University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

What makes mentoring effective? Behavior analytic strategies as key components of successful mentor-mentee relationships: A pilot study

(USC Thesis Other)

What makes mentoring effective? Behavior analytic strategies as key components of successful mentor-mentee relationships: A pilot study

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content WHAT MAKES MENTORING EFFECTIVE?
BEHAVIOR ANALYTIC STRATEGIES AS KEY COMPONENTS
OF SUCCESSFUL MENTOR-MENTEE RELATIONSHIPS:
A PILOT STUDY
by
Alisha Alleyne
A Thesis Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
MASTER OF ARTS
(CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY)
August 2003
Copyright 2003 Alisha Alleyne
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
UMI Number: 1417910
INFORMATION TO USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy
submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and
photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper
alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized
copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
®
UMI
UMI Microform 1417910
Copyright 2004 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest Information and Learning Company
300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY PARK
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90089-1695
This thesis, written by
under the direction o f h f f _ thesis committee, and
approved by all its members, has been presented to and
accepted by the Director of Graduate and Professional
Programs, in partial fulfillment o f the requirements for the
degree o f
pi- ( WiccJ
Director
Date
Thesis Committee
Chair
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Tables iii
Abstract iv
Introduction 1
Effectiveness of Mentor Programs: The Traditional Model 2
Effectiveness of Mentor Programs: The New Model 4
Possible Behavior Analytic Strategies Utilized by Mentors 5
Method 10
Results 16
Discussion 19
References 26
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Mentor Interview 28
Appendix B: Mentee Interview 32
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
iii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Paired Sample Statistics: Mentee Problematic Behavior and Adaptive
Functioning Comparisons After 4 Months of Mentoring 16
Table 2: Correlations Between Mentor and Mentee Ratings of Positive
Reinforcement, Goal Setting, Modeling, Quality of Relationship,
Knowledge of Behavioral Principles and Time Spent Off-Site 17
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
iv
ABSTRACT
Although mentor programs may not overtly target problematic “mentee”
behaviors, positive changes in mentee behavior are often suggested by qualitative
evaluations of mentor programs. By examining the behaviors of mentors
participating in several Los Angeles mentor programs, this pilot study explored the
ways in which mentors contribute to positive behavioral change in the lives of
mentees. The aims of this study were to document positive behavioral change among
mentees and to examine whether positive reinforcement, goal setting, and modeling
correlated with youth improvement. After 4 months of mentoring, no significant
changes in problematic behavior and adaptive functioning were found for mentees.
However, results indicate significant associations between the following process
variables: goal setting and quality of relationship, and modeling and quality of
relationship. These preliminary findings suggest that mentors who deliver high levels
of goal setting and modeling establish high quality relationships with their mentees.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1
Mentor programs have been quite successful at improving behavioral and
academic functioning in mentored youth (Rhodes 1994; Tierney, Grossman, &
Resche, 2000). Despite these findings, the key factors of successful mentor-mentee
relationships are rarely addressed in the current literature on mentor programs. The
overall aim of this pilot study was to ascertain the extent to which mentoring
behavior was linked to improvements in mentee functioning. Positive reinforcement,
modeling, goal setting, and relationship quality were all posited as mentor-based
factors that improve social and behavioral outcomes for mentees. The specific aims
and hypotheses of this study were as follows:
Specific Aim 1: To evaluate improvement in youth functioning among youth
participating in mentor programs.
Hypothesis a. Mentees will demonstrate decreases in problematic behavior and
increases in adaptive functioning following 4 months of mentoring.
Specific Aim 2: To test hypotheses about the factors that account for behavior
change among youth participating in mentor programs.
Hypothesis bi . Positive reinforcement, delivered by mentors, will be associated
with decreases in problematic behavior and increases in adaptive functioning in
mentees.
Hypothesis b?. Goal setting skills, implemented by mentors, will be associated
with decreases in problematic behavior and increases in adaptive functioning in
mentees.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2
Hypothesis by Modeling, with mentors serving as the model being observed, will
be associated with decreases in problematic behavior and increases in adaptive
functioning in mentees.
Background and Significance
Effectiveness of Mentor Programs: The Traditional Model
In a survey of 722 mentor programs serving 115,000 youth, some important
differences were found between older programs and those that follow a newer model
(Sipe & Koder, 1999). According to Sipe & Koder (1999), traditional mentor
programs utilize rigorous screening procedures, and require a longer time-
commitment than newer models of mentoring. BBBS is an example of the traditional
model of mentoring (Sipes & Rhodes, 1999).
BBBS fosters one-on-one mentoring relationships between adult volunteers and
children who are mainly from single-parent families in over 500 sites throughout the
U.S. (Tierney et al,, 2000). Children and adolescents with low income, ages 5-18, are
the most commonly targeted candidates for BBBS. These children often lack the
presence of supportive adults in their lives and possess inadequate social skills
(Tierney, 2000). BBBS provides a caring relationship with a concerned adult. The
matches are made according to parent and mentor preferences, utilizing
characteristics such as age, race, and religion. Overall, BBBS is a widespread
program that offers a supportive and nurturing relationship, rather than a relationship
that specifically targets problems noted within youth (Tierney et al., 2000).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
3
Studies on the effectiveness of BBBS provide some evidence for positive
behavioral change resulting from mentor relationships. Noted areas of improvement
include increased school attendance, improved school grades, increased confidence,
decreased physically abusive behavior and improved interaction with family
members (Tierney et al., 2000; Frecknall & Luks, 1992; Rhodes, Grossman, and
Resche, 2000). Thus, participation in BBBS seems to positively influence the lives of
youth in a variety of ways. However, it is not clear from the aforementioned studies
what mentor strategies may have contributed to positive change. Recently, a study of
BBBS by Jucovy (2001) attempted to capture the characteristics of the most
successful and unsuccessful mentors. In this study each mentor-mentee pair was
interviewed once at the onset of participation in the program and then again after a
9-month interval. Results showed that successful relationships usually consisted of
mentors who focused on supporting and enhancing the development of their mentee
through friendship, whereas unsuccessful mentors tended to be those who openly
tried to alter the behavior of their mentees in an intrusive way (e.g., trying to get
inappropriately close to family members too soon in order to obtain information on
their mentees). This study of BBBS suggested that qualities such as serving as a
friend, keeping realistic goals and expectations in mind, and empathic listening were
characteristic of those mentors who were able to build trust with mentees (Jucovy,
2001). However, success of the relationships noted in the aforementioned study was
not linked to any standardized measure of change in mentee’s behavior.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
4
Effectiveness of Mentor Programs: The New Model
Although the most extensive outcome research has been conducted with BBBS-
based programs, an increasing number of mentor programs utilize a more
comprehensive model of mentoring (Sipe & Roder, 1999). New models of mentoring
tend to place a greater emphasis on instrumental goals—goals that include both
academic and career-focused endeavors (Sipe & Roder, 1999). Additionally, newer
programs tend to be site-based and often require a shorter time commitment from
mentors (Sipe & Roder, 1999).
Data gathered from mentor programs across the U.S. suggest that mentors
participating in new model mentor programs may also serve as significant change
agents in the lives of disadvantaged youth (Sanchez & Reyes, 1999). Although the
current literature on such mentor programs is sparse, limited research suggests that
the presence of mentors may improve the academic functioning of participating
youth. For example, a controlled evaluation of Project RAISE, a program utilizing
one-to-one mentors for at-risk middle school students, found that student attendance
and English grades improved for those youth participating in the program relative to
those who did not (McPartland & Nettles, 1991). Similarly, an evaluation of
Sponsor-A-Scholar (SAS), an academically focused mentor program that provides
one-to-one youth mentoring, showed that those participating in the program
demonstrated improved grade point averages relative to students in comparison
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
5
groups (Johnson, 1998). SAS students were also more likely to display efforts
towards preparation for college and were more likely to attend college, relative to a
comparison group (Johnson, 1998).
Behavior Analysis and Mentoring
An important presumption of applied behavior analysis is that behavior can be
changed through novel learning experiences (Kazdin, 2001). A mentee’s relationship
with a mentor could be the source of many novel learning experiences through which
mentee’s may acquire new ways to behave in response to the challenges they face in
their environments (Kazdin, 2001). Mentors’ use of positive reinforcement, goal
setting, and modeling could contribute to an increase in the frequency of prosocial
and positive behaviors displayed by mentees (Kazdin, 2001).
Possible Behavior Analytic Strategies Utilized by Mentors
Positive Reinforcement. A positive reinforcer is a type of consequence that
ultimately increases the frequency of a particular behavior (Kazdin, 2001). Mentors
utilizing social reinforcers, such as verbal praise or attention after a mentee performs
a desired behavior may prove to be more successful than those mentors who do not
offer such praise. For example, a mentor may praise a mentee upon his or her
completion of homework; after receiving this praise, the mentee may be more
inclined to complete his or her homework the next time it is assigned in order to
receive subsequent praise from his or her mentor (Kazdin, 2001).
A number of studies provide support for the effectiveness of positive
reinforcement in increasing prosocial and adaptive behaviors. For example, a study
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
6
by Fo & O’Donnell (1974) illustrates how social and material reinforcers can
significantly influence youth outcomes. In this study, nonprofessionals trained as
behavior change agents were instructed to address the problematic behavior of youth
within their community. The agents attempted to influence youth through “the
contingent use of social and material reinforcement” (Fo & O’Donnell, 1974, p.
163). The researchers found that school attendance increased when youth were
placed in relationships emphasizing social and material contingencies whereas no
change occurred among youth in the noncontingent relationships. Social and material
contingency were also effective in decreasing an array of problem behaviors, such as
fighting, returning home late, and not doing chores at home (Fo & O’Donnell, 1974).
Other studies provide evidence of the effects of positive reinforcement on more
specific areas of problem behavior. For example, a study by Scott, Burton, & Yarrow
(1967) addressed the aggression displayed by an antisocial youth towards his social
group. Positive reinforcement, in the form of adult approval, was effective at
decreasing physical and verbal threats, attacking others, stealing property, and
making disparaging remarks to peers, and increasing prosocial behaviors such as
helping others and having friendly conversations with others (Scott et al., 1967).
Furthermore, in a study on the effects of positive reinforcement on the arithmetic
performance of students, Kidd and Saudargas (1988) found that contracts with
positive consequences contributed to the maintenance of high levels of completion
and accuracy in daily math assignments.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
7
Goal Setting. Goal setting is another important behavior analytic strategy. Goals
can be assertions of behavior that an individual wants to change and of the ways in
which that change might occur (Sulzer-Azaroff, & Mayer, 1991). Goals may include
the desire to start a new behavior, maintain an already established behavior, perform
a certain behavior in a broader array of settings, decrease the frequency of a
behavior, or terminate a particular behavior altogether (Sulzer-Azaroff, & Mayer,
1991). Goals serve to highlight the relationship between prosocial behavior and
positive outcomes and may represent the achievability of prosocial behaviors to
mentees (Sulzer-Azaroff, & Mayer, 1991). Mentors may help mentees learn the
steps needed in order to achieve positive behavioral goals by helping the mentee
weigh the costs and benefits of behaviors that are consistent or inconsistent with
those goals (Sulzer-Azaroff, & Mayer, 1991). Ultimately, mentors who integrate the
formulation of goals, along with plans to achieve those goals, into their interactions
with their mentees might facilitate mentee behavior change.
Several studies provide preliminary evidence for the positive effects of setting,
maintaining, and accomplishing goals. In a study by Hart (1978), two types of goal
setting conditions were introduced to patients. One condition required that patients
collaborate in goal setting with therapists and other individuals who were meaningful
to patients. The other condition required that patient’s goals be monitored weekly in
addition to receiving positive feedback from patients’ therapists and significant
others. Although negative behaviors decreased and positive behaviors increased for
all participants, those receiving feedback demonstrated the largest increase in
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
8
positive behaviors (Hart 1978). A study of goal setting by Kahle & Kelley (1994)
sought to examine whether two behavioral interventions, parent training and goal
setting with contingency contracts, would serve to decrease children’s homework-
related problems. Although children under both conditions showed improvement in
homework performance, only those in the goal-setting group showed a marked
increase in the number of correct answers provided within one minute (Kahle &
Kelly, 1994). These findings are suggestive of the effects of goal setting, yet neither
of the aforementioned studies clearly demonstrated that goal setting alone
determined positive outcomes.
Modeling. Modeling might be referred to as observational learning because an
individual learns through the observation of another’s behavior. Neither the model
nor the observer necessarily need to do anything in particular for learning to take
place. However, the consequences of the model’s behavior may make the behavior
meaningful to the observer, thus leading to the imitation of that behavior (Kazdin,
2001).
Factors such as the model’s similarity to the observer and the status of the model
may influence the impact of such learning and subsequent acting out of a particular
observed behavior (Kazdin, 2001). Mentors may be serving as models of positive
and prosocial behavior for mentees. Instead of simply informing mentees about
different forms of positive and prosocial behavior, mentors may be allowing mentees
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
9
to witness their actions and the subsequent receipt of rewards of those actions,
thereby inspiring mentees to perform those very same actions in order to receive
similar rewards.
In Bandura’s (1965) study on modeling’s effects, children observed a film that
showed an adult performing aggressive actions on a large doll. Children were later
given the chance to perform the same behavior they observed in the adult in the film.
Children who had previously observed the adult being punished demonstrated less
aggressive behavior than those children who witnessed the adult receive rewards or
no consequences for his actions. This study demonstrated that the children seemed to
learn the behavior but performance of it was dependent upon the consequences they
witnessed the adult receiving for that same learned behavior (Bandura 1965).
Additionally, a study by Kazdin (1977) examined whether one student observing
the praise that another received from his teacher would change his behavior in
response to this consequence. When approval was delivered to the model for
showing increased attention, the target student showed an increased level of attention
even though the positive consequences were not delivered directly to him (Kazdin
1977). Similarly, a study by Ollendick et al (1983) demonstrated that children who
observed the other member of their group receiving praise on a specific task
(working on puzzles) increased their own performance on that same task. The
children responded as if they had been getting the praise directly (Ollendick et al.
1983).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
10
Overall, studies show that positive reinforcement, goal setting, and modeling
could also operate within the context of mentor-mentee relationships. All three
strategies may be performed by mentors without their overt awareness of the impact
of these strategies on youth behavior.
Method
Mentor Programs. The investigator’s goal was to select a representative sample of
adults and youth participating in mentor programs across the Los Angeles area. All
participating mentors and mentees were recruited from Youth Mentoring Connection
(YMC), a community-based organization comprised of annual mentor programs that
subscribe to the new model of mentoring. The two YMC programs evaluated in this
study were A Place Called Home (APCH) and the HBO mentor program. A Place
Called Home (APCH) is a comprehensive program that attempts to significantly
improve the social skills and academic performance of youth residing in South Los
Angeles through a variety of site-based activities. The HBO mentor program
includes site-based activities like those of the APCH program, along with a career
focus. The format of these mentor programs include group and one-on-one contact
with mentees. On-site meetings take place twice a month for two hours duration per
meeting. During the first month of mentoring, mentees and mentors all meet in a
group setting for the full two hours. Thereafter, all mentors and mentees meet in a
group setting for the first hour. The second hour is then dedicated to one-on-one
meeting time. Additionally, mentors are encouraged to spend off-site time with their
mentees. The total duration of the APCH and HBO programs is 8 months.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
11
The mentees who participated in the APCH and HBO programs for the duration
of this study included students who attended local public high schools, trade schools,
or alternative schools located in South Los Angeles. The mentors of APCH consisted
of adults residing in Los Angeles County, whereas the HBO program mentors
consisted of employees of HBO, located in Century City, CA. All mentees and
mentors were invited (via flyers) to participate in this study after signing up to
participate in one of the YMC programs. The investigator did not participate in
selecting mentors and mentees for the mentor programs; instead YMC program
coordinators conducted the selection and matching of mentors and mentees.
Although program directors initially stated that no standard selection criterion were
utilized for selecting mentees to participate in their programs, they later informed the
investigator that they do not allow mentees with grade point averages (GPA’s) below
2.0 to participate. Mentees who met this qualification and turned in their completed
applications were sequentially accepted for participation until all available mentee
spots were filled. According to program coordinators selection factors for mentors
included availability and willingness to make a difference in a mentee’s life.
Program coordinators created mentor and mentee pairs based upon the Myers-Briggs
Personality Type Indicator in a manner that resulted in mentees being paired with
mentors who had personalities unlike their own. Program coordinators thought this
procedure would result in complementary relationships in which mentors and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
12
mentees could leam from each other’s personality differences. Mentor and mentee
participation in their respective programs was on no way tied to their agreement to
participate in this study.
Participant Characteristics. The 28 mentees participating in this study ranged in
age from 11-20 years (mean = 14.9). The mentees were either Latino (n = 18) or
African-American (n = 10). The grade level of the mentees ranged from 6th grade to
1st year in college. The 17 mentors participating in this study ranged in age from 18-
46 years (mean = 30.9), and were either Latino (n = 3), African-American (n = 4),
Caucasian (n = 9), or Asian (n - 1). The education level of mentors ranged from
senior year in high school to graduate school (master’s level). Although 32 mentors
agreed to participate in this study, only those mentors who were matched with
participating mentees were administered questionnaires. Subsequently, only 17
mentor-mentee pairs could be analyzed for this study. However, data from mentees
who did not have a participating mentor (n = 11) were included in all data analyses
when possible.
Measures
Behavior Problems. Mentees provided self-reports of behavior problems and
social competence using the Youth Self-Report (YSR; Achenbach, 1991). The YSR
yields scales that represent internalizing and externalizing behaviors, and social
competence. The YSR has a test-retest reliability of .83-.87 over 7 days and
demonstrates good validity (Achenbach, 1991). Problem items are scored on a 0-1-2
scale (0— not true; 1-somewhat or sometimes true; 2 =very true or often true). The
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
13
YSR was administered at the start of the mentor-mentee relationship and again after
a 4-month interval. Approximately 10-15 minutes were required to complete the
YSR (Achenbach, 1991).
Academic Performance. The mentee’s academic performance was assessed
utilizing the Social Skills Rating System (SSRS; Gresham & Elliot, 1990). The
SSRS is a nationally standardized scale that measures a variety of classroom
behaviors including social skills, problem behaviors, and academic competence. The
SSRS has a test-rest reliability of .52-.68 (Demaray et al., 1995). SSRS correlations
with other measures of problem behavior and academic performance range from .55-
.81 (Demaray et al., 1995). The Social Skills subscale is comprised of 30 items and
assesses adaptive functioning. The Problem Behavior subscale is comprised of 18
items that assess externalizing and internalizing problems. Items on both the Social
Skills and Problem Behavior subscales are rated on a 0-1-2 scale based on perceived
frequency (0=never; l=sometimes; 2=very often) and perceived importance (0=not
important; 1 im portant; 2=critical). The Academic Competence subscale is
comprised of 9 items and assesses overall academic performance, overall classroom
behavior, and ability in mathematics and reading. Mentees ranked themselves as
falling in the lowest 10% of the class, bottom 20%, middle 40%, highest 20%, or
highest 10%. The SSRS was administered at the start of the mentor-mentee
relationship and again after a 4-month interval. Approximately 10-15 minutes were
needed to complete the SSRS.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
14
Knowledge of Behavioral Principles. Mentors were asked to complete a 50-item
multiple-choice questionnaire that assessed their knowledge of behavioral principles
as applied to children. The questionnaire was comprised of questions adapted from
O’Dell, Tarler-Benlolo, and Flynn’s (1979) Knowledge of Behavioral Principles
questionnaire, which has a Kuder-Richardson reliability coefficient of .94 and has
been found to possess high internal consistency (O’Dell et al., 1979). This
questionnaire was administered once at the start of the mentor-mentee relationship
and required approximately 15 minutes for mentors to complete. The mentor’s score
on this measurement was based on the number answered correctly.
Mentor Behaviors. Mentors were administered a monthly questionnaire, designed
specifically for this study, requiring that they report the type and frequency of
interactions they had with their mentees (see Appendix A). Mentees were
administered the same monthly questionnaire, with the pronoun referents altered (see
Appendix B). However, mentor questionnaires also included a section asking them to
state how often they had off-site contact with their mentees over the past 4 weeks
along with the type of contact. The mentor and mentee monthly questionnaires
consisted of 14 statements requiring responses ranging from 1 (not at all true) to 4
(very true). Composite scores for positive reinforcement (e.g., “You praised or
rewarded your mentee when he/she did something good or positive”), goal setting
(e.g., You helped your mentee set goals for himself/herself’ ), and modeling (e.g.,
“You used yourself as a model for your mentee’s behavior”) were obtained using
corresponding items from the questionnaire. Average composite scores were created
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
15
for mentee and mentor ratings over time. Additionally, time spent off site was
totaled. Mentors and mentees were administered the questionnaire over the phone
approximately every 4 weeks, totaling three administrations. Each questionnaire
required approximately 10 minutes to administer.
This questionnaire also addressed several additional behavior analytic strategies
that are common responses to irresponsible behavior (e.g., withdrawal of positive
consequences and ignoring) (Kazdin, 2001). However, mentors and mentees often
answered “not applicable” to these items. As a result, these responses were not
included in subsequent data analyses.
Relationship Quality. The quality of the mentor-mentee relationship was assessed
utilizing the Youth Survey (Jucovy, 2002), a 20-item questionnaire developed to help
youth mentoring programs improve their mentor-mentee matching, evaluate their
future training needs, and measure program progress. The Youth Survey has been
used in past studies to evaluate the quality of BBBS mentor-mentee relationships.
Based on the initial administration, the Youth-Centered and Emotional Engagement
subscales (combined for the purposes of this study) have an alpha of .75. The Youth-
Centered subscale is comprised of 5 items that assess the extent to which mentees
feel that their mentors take their preferences and interests into account. The
Emotional Engagement subscale is comprised of 8 items that assess the extent to
which mentees are emotionally engaged (i.e., feeling content, discontent, boredom,
etc.) in their relationship. Items from both subscales were rated from 0 (not true at
all) to 4 (very true). Composite scores for Youth-Centered (e.g., “My mentor and I
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
16
do things I really want to do”) and Emotional Engagement (e.g., “When I’m with my
mentor, I feel excited”) subscales were obtained using corresponding items from the
questionnaire. Average composite scores were created for mentee and mentor
ratings over time. The Youth Survey was administered to mentees over the phone,
approximately every 4 weeks over a 3-month interval. The Youth Survey was
administered to mentees immediately after they completed the mentor behavior
questionnaire. Approximately 10 minutes were needed to administer the survey.
Results
Behavior problems and adaptive functioning. Paired t tests, with alpha set at .05,
were performed to test the main hypothesis that mentees would demonstrate
decreases in behavior problems and increases in adaptive functioning following 4
months of mentoring. The t-tests were performed on the total problem, externalizing,
internalizing, and competence scales of the YSR in order to compare pretest and
posttest scores. Additionally, paired t- tests were performed comparing pretest and
posttest SSRS scores. The t-tests revealed that there were no significant differences
between mentee’s YSR and SSRS scores at baseline and after 4 months of mentoring
(see Table 1).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
17
Table 1
Paired Sample Statistics: Mentee Problematic Behavior and Adaptive Functioning
Comparisons After 4 Months of Mentoring
Time 1 Time 2
Measure Mean SD Mean SD t df p value
YSR Raw Scores
Problem 39.67 23.44 44.11 29.29 -.89 17 .39
Externalizing 16.67 14.08 14.28 10.99 .63 17 .54
Internalizing 12.06 9.04 13.11 9.77 -.52 17 .61
Competency 12.96 2.37 13.33 3.12 -.34 11 .74
SSRS Raw Scores
Adaptive Functioning 8 . 1 1 4.98 9.28 7.69 -.95 17 .36
Academic Functioning 24.50 4.31 24.11 6.41 .27 17 .79
The other main hypotheses were that positive reinforcement, goal setting, and
modeling would be associated with decreases in problem behavior and increases in
adaptive functioning among mentees. Because mentee functioning did not change
from pretest to posttest, no data analyses were performed linking process variables to
outcome.
Correlations among process variables. Additionally, it was hypothesized that
positive reinforcement, goal setting, and modeling would be positively associated
with quality of mentor-mentee relationships. A correlation matrix was generated
between positive reinforcement, modeling, goal setting, mentor's knowledge of
behavioral principles, and time spent off-site (see Table 2).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
18
Table 2
Correlations Between Mentor and Mentee Ratings of Positive Reinforcement. Goal
Setting. Modeling, Quality of Relationship, Knowledge of Behavioral Principles and
Time Spent Off-Site
Mentee
PR
Mentee
G
Mentee
M
Mentee
QR
Mentor
KBP
Mentor
PR
Mentor
G
Mentor
M
Mentor
TO
Mentee
PR __
.43* .51* .37 .27
7 9 **
.06 .1 1 .30
Mentee
G
.50* .55* . 2 0 .32 .08 .14 -.05
Mentee
M
.51* .37 .52 -.37 .24 .24
Mentee
QR
.48 .37 -.25 .26 .13
Mentor
KBP
-.45 - . 1 2 .78** .58
Mentor
PR
.03 .09 .23
Mentor
G
.31 .25
Mentor
M
.53
Mentor
TO
- -
Note. To use maximum information available, cases with missing values for one or both of a pair of
variables were excluded from analysis. Correlation coefficients are based on varying number of cases
(n = 12-22). PR=positive reinforcement; G=goal setting; M=modeling; QR= quality of relationship;
KBP=knowledge of behavioral principles; TO=time spent off-site
*£<.05. **£<.01
Significant correlations were found between mentee's ratings of the following
process variables; positive reinforcement and modeling, positive reinforcement and
goal setting, goal setting and modeling, goal setting and quality of relationship, and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
19
lastly, modeling and quality of relationship. Additionally, significant correlations
were found between mentor and mentee ratings of positive reinforcement, and
between mentor knowledge of behavioral principles and mentor ratings of modeling.
Discussion
This study sought to investigate the effects of mentoring relationships and
mentoring behaviors on mentee social and behavioral outcomes. After 4 months of
mentoring no significant changes were found on any indices of problematic behavior
or adaptive functioning. Lack of change found in mentees may indicate that mentees
participating in the APCH and HBO mentor programs are demonstrating no change
after forming relationships with their mentors. Because improvement in youth
functioning was not demonstrated, no data analyses were performed linking process
variables to outcome.
However, significant correlations were found between mentee's ratings of the
following process variables: positive reinforcement and modeling, positive
reinforcement and goal setting, goal setting and modeling, goal setting and quality of
relationship, and lastly, modeling and quality of relationship. Mentees may perceive
a more positive relationship if their mentors expose them to goal setting skills and
modeling. Mentees may recognize the implementation of goal setting skills as a sign
that their mentors show genuine interest in the attainment of their aspirations,
thereby enhancing mentee satisfaction with their relationships. Mentees who model
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
20
their mentors and subsequently gain positive results may attribute such outcomes to
their mentor-mentee relationships, thereby perceiving the relationship as high
quality.
Conversely, high quality relationships might facilitate the processes of positive
reinforcement, goal setting and modeling. These strategies may be more likely to
occur in relationships in which mentees and mentor have already established a strong
bond with each other. Further, the aforementioned associations may be indicative of
a halo effect, with mentees rating mentors high on several dimensions primarily
because they have generally positive impressions of their mentors.
Additionally, a significant correlation was found between mentor and mentee
ratings of positive reinforcement. However, no significant correlations were found
between mentee and mentee ratings of goal setting and modeling. Positive
reinforcement could be a behavior analytic strategy that is more accurately perceived
by individuals in comparison to goal setting and modeling (Sulzer-Azaroff & Mayer,
1991; Kazdin, 2001). Accordingly, mentees and mentors may both perceive positive
reinforcement in a more consistent way than the other process variables of goal
setting and modeling. To elaborate, although concrete indices were created to tap
into the processes of positive reinforcement, goal setting, and modeling, mentors and
mentees seem to perceive different phenomena when rating goal setting (r = .08) and
modeling (r = .24) in comparison to rating positive reinforcement (r = ,79).
Inconsistencies in perception of modeling may exist because modeling is a process
that often occurs in the absence of the model’s or the observer’s awareness (Kazdin,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
21
2001). Mentors may not be aware of the extent to which mentees are identifying
them as a model; and mentees may not be aware of the extent to which mentors are
modeling certain behaviors for mentees. Inconsistencies in perception of goal setting
strategies may exist due to differences in understanding of the concept of goals
amongst mentors and mentees (Sulzer-Azaroff & Mayer, 1991). For example,
mentees may consider goals solely as assertions of new behaviors whereas mentors
may consider goals as assertions of new behavior in addition to assertions to perform
already-acquired prosocial behaviors in a new setting (Sulzer-Azaroff & Mayer,
1991).
Lastly, a significant correlation was found between mentor’s ratings of modeling
and mentor knowledge of behavioral principles These findings suggest that mentors
with a greater knowledge of behavioral principles may be more apt to use themselves
as a model for their mentees behavior.
Many mentors, although not explicitly trained in behavior analysis, may indeed
possess a general knowledge of behavioral principles and may be interacting with
mentees in a way that is consistent with this knowledge even in the absence of their
own awareness. Thus far, preliminary studies on mentor programs have shown that
mentees may benefit from the support and empathic listening delivered by their
mentors (Jucovy, 2001). Findings from the present study suggest that behavior
analytic strategies may supplement these supportive and empathic behaviors of
mentors, thereby enhancing the quality of relationship formed with mentees.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
22
Due to a number of methodological limitations, several notes of caution should be
taken when interpreting the results of this study: The study investigator initially
sought the participation of three YMC mentor programs. Participation of the third
program would have resulted in the participation of up to 75 mentees and their
respective mentors. However, the third program refrained from participation before
consent forms were distributed. As a result, participation was solely gained from 28
mentees and 32 mentors from a pool of 50 mentees and their respective mentors. (As
mentioned before, only information from the 17 mentors who had participating
mentees was utilized for data analyses.) This low mentor and mentee participation
was exacerbated by the natural attrition of mentor program participants, a
phenomenon that occurs in many mentor programs over the course of formal
mentee-mentor meetings (Clinton, 2002). After 4 months of mentoring, 6 of the
participating mentees had left their respective mentor programs. One YMC program
director reported that a third of the mentees participating in one of their programs
had dropped out 3-4 months into the program, a phenomenon that occurs virtually
every year (although usually not to the extent witnessed this year). Future studies
should anticipate significant mentee and mentor attrition from such programs.
The nature of the standardized measures utilized, and the manner in which they
were administered, may have contributed to difficulties in capturing mentee change.
The YSR does not have any validity scales to detect mentees responding in a deviant
manner (Merrell, 1984). Therefore, invalidity of any mentee data could not be
detected when scoring YSR responses (Merrell, 1994). Moreover, both YSR and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
23
SSRS information were not collected in a uniform manner due to time constraints.
Some mentees were administered pre- and post-test questionnaires in a quiet room
apart from other mentees, whereas others were administered questionnaires in the
presence of other mentees who often interrupted them with comments and questions.
Future studies should collect mentee data from multiple informants (e.g., parents,
teachers, peers, etc.) and whenever possible, mentee measures should be
administered in a consistent manner for all mentees. Additionally, follow-up
questionnaires extending beyond 4-month intervals may capture behavior change
that has not yet occurred in mentees. Administration of follow-up questionnaires,
especially at the end of formal mentor-mentee meetings would be advantageous in
future studies.
Additionally, the measures used in this study did not evaluate other psychological
outcomes, such as optimism and perceived control, outcomes that have been
responsive to mentoring interventions in some studies (Rhodes et al., 2000). For
example, although mentees in this study reported no change in grades, the values that
they placed on school-related activities may have increased following their
involvement with mentors (Rhodes et al., 2000; McPartland & Nettles, 1991)
The sample population used for this study may not have been representative of
those youth that are most at-risk. Although program directors initially informed the
investigator that no standard selection criteria were utilized for selecting mentees to
participate in their programs, they later indicated that they do not allow mentees with
GPA’s below 2.0 to participate. Given this criterion, youth who were at greatest risk
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
24
for academic failure and poor behavioral functioning were likely excluded from
participation. Indeed, the average mentee problem T-score on the YSR (mean =
50.67) was well below the clinical level of 70 suggesting that these youth may have
constituted a low risk sample. Thus, it should not be surprising that minimal
behavioral improvement was shown in a sample of youth with relatively few
problems.
Moreover, due to the small sample, data from all participating mentees was
combined across age and grade level. The wide age range (11-20 years of age) could
have limited the possibility of capturing problematic behavior and adaptive
functioning patterns that are unique to elementary, middle school, high school, and
college age individuals. With a larger participant population, mentees could have
been divided into groups consistent with their age or grade level in order to examine
problems that are more or less likely to occur at different developmental phases.
Lastly, utilization of behavior analytic strategies was measured by using both
mentor reports. This aspect of the study was unique in that it attempted to capture
mentor behaviors as rated by both mentor and mentees. However, informant bias
may have affected mentor and mentee ratings. What mentors actually said or did
with their mentees may have been influenced by the subjective experience of both
mentor and mentees. Future studies should consider capturing actual mentor-mentee
interaction through use of taped interactions or on-site observations.
Results of this pilot study suggest that the mentors of APCH and HBO utilize the
behavior analytic strategies of positive reinforcement, goal setting, and modeling.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Mentors participating in a variety of mentor programs may also be utilizing these
strategies in their mentoring relationships. Future studies of mentor-mentee
relationships could help clarify those behavior analytic strategies that seem to be
linked to positive behavioral outcome for mentees. The strategies that seem most
successful in mentor-mentee relationships could ultimately supplement mentor
training, thereby leading to duplication of mentor program successes.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
26
References
Achenbach (1991). Manual for the Youth Self-Report and 1991 Profile.
Burlington, VT: University of Vermont Department of Psychiatry.
Clinton, Gregory (2002). Mentoring programs for at-risk youth. The Prevention
Researcher, (9), 1-15
Demaray, M.K., Ruffalo, S.L., Carlson, J., Busse, R.T., Olson, A.E., McManus,
S.M., & Levanthal, A. (1995). Social skills assessment: A comparative evaluation of
six published rating scales. School Psychology Review, 24, 648-671.
Fo, W. S., & O'Donnell, C. R. (1974). The Buddy System: Relationship and
contingency conditions in a community intervention program for youth with
nonprofessionals as behavior change agents. Journal of Consulting & Clinical
Psychology, 42, 163-169.
Frecknall, P., & Luks, A. (1992). An evaluation of parental assessment of the Big
Brothers/Big Sisters Program in New York City. Adolescence, 27, 715-718.
Gresham, F.M., & Elliott, S.N. (1990). Social Skills Rating System. Circle Pines,
MN: AGS.
Hart, R. R. (1978). Therapeutic effectiveness of setting and monitoring goals.
Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psychology, 46, 1242-1245.
Johnson, A.W (1998). An evaluation of the long-term impacts of the Sponsor-A-
Scholar Program on student performance. Princeton: Mathematica Policy Research,
Inc.
Jucovy, L. (2001). Building relationships: A guide for new mentors. Philadelphia:
Public/Private Ventures.
Jucovy, L. (2002). Measuring the Quality of Mentor Youth Relationships.
Philadelphia: Public/Private Ventures.
Kahle, A. L., & Kelley, M. L. (1994). Children's homework problems: A
comparison of goal setting and parent training. Behavior Therapy. 25(2), 275-290.
Kazdin, A. E. (1977). Vicarious reinforcement and direction of behavior change in
the classroom. Behavior Therapy, 8(1), 57-63.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
27
Kazdin, A. E. (2001). Behavior modification in applied settings (6th ed.).
Belmont, CA, US: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.
Merrell, K. (1994). Assessment of behavioral, social, & emotional problems:
Direct & objective methods for use with children and adolescents. New York:
Longman.
McPartland, J. M., & Nettles, S. M. (1991). Using community adults as advocates
or mentors for at-risk middle school students: A two-year evaluation of Project
RAISE. American Journal of Education, 99(4), 568-586.
O'Dell, S. L.; Tarler-Benlolo, L.; Flynn, J. M. An instrument to measure-to-
measure knowledge of behavioral principles as applied to children. Journal of
Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychology, 10(1), 29-34
Ollendick, T. H., Dailey, D., & Shapiro, E. S. (1983). Vicarious reinforcement:
Expected and unexpected effects. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 16(4), 485-
491.
Rhodes, J. E. (1994). Older and wiser: Mentoring relationships in childhood and
adolescence. Journal of Primary Prevention, 14(3), 187-196.
Rhodes, J. E., Grossman, J. B., & Resche, N. L. (2000). Agents of change:
Pathways through which mentoring relationships influence adolescents' academic
adjustment. Child Development, 71(6), 1662-1671.
Rosenthal, R. & Rosnow, R. L. (1991). Essentials of behavioral research: Methods
and data analysis (2n d ed.). Boston: McGraw Hill
Sanchez, B., & Reyes, O. (1999). Descriptive profile of the mentorship
relationships of Latino adolescents. Journal of Community Psychology, 27, 299-302.
Scott, P. M., Burton, R. V., & Yarrow, M. R. (1967). Social reinforcement under
natural conditions. Child Development, 38, 53-63.
Sipe, C.L. & Roder, A. E. (1999). Mentoring School-Age Children: A
Classification of programs. Philadelphia: Public/Private Ventures.
Sulzer-Azaroff, B., & Mayer, G. R. (1991). Behavior analysis for lasting change.
New York, NY, US: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, Inc.
Tierney, J., Grossman, J.B. & Resch, N. L. (2000). Making a difference: An
impact study of Big Brothers/Big Sisters. Philadelphia: Public/Private Ventures.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
28
Appendix A
Mentor Interview
TODAY’ S
DATE
YOUR
NAME____
MENTEE
NAME
□ The purpose of this interview is to gather some information about the types of
contacts that mentors have with their mentees. Please answer by thinking about the
contacts you have had with your mentee over the past 4 weeks.
□ Please keep in mind that there is no right or wrong way to respond to these
questions. We expect that answers will vary from mentor to mentor.
□ First, I would like to ask you about the types of contacts you have had with your
mentee and the length of these contacts.
□ How often did you have contact with your mentee____________ (while on
site, while off-site, over the phone, etc.)? Approximately how long did each type of
contact last?
Y Fill in chart on the next page using the above question format for each
line.
Y Please make sure to have respondent specify place if they say they have
had off-site contact with mentee.
Y Also, only ask for hours o f direct contact mentor has had with mentee.
Just being in the same room together during a session does not count!
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
29
Mentor Interview Continued
METHOD HOW
OFTEN
HOW
LONG/TOTAL
HRS?
ON-SITE CONTACT DURING SCHEDULED
SESSIONS
APCH/HBO (circle site)
OFF-SITE CONTACT
(outside of scheduled sessions)
Place 1:
OFF-SITE CONTACT
(outside of scheduled sessions)
Place 2:
OFF-SITE CONTACT
(outside of scheduled sessions)
Place 3:
PHONE:
EMAILS:
OTHER
Specify:
OTHER
Specify:
OTHER
Specify:
□ Now I am going to ask you to rate, on a scale from 1-5 (l=not at all; 2 =a little,
3 ^somewhat, 4=pretty much, 5=very much), how much you agree with following
statements about yourself.
□ Please rate each statement by thinking about the types of contacts you have had
with your mentee over the past 4 weeks.
1. You taught your mentee new things by showing him/her what you would do in a
situation.
1 2 3 4 5
not at all a little somewhat pretty much very much
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
30
Mentor Interview Continued
2. You helped your mentee figure out some of the things that may have caused the
problems he/she was having.
1 2 3 4 5
not at all a little somewhat pretty much very much
3. You encouraged your mentee to use problem solving in order to help your mentee
find a more positive way to respond to a situation.
1 2 3 4 5
not at all a little somewhat pretty much very much
4. You praised or rewarded your mentee when he/she did something good or
positive.
1 2 3 4 5
not at all a little somewhat pretty much very much
5. You always pointed out the things that your mentee did right.
1 2 3 4 5
not at all a little somewhat pretty much very much
6. You ignored your mentee when he/she did something wrong.
1 2 3 4 5
not at all a little somewhat pretty much very much
7. You used yourself as a model for your mentee’s behavior.
1 2 3 4 5
not at all a little somewhat pretty much very much
8. You helped your mentee practice different ways of dealing with the problems that
he/she had.
1 2 3 4 5
not at all a little somewhat pretty much very much
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
31
Mentor Interview Continued
9. You took away something your mentee really liked or wanted when he/she acted
badly or irresponsibly.
1 2 3 . 4 5
not at all a little somewhat pretty much very much
10. You helped your mentee set goals for himself/herself.
1 2 3 4 5
not at all a little somewhat pretty much very much
11. You helped your mentee reach his/her goals by checking up on how well he/she
was doing with his/her goals.
1 2 3 4 5
not at all a little somewhat pretty much very much
12. You told your mentee that you were disappointed in him/her when he/she acted
badly or irresponsibly.
1 2 3 4 5
not at all a little somewhat pretty much very much
13. You used a pleasant tone of voice when talking to your mentee.
1 2 3 4 5
not at all a little somewhat pretty much very much
14. No matter how badly or irresponsibly your mentee acted, you always treated
him/her the same way.
1 2 3 4 5
not at all a little somewhat pretty much very much
THANK YOU FOR TAKING THE TIME TO COMPLETE THIS INTERVIEW!!
I WILL BE CALLING YOU ABOUT 4 WEEKS FROM NOW. PLEASE TELL ME
WHAT DAY/TIME WORKS BEST FOR YOU FOR THE NEXT INTERVIEW.
NEXT CALLING DAY/TIME
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
32
Appendix B
Mentee Interview
TODAY’ S DATE
YOUR NAME
MENTEE NAME
□ We are interested in knowing about the ways in which mentors interact with
mentees your age. The purpose of this interview is to gather some information about
the types of contact that mentees have with their mentors.
□ Please keep in mind that there is no right or wrong way to respond to these
questions. We expect that answers will vary from mentee to mentee.
□ Now I am going to ask you to rate on a scale from 1-5 (l=not at all; 2 =a little,
3 =somewhat, 4=pretty much, S^wery much), how much you agree with some
statements about your mentor.
□ Please rate each statement by thinking about the types of contact you have had
with your mentor over the past 4 weeks.
Y Please make sure to periodically repeat the scale so that the respondent
always remembers what each number represents. You could also have them
jo t down the numbers and what each number represents at this point during
the interview and ask them to refer to these numbers as you go through each
statement.
Y Also, periodically remind respondent that they are rating these
statements with regard to what has happened over the past 4 weeks.
Y NO ELABORA TION is allowedfor any o f these questions! Use only the
wording provided for each question.
Y Make sure respondent answers ALL questions!
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
33
Mentee Interview Continued
1. Your mentor taught you new things by showing you what he/she would do in a
situation.
1 2 3 4 5
not at all a little somewhat pretty much very much
2. Your mentor helped you figure out some of the things that may have caused the
problems you were having.
1 2 3 4 5
not at all a little somewhat pretty much very much
3. Your mentor encouraged you to use problem-solving to help you find more
positive ways to respond to difficult situations.
1 2 3 4 5
not at all a little somewhat pretty much very much
4. Your mentor praised or rewarded you when you did something good or positive.
1 2 3 4 5
not at all a little somewhat pretty much very much
5. Your mentor always pointed out the things that you did right.
1 2 3 4 5
not at all a little somewhat pretty much very much
6. Your mentor ignored you when you did something wrong.
1 2 3 4 5
not at all a little somewhat pretty much very much
7. Your mentor used himself or herself as a model for your behavior.
1 2 3 4 5
not at all a little somewhat pretty much very much
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
34
Mentee Interview Continued
8. Your mentor helped you practice different ways of dealing with the problems that
you had.
1 2 3 4 5
not at all a little somewhat pretty much very much
9. Your mentor took away something you really liked or wanted when you acted
badly or irresponsibly.
1 2 3 4 5
not at all a little somewhat pretty much very much
10. Your mentor helped you set goals for yourself.
1 2 3 4 5
not at all a little somewhat pretty much very much
11. Your mentor helped you reach your goals by checking up on how well you were
doing with your goals.
1 2 3 4 5
not at all a little somewhat pretty much very much
12. Your mentor told you he/she was disappointed in you when you acted badly or
irresponsibly.
1 2 3 4 5
not at all a little somewhat pretty much very much
13. Your mentor used a pleasant tone of voice when talking to you.
1 2 3 4 5
not at all a little somewhat pretty much very much
14. No matter how badly or irresponsibly you acted, your mentor always treated you
the same way.
1 2 3 4 5
not at all a little somewhat pretty much very much
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Values and their relationships to HIV-related behavior, attitudes, and social norms

PDF

Applying the theory of reasoned action to condom use: The effect of immediate consequences on intention-behavior consistency

PDF

Depression as a risk factor for dementia

PDF

Parental frequency and satisfaction with children's daily activities

PDF

One-session treatment for phobic Asian adults

PDF

Triple threat: Community violence as a predictor for post traumatic stress disorder and the associated features of drug use and depressive symptoms among Latino youth

PDF

Does intense probation monitoring of truants work? An empirical econometric analysis of its effect on school and individual attendance, grades, and behavior

PDF

Like a rolling stone: The oral history of a non-resident Indian in Los Angeles, California

PDF

Depressed children and the social and behavioral attributes of their best friend

PDF

The roles of supervisee attachment styles and perception of supervisors' general and multicultural competence in supervisory working alliance, supervisee omissions in supervision, and supervision...

PDF

Disgust as negative affect: A crossed categorization study

PDF

Genetic cross-relationships between criminal behavior and severe alcohol-related problems

PDF

Teacher-implemented functional assessment: Decreasing problem behaviors in the classroom

PDF

Trajectories of physical and emotional partner aggression in marriage

PDF

Dyslexic's development of word recognition and phonological skill over time

PDF

Violence exposure, friendship, and social adjustment among Head Start preschoolers

PDF

Stress, coping, and medication adherence among HIV -infected mothers

PDF

Psychophysiological reactivity and the development of alcohol problems

PDF

Depression and suicidality in Latino adolescents: A study of acculturation and gender role beliefs

PDF

Gender differences in motivation for sexual intercourse: Implications for risky sexual behavior and substance use in a university and community sample

Asset Metadata

Creator Alleyne, Alisha (author)

Core Title What makes mentoring effective? Behavior analytic strategies as key components of successful mentor-mentee relationships: A pilot study

Degree Master of Arts

Degree Program Clinical Psychology

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag Education, Guidance and Counseling,OAI-PMH Harvest,psychology, clinical

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c16-307241

Unique identifier UC11336726

Identifier 1417910.pdf (filename),usctheses-c16-307241 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 1417910.pdf

Dmrecord 307241

Document Type Thesis

Rights Alleyne, Alisha

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA