in the mentors’ ability to foster independence. Differences were observed, however, within junior faculty based on research experience. Public health faculty mentors were rated lower than clinical.

Maintaining Effective Communication

Mentee respondents that have current mentors rated mentors’ ability to maintain effective communication higher than that of those that did not have a current mentor (Table 5a–b). Junior faculty that participated in mentoring training within the last three years rated mentors’ ability to maintain effective communication higher than those that did not. Differences were observed between male junior faculty and female junior faculty in the mentors’ ability to maintain effective communication. Differences were observed within junior faculty based on research experience. Public health faculty mentors were rated lower than clinical.

Promoting Professional Development

Mentee respondents that have current mentors rated mentors’ ability in promoting professional understanding higher than that of those that did not have a current mentor (Table 5a–b). Junior faculty that participated in mentoring training within the last three years rated mentors’ ability to promote professional development higher than those that did not. No difference was observed between male junior faculty and female junior faculty in the mentors’ ability to promote professional development. Differences were observed, however, within junior faculty based on research experience. Public health faculty mentors were rated lower than clinical.

Discussion

The findings of this study support the importance of faculty mentoring within academic health science centers and extend the previous report findings which utilized a modified mentoring competency assessment (Fleming et al. 2013b; Mickel et al., 2018). This study exemplifies the utility of Fleming’s MCA for institutions or programs that are yet to begin or are in their initial phases of mentor/mentee training. The purpose of this study was threefold: 1) establish a clear definition of mentee, 2) use a modified MCA to elucidate mentee perceptions about the importance of mentorship competencies, and 3) establish a baseline of mentee perceptions about their mentor’s skills relative to mentor competencies (Healy & Welchert, 1990; Cohen et al., 2007).

There was a very high level of agreement among junior faculty on the definition of mentee introduced by the authors: “an individual engaged in their own professional development who seeks and obtains guidance from a more experienced individual (a mentor) in an active partnership, over a continuous time period of at least six-months, and through which the individual expects to be constructively challenged, and to acquire counsel, advice, technical guidance and other input to build personal and professional knowledge, skills and aptitude for advancement in a discipline, field of study, or inter-professional area, scholarly credibility, career and personal growth.” This definition supports the utility of measurable outcomes in the mentor/mentee relationship (Ebert-May et al., 2011). There are a paucity of reports and longitudinal studies effectively demonstrating outcomes associated with an explicit definition of mentoring (Kashiwagi, Varkey, & Cook, 2013; Mylona et al., 2016). Future longitudinal studies within AHCs that utilize the MCA tool may potentially be used to demonstrate quantifiable outcomes for institutions and faculty members in categories such as retention, salary, grants, or publications.

The MCA facilitated the elucidation of mentee perceptions about the importance of mentorship competencies as well as mentee perceptions about their mentor’s skills relative to mentor competencies. Key findings from the competency assessment are outlined as follows: 1) Respondents rated all mentoring competencies based on their experience as important or very important regardless of previous mentor training, presence or absence of a current mentor, gender, or career emphasis; 2) The vast majority of respondents reported that they did not have a current, formal faculty mentor or non-faculty member; 3) Respondents with previous mentor training rated their mentors’ competencies higher than respondents who had not received mentor training themselves; 4) A current or past mentoring relationship consistently led to the mentee reporting a high level of skill by the mentor; and 5) Non-minority junior faculty do not perceive them-selves and mentors as less competent in diversity in comparison to other mentoring competencies; there was insufficient minority representation among the respondents to identify any differences between minority and non-minority respondents.

Key implications from the competency assessment a reoutlined as follows: 1) Lack of a formal faculty mentor or mentor training may diminish junior faculty perception of senior faculty members’ mentoring competency; 2) Mentees’ recognition of higher mentoring skill competencies if a previous or current mentoring relationship exists may positively affect their perception of career potential within a formal mentor training program at the institution; 3) The overall recognition of the importance of faculty mentorship and the lack of an identified mentor for every junior faculty members highlights the need for organized institution-wide faculty mentoring programming; 4) Faculty concern that they have insufficient training to fully engage with diverse populations may limit efforts to increase faculty diversity through recruitment or mentoring current faculty members who self-identify as underrepresented or as persons contributing to institutional diversity; and 5) The lower rating of mentors’ diversity competence skills highlights the need for greater diversity training so that mentors and mentees have sufficient knowledge to address “perceived barriers” and to benefit the careers of mentees from diverse backgrounds.

Implications of this study must take into account several limitations. One limitation of this study is that the majority of mentee respondents did not have a current faculty mentor. The lack of an identified mentor for every junior faculty members is an opportunity for the institution to develop a mentor/mentee matching and mentorship training initiative during the onboarding process. This study was limited in that it did not collect details of previous mentor training. It is unclear whether the increased perception of mentors’ competencies is based on higher competencies of specific mentors or mentors in general. Beyond limited description of previous mentoring experiences, an additional limitation of this study is that many respondents do not have current formal mentors and based their responses on previous mentors or current sponsors or coaches. Recall bias is a potential confounding factor. Additionally, peer-to-peer mentoring was not considered or assessed in this study, and its potential role in career development of junior faculty should not be discounted (DeCastro et al., 2013; Harnish & Wild, 1994).

In this study, there were a limited number of faculty respondents that currently have a formal mentor-mentee pair. The OCME has recently implemented an institution wide initiative to increase mentor-mentee pairing in an effort to support the professional mentor development of both junior and senior faculty members (Mickel et al., 2018). The previous study found that senior biomedical faculty rated their MCA reported skills at a higher level than clinical counterparts rated their MCA reported skills. The main differences noted were in the assessing understanding and promoting professional development competencies. In this study, mentees did not report differences in mentor competence skills based on the career emphasis of the mentor. Additional mentoring assessment studies of paired mentor-mentee experiences will further elucidate differences in competence-based mentoring skill based on career emphasis. The results of this study indicate that mentor competency training should increase mentor competency skill regardless of career emphasis.

Characteristics of the institution under study show that minority faculty represent less than 10% of the faculty population (Wiskur, 2019). This study was representative of the institutional characteristic in that there was limited diversity within the mentee respondent population. Similar to the previous study of potential faculty mentors at the subject institution (Mickel et al., 2018), mentees in this study reported less experience and perceived competence in diversity. Collectively, the lower rating of diversity competence skills highlights the need for greater diversity training so that mentors and mentees have sufficient knowledge to address “perceived barriers” and to benefit the careers of mentees from diverse backgrounds. Limited mentee and mentor experience with diversity and lower perceived competency skill in addressing diversity provides an ideal category for assessing changes in institutional climate after mentor training is provided.

This study further contributes to the framework of an evidence-based approach designed to strengthen the mentor-mentee relationship(s). Specific population characteristics within the institution were identified that may serve to enhance mentoring skills training for those who mentor early career junior faculty at academic health centers. These findings reinforce the conclusion that mentorship of mentees who are junior faculty is perceived as an important component of academic career success in the health sciences. Systematic design and implementation of a structured mentor training program focused on the professional development of early career junior faculty is likely to expand the research capacity of those individuals.