University of Miami

Scholarly Repository
Management Faculty Articles and Papers

Management

1-1-2004

Validity of Scandura and Ragins' (1993)

Multidimensional Mentoring Measure: An
Evaluation and Refinement
Stephanie L. Castro
Florida Atlantic University

Terri A. Scandura PhD

University of Miami, scandura@miami.edu

Ethlyn A. Williams
Florida Atlantic University

Recommended Citation
Castro, Stephanie L.; Scandura, Terri A. PhD; and Williams, Ethlyn A., "Validity of Scandura and Ragins' (1993) Multidimensional
Mentoring Measure: An Evaluation and Refinement" (2004). Management Faculty Articles and Papers. Paper 7.
http://scholarlyrepository.miami.edu/management_articles/7

This Conference Proceeding is brought to you for free and open access by the Management at Scholarly Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion
in Management Faculty Articles and Papers by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Repository. For more information, please contact
repository.library@miami.edu.

Multidimensional Mentoring Measure 1

Validity of Scandura and Ragins (1993) Multidimensional Mentoring Measure:
An Evaluation and Refinement
Stephanie L. Castro
Department of Management
College of Business
Florida Atlantic University
2912 College Avenue
Davie, FL 33314
(954)236-1350
(954) 236-1295 fax
scastro@fau.edu
Terri A. Scandura
Department of Management
School of Business
University of Miami
414 Jenkins Building
Coral Gables, FL 33124-9145
(305) 284-3746
(305) 284-3655 fax
scandura@miami.edu
Ethlyn A. Williams
Department of Management
College of Business
Florida Atlantic University
777 Glades Road
Boca Raton, FL 33431
(561) 297-2357
(561) 297-2675 fax
ewilliam@fau.edu

A previous version of this paper was presented at the Southern Management Association
Meetings, San Antonio, Texas, 2004.

We would like to thank Chet Schriesheim for his constructive comments on an earlier draft.

Multidimensional Mentoring Measure 2

Validity of Scandura and Ragins (1993) Multidimensional Mentoring Measure:
An Evaluation and Refinement

Abstract

The establishment of a mentoring relationship can be important to an individuals career for

multiple reasons. However, in order to study this construct, we must be able to accurately
measure it. In this paper, three separate studies were conducted to examine and refine Scandura
and Ragins (1993) multidimensional mentoring measure. In Study 1, an empirical assessment of
the content validity of the measure was conducted. The convergent and discriminant validity,
reliability, and item-total correlations were then examined in Study 2, and the measure was
reduced to nine items. The convergent and discriminant validity, reliability, and item-total
correlations of this reduced measure were then assessed. In Study 3, these same evaluations were
repeated. Concurrent validity was also evaluated by relating the measure to organizational
outcomes. Based on these studies, initial indications of the validity of the revised 9-item
measure are good. Strengths, limitations, and directions for future research are discussed.
(149 words)

Keywords: Measurement design, reliability and validity, survey research, construct validity,
mentoring

Multidimensional Mentoring Measure 3

Mentoring relationships have been discussed in the academic and practitioner
communities as critical for the development of protgs, as these relationships generally have a
positive impact on individual and organizational outcomes. A recent meta-analysis demonstrated
that protgs experience substantial career benefits, including positive objective outcomes such
as increased compensation and promotions as well as subjective outcomes such as increased job
satisfaction and reduced turnover intentions (Allen, Eby, Poteet, Lentz, & Lima, 2004).
However, the field is still in its relative infancy, as evidenced by the small number of studies
included in the meta analysis (i.e., 43). As we move forward and attempt to improve our
understanding of the nature of the mentoring relationship (Underhill, 2006), we need to be
concerned with the validity of the instruments we use to measure the mentoring construct.
The importance of obtaining evidence supporting the construct validity of measures used
in empirical research has been emphasized by many (e.g., Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994; Schwab,
1980). Unfortunately, researchers all too often do not heed this advice, and use measures in
organizational studies that lack sufficient evidence of construct validity (Cook, Hepworth, Wall,
& Warr, 1981; Podsakoff & Dalton, 1987; Schriesheim, Powers, Scandura, Gardiner, & Lankau,
1993; Stone-Romero, 1994). This violates the basic principles of scientific research, for without
accurate instruments to measure constructs, we can have little confidence in the results. As
Korman (1974, p. 194) pointed out, The point is not that accurate measurement is nice. It is
necessary, crucial, etc. Without it we have nothing.
In this study we evaluate the validity of Scandura and Ragins (1993) multidimensional
mentoring measure. The measure has 15 items, and is comprised of three scales measuring three
dimensions: career support, psychosocial support, and role modeling. Although this measure has
been used in a number of studies, there is limited evidence of its validity. The majority of the

Multidimensional Mentoring Measure 4

validity-related evidence to date addresses concurrent validity. Thus far, Scandura and Ragins
mentoring measure and/or its subdimensions have been positively related to personal learning
and job satisfaction (Lankau & Scandura, 2002), value similarity and supportiveness (Neilson,
Carlson, & Lankau, 2001), promotion rate and salary level (Scandura, 1992), and feminity
(Scandura & Ragins, 1993). The measure and/or its subdimensions have been negatively
associated with role ambiguity and intent to leave (Lankau & Scandura, 2002), family
interference with work (Nielson et al., 2001), and organizational rank and mentorship experience
(Scandura & Ragins, 1993).
Minimal support for the factor structure exists. Scandura and Ragins (1993) found
support for the three factor structure in their initial study. Williams (1999) also found support for
three factors. Arguably, given the limited evidence thus far, more information regarding the
validity of Scandura and Ragins (1993) measure is needed.
Thus, the primary purpose of this paper is to evaluate and refine Scandura and Ragins
(1993) mentoring measure through a comprehensive, programmatic approach. Quantitative,
empirical analyses of content validity, convergent validity, and discriminant validity are
conducted, and reliability and item-total correlations are examined. Based on our results, a 9item version of Scandura and Ragins (1993) measure is proposed, and concurrent validity is then
assessed. The 9-item measure is then evaluated in a separate confirmatory sample.
Study 1
Study 1 was conducted to empirically assess the content validity of Scandura and Ragins
(1993) mentoring measure. The quantitative methodology described by Schriesheim et al. (1993)
was employed. The mentoring items and the three corresponding subdimension definitions were
presented to judges, as well as a fourth category, defined as Behaviors which clearly do not fall

Multidimensional Mentoring Measure 5

into the other categories. The judges were asked to evaluate the items consonance with the
theoretical definitions.
Method
Sample
Students attending a medium-sized private university in the southeastern United States
were used as judges. The use of students for this type of analysis should not be problematic,
since they are not asked about actual work or mentoring experience; they are only asked to make
semantic judgments about item fidelity to definitions (cf. Schriesheim et al., 1993). The total
sample size was 169, and 50% were male. The average age was 24 years old and 96% were
employed or had been previously employed. The sample was 40% Caucasian, 31% Hispanic,
10% African American, 6% Asian, and 12% other.
Measure
Scandura and Ragins (1993) measure, comprised of three scales measuring career
support, psychosocial support, and role modeling, was employed. Judges were given the 15
items, the three subdimension definitions, and the none of the above category. (A copy of the
form is available from the authors upon request.)
Analyses
The data from the content adequacy assessment was analyzed using principal axis factor
analysis with oblique rotations (delta = 0). The data were analyzed in two ways: (1) factors with
an eigenvalue greater than or equal to 1 were extracted, and (2) the number of factors was
specified (based on theory). For this latter procedure, three factors were specified (one each for
career support, psychosocial support, and role modeling).

Multidimensional Mentoring Measure 6

Results
The results for the two analyses (extracting factors with eigenvalues greater than or equal
to 1.0 or specifying the number of factors) were identical. The first four unrotated eigenvalues
for the Scandura and Ragins (1993) 15-item measure were 3.45, 2.55, 1.89, and .86, supporting
the extraction of three factors. The total variance explained was 41%. The factor loadings
(pattern coefficients) are presented in Table 1. Following the recommendation of Ford,
MacCallum, and Tait (1986), loadings of .40 or greater on the intended theoretical factor were
considered meaningful for interpretation, and cross-loadings of .30 or greater were considered
excessive. All items loaded .40 or stronger on the intended factor, and there were no crossloadings of .30 or greater.
-------------------------------------Insert Table 1 about here
-------------------------------------Discussion
The results of the factor analysis strongly support the content validity of Scandura and
Ragins (1993) measure. All of the items exceeded the criteria set forth by Ford et al. (1986).
Importantly, there were no cross loadings, indicating that the items are unidimensional.
Additionally, the fourth category, None of the above, was not supported. Thus, the items can
be considered to strongly reflect their intended theoretical constructs.
Study 2
The purpose Study 2 was to assess scale reliability, concurrent validity, and convergent
and discriminant validity. Concurrent validity was evaluated by relating the mentoring measure
and subscales to job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and anxiety. The two former
constructs were chosen as a significant positive correlation with mentoring is expected, based on

Multidimensional Mentoring Measure 7

theory and previous empirical analyses (e.g., Allen et al., 2004). General anxiety was also
measured, but was expected to have only a weak (negative) relationship with mentoring.
Convergent validity was evaluated by examining (1) the ability of the hypothesized factor
structure of each scale to account for a large amount of covariation among the measures items,
(2) the statistical significance and size of the item loadings on the hypothesized factors, (3) the
proportion of variance in the latent variables accounted for by the indicators using Fornell and
Larckers (1981) average variance indicator (vc()), and (4) the correlations with Ragins and
McFarlins (1990) mentoring measure. Discriminant validity was assessed by (1) testing that
each of the correlations among the scales was significantly less than 1, and (2) comparing vc()
with scale intercorrelations. Fornell and Larcker (1981) argued that to demonstrate discriminant
validity, the average variance in a latent constructs indicators should be greater than the square
of the constructs correlations with other latent constructs. Due to the somewhat disappointing
outcomes of the Study 2 analyses, the scale was reduced to a 9-item measure, and the analyses
repeated.
Method
Sample
Employed MBA students attending classes at a medium-sized private university in the
southeastern United States were surveyed. The total sample size was 474; of these, 255 (54%)
indicated having had a mentor at some time in their careers. Only those who had been mentored
were used in the analyses. Listwise deletion of missing data resulted in a sample of N = 246.
This sample was used in the Lisrel analyses, evaluating convergent and discriminant validity, and
the reliability and item-total analyses. However, for the analyses including the Ragins and
McFarlin (1990) measure, missing data resulted in a sample of N = 160. This smaller sample

Multidimensional Mentoring Measure 8

was only used in the regression analyses comparing the two measures (reported in Table 8) and
the correlations (presented in Table 9).
In the mentored sample, 54.7% were male, and the average age was 28.8 years old. The
sample was 52% Caucasian, 7.4% African American, 23% Hispanic, 6.3% Asian, and 3.1%
indicated other. On average, the respondents had 4.8 years of experience prior to joining their
current organization, and 3.3 years experience in their current position. Respondents jobs
ranged from first line supervisor to CEO.
Measures
Scandura and Ragins (1993) measure was used. The coefficient alpha reliability
estimate for this administration of the original 15-item measure was .93, while the reliability of
the scores on the revised 9-item measure was .91 and the reliability of the scores on the 3-item
revised scales ranged from .82 to .85.
The 33-item measure developed by Ragins and McFarlin (1990) was used as an
alternative measure of the mentoring construct. The measure is comprised of eleven scales, each
with three items: sponsorship, coaching, protection, challenge, exposure, friendship, social,
parent, role modeling, counseling, and acceptance-and-confirmation. The social and parent
scales were developed for specific mentoring situations (cross-gender), and are not directly
comparable to the Scandura and Ragins (1993) scale. Thus, the six items measuring these two
dimensions were eliminated from the analyses in this study. 1 The coefficient alpha for the data
collected on the 27-item scale was .91.
Job satisfaction was measured using the 20-item short form of the Minnesota Satisfaction
Questionnaire (MSQ; Weiss, Dawis, England, & Lofquist, 1967). The MSQ was employed due
to its careful development and refinement, as well as the considerable evidence which supports

Multidimensional Mentoring Measure 9

its validity and reliability (e.g., Wanous, 1974; Weiss et al., 1967). The coefficient alpha
reliability estimate in this sample was .86.
The Organizational Commitment Questionnaire (OCQ; Porter, Steers, Mowday, &
Boulian, 1974) was used to measure organizational commitment. There have been numerous
studies which have investigated the construct validity of the OCQ, and while there is evidence
supporting its validity, there are also concerns. In particular, some have questioned the factor
structure of the measure and recommended a 9-item form (e.g., Mathieu & Zajac, 1990).
However, the 9-item version of the OCQ only measures affective commitment. Since our desire
was to capture the entire theoretical construct of organizational commitment, we used the
complete OCQ in these analyses. Coefficient alpha in this sample was .85.
Anxiety was measured by the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (Speilberger, Gorush &
Lushene, 1970). Respondents were asked to indicate how they generally felt. Sample items
include I feel nervous, and I am worried. This measure has been used in over 150 studies,
and substantial evidence supports its validity (e.g., Rule & Traver, 1983; Sherwood &
Westerback, 1983). The coefficient alpha reliability estimate in this data was .90.
Analyses
Convergent and discriminant validity. The convergent and discriminant validity of the
measure was evaluated using Lisrel 8.51 (Jreskog & Srbom, 1993). Sample covariances
served as input for the maximum likelihood estimations, each item was specified as loading on
only one factor, the errors were specified as uncorrelated among themselves, and the latent trait
factor correlations were freely estimated.
Four rival models were tested. A single factor model with all the items loading on one
global mentoring factor was tested. Two alternate two factor models were tested. In the first two

Multidimensional Mentoring Measure 10

factor model (Model 2a), the role modeling and career support items loaded on one factor while
the psychosocial support items loaded on a second factor. In the second two factor model
(Model 2b), the role modeling and psychosocial support items loaded on one factor while the
career support items loaded on a second.2 Finally, a three factor model was tested, with the
career, psychosocial, and role modeling items each loading on their respective factors.
Scale reliabilities and item-total correlations. Coefficient alpha internal consistency
scale reliabilities and item-total correlations were examined for each measure and its scales.
Reduced 9-item measure. Based on the item analyses, scale reliabilities, content validity
results, and factor analysis results, Scandura and Ragins (1993) measure was reduced to nine
items, three items per scale. Scale reliabilities, item-total correlations, and convergent and
discriminant validity were then assessed on the reduced measure and scales.
Comparison of the two mentoring measures. An additional analysis used to support the
construct validity of the reduced 9-item mentoring measure was an investigation of the ability of
the Ragins and McFarlin (1990) measure to add to explained variance in outcome measures over
the 9-item measure. Since both measures assess the same global construct (mentoring), neither
should add explanatory power over the other. As Liden and Maslyn (1998) did comparing the
LMX-7 scale (Scandura & Graen, 1984) with their newly-constructed LMX-MDM scale, we ran
a series of hierarchical regression analyses. Using job satisfaction, organizational commitment,
and anxiety as dependent variables (each in separate regression analyses), the revised 9-item
measure was entered first. In the second step, the 27-item Ragins and McFarlin (1990) scale was
added. The change in R2 was then evaluated to determine whether the Ragins and McFarlin
(1990) measure was able to explain any additional variance in the outcome variables. The
analyses were then repeated, reversing the order of entry.

Multidimensional Mentoring Measure 11

Concurrent validity. Concurrent validity was examined by looking at correlations
between the mentoring measure and its three scales and outcome variables (job satisfaction,
organizational commitment, and anxiety).
Results
Convergent and discriminant validity
The fit statistics for the four alternative models are presented in Table 2. The
hypothesized three factor model fit best, and significantly better than either of the two factor
models. The chi-square difference between the three factor model and the next-best fitting model
(model 2a) was 66.16 (df = 2), significant at the p .001 level. However, the chi-square statistic
was statistically significant (2 = 297.82, df = 87) and the ratio of the chi-square to degrees of
freedom approached 3.5, indicating only a moderate fit (Bentler & Bonett, 1980). The fit indices
also indicated a moderate fit, with the SRMSR = .067, the GFI = .84, the TLI = .88, the NFI =
.86, and the CFI = .90. While the fit indices for the three factor model were better than the
alternative models, only the CFI met the .90 standard (Medsker, Williams, & Holahan, 1994).
The root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) for the three factor model was .11,
indicating a poor fit (Browne & Cudeck, 1993). Additionally, model comparisons were made
using the 90% confidence interval of the RMSEA. Given that the confidence interval for the
three factor model overlaps with the confidence interval for model 2a, we cannot conclude that
the three factor model has a significantly better fit (Browne & Cudeck, 1993).
-------------------------------------Insert Table 2 about here
-------------------------------------The completely standardized factor loadings and error variances for the 15-item measure
are presented in Table 3. All of the loadings were statistically significant (p .05), with an

Multidimensional Mentoring Measure 12

average factor loading of .74. However, there were several factor loadings that were relatively
low. The loadings for item 3 (.69), item 11 (.63), and 14 (.58) were all below .70.
The disattenuated correlations and average variances are presented in Table 4. The
disattenuated correlations ranged from .74 to .83, with an average of .77. Although the
correlations were high, they were significantly less than 1.0 (p .01). Additionally, they were
not high enough to suggest a second order factor existed. Finally, in looking at the average
variance (vc()), the hypothesized dimensions (latent constructs) accounted for a large proportion
of variance (on average) in their indicators. The average variance accounted for ranged from .52
to .58, with an average of .55. In comparing vc() to the disattenuated correlations, three of the
six comparisons did not fit the criteria. The vc() for the career support scale was .52, which was
less than the square of the disattenuated correlation between career support and psychosocial
support (.55), and less than the square of the disattenuated correlation between career support and
role modeling (.69). Also, the vc() for the role modeling scale was .56, which was less than the
square of the disattenuated correlation between career support and role modeling (.69).
------------------------------------------Insert Tables 3 and 4 about here
------------------------------------------Finally, the correlation between the 15-item measure and Ragins and Mc Farlins (1990)
27-item measure (excluding the social and parent scales) was r = .73 (p .01; see Table 9).
Based on these results, there appeared to be some evidence of the convergent and
discriminant validity of Scandura and Ragins (1993) 15-item measure. However, the moderate
overall model fit, the poor model comparison results, and the average variance comparisons
indicated that the measure could be improved.

Multidimensional Mentoring Measure 13

Scale Reliabilities and Item-total Correlations
The coefficient alpha internal consistency reliability estimate for the 15-item measure was
.93. Item-total correlations were moderately strong, generally ranging from .60 to .78, with two
items below .60 (for item 11, rit = .55, and for item 14, rit = .49). The reliability estimates for the
data collected for the career support, psychosocial support, and role modeling scales were .88,
.87, and .83, respectively. Item analyses indicated that deleting single items would not increase
the scale reliabilities for either the full measure or the three scales.
Revised 9-item Measure
Based on the results of the analyses, we felt the 15-item Scandura and Ragins (1993)
measure needed to be modified. The measure was reduced to nine items, hereinafter referred to
as the Mentoring Functions Questionnaire, or MFQ-9. Three items were retained for each
dimension (career support, psychosocial support, and role modelingthe retained items are
listed in Table 6). The theoretical construct definitions were taken into consideration in
determining which items to retain, as were the item-total correlations, factor loadings, and
content adequacy results. The rationale behind the retention/elimination of particular items is
discussed below.
For the career support scale, rather than retain items that focused on one of the particular
subdimensions (e.g., coaching), we chose to retain items that were more general in nature. For
example, we dropped the item My mentor advised me of promotional opportunities because
the situation may preclude the availability of such opportunities (i.e., there may be no
promotional opportunities in the organization). The lack of promotional opportunities, however,
does not prevent a mentor from providing career support in other ways. The other items
eliminated were similar, in that the mentor may or may not have had the opportunity to engage in

Multidimensional Mentoring Measure 14

the behavior due to circumstances. Notably, the item with the low loading from the confirmatory
factor analysis (item 3) was specific (rather than general), and thus it was eliminated.
For the psychosocial support scale, we eliminated items that were possibly biased in that
they could only apply to mentor-protg relationships occurring at the same physical location.
The items I often go to lunch with my mentor and I socialize with my mentor after work
were dropped, as it may be physically impossible to engage in these behaviors (different physical
location, different working hours, inability to take off at the same time, etc.), yet psychosocial
support could still occur. Additionally, the former item obtained a low confirmatory factor
loading, further contributing to the reasoning for elimination.
Finally, for the role modeling scale, we eliminated the one item that was not behavioral.
Item 14 (which also had a low loading in the confirmatory factor analysis), I respect my
mentors knowledge of the profession, was not related to any behavior on the part of the mentor,
and thus was not something the protg could model. The three items retained referred to
things that could be imitated (i.e., motivating others, teaching others), or to the actual act of
trying to imitate the mentors behavior.
The analyses (confirmatory factor analyses, reliabilities, and item-total correlations) were
then repeated on the revised 9-item measure, or the MFQ-9.
Convergent and discriminant validity. The four alternative models were tested using the
MFQ-9, and the fit statistics are presented in Table 5. The hypothesized three factor model fit
best. The chi-square statistic was statistically significant (2 = 79.3, df = 24, p .001), and the
ratio of the chi-square to degrees of freedom was approximately 3, indicating a moderate fit
(Bentler & Bonett, 1980). The three factor model fit significantly better than the next-best fitting
model (2a), with a chi-square difference of 54.82 (df = 2), significant at the p .001 level. The

Multidimensional Mentoring Measure 15

fit indices indicated an excellent fit, with the SRMSR = .046, GFI = .92, TLI = .93, NFI = .94,
and CFI = .95. (We recognize that since this is the sample used to modify the measure, a good fit
was expected.) However, as with the 15-item measure, the RMSEA was .11 (above the .10
recommendation; Browne and Cudeck, 1993), and the RMSEA confidence interval overlapped
with model 2a.
---------------------------------Insert Table 5 about here
---------------------------------The completely standardized factor loadings and error variances for the MFQ-9 are
presented in Table 6. All of the loadings were statistically significant (p .01), and most were
large, ranging from .69 to .89 with an average factor loading of .79.
Disattenuated correlations and average variance indices are presented in Table 7.
Correlations ranged from .76 to .80, with an average of .78. The correlations were significant (p
.01) and significantly less than 1.0 (p .01). Although high, the correlations between the
subdimensions were not high enough to suggest a second order factor. Finally, the hypothesized
dimensions accounted for a large proportion of variance (on average) in their indicators.
Specifically, vc() = .58 for career support, vc() = .65 for psychosocial support, and vc() = .63
for role modeling. Comparing vc() with the disattenuated correlations, four of the six
comparisons fit the criteria, and the other two were close. The vc() for the career support scale
was .58, which was slightly less than the square of the disattenuated correlation between career
support and role modeling (.61). Additionally, vc() for the role modeling scale was .63, which
was less than the square of the disattenuated correlation between psychosocial support and role
modeling (.64).

Multidimensional Mentoring Measure 16

---------------------------------------------Insert Tables 6 and 7 about here
---------------------------------------------The correlation between the MFQ-9 and Ragins and Mc Farlins (1990) 27-item measure
(excluding the social and parent scales) was r = .73. This correlation is identical to the
correlation between the 15-item measure and Ragins and Mc Farlins (1990) 27-item measure.
Reliability and item-total correlations. The coefficient alpha internal consistency
reliability for the scores on the MFQ-9 was .91. The reliabilities for the scores on the career
support scale, psychosocial support scale, and role modeling scale were .82, .85, and .83. Itemtotal correlations for all three scales items ranged from .62 to .78. Item analyses indicated that
the deletion of any single item would not result in improvement in these reliabilities.
Comparison of Ragins and McFarlins Measure and the Revised 9-Item Measure
Using hierarchical regression, the ability of the two measures to explain variance in
outcomes over the other was evaluated (cf. Liden & Maslyn, 1998). The results are presented in
Table 8. The addition of either measure to equations with the other did not explain statistically
significant increases in variance in the outcome measures.
---------------------------------------Insert Table 8 about here
---------------------------------------Assessment of Concurrent Validity
Table 9 presents the means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations for the measures.
The 15-item Scandura and Ragins measure and the MFQ-9 were highly correlated (r = .94), and
outcome variable correlations with the MFQ-9 were very similar to those with the 15-item
measure. The MFQ-9 was significantly related to job satisfaction (r = .23, p .01) and
marginally significantly related to organizational commitment (r = .14, p .10). The career

Multidimensional Mentoring Measure 17

support and role modeling dimensions were significantly related to satisfaction (r = .20 and .26, p
.05 and p .01, respectively) and commitment (r = .13 and .19, p .10 and p .05,
respectively). Psychosocial support was significantly related to satisfaction (r = .15, p .10) but
not to commitment (r = .06). None of the three scales were significantly related to anxiety.
(Parenthetically, the statistical significance of the correlations between the MFQ-9 and the three
outcome variables are identical to the statistical significance of the same correlations for the
Ragins and McFarlin [1990] measure.)
------------------------------------Insert Table 9 about here
------------------------------------Discussion
The initial findings of Study 2 offered only moderate support for the validity of the 15item measure. Using the construct definitions as well as the empirical results of Studies 1 and 2,
we revised the measure to 9 items and reevaluated it, repeating the analyses. Substantial support
was obtained for the MFQ-9. However, this is not surprising, since the same data used to revise
the measure were used to reevaluate it. A stronger test comes from an additional, confirmatory
sample. Hence, we conducted Study 3.
Study 3
This study was conducted to evaluate the validity of the MFQ-9. Convergent and
discriminant validity, reliabilities, and item total correlations were evaluated as they were in
Study 2.

Multidimensional Mentoring Measure 18

Method
Sample
This sample was drawn from employed CPAs, and a total of 1024 surveys were
completed. Of these, 795 indicated having had a mentor at some point in their careers, and thus
these comprised the study sample. Sixty-eight percent of the mentored sample was male, and the
average age was 30. Twelve percent of the sample was African American, and 88% were
Hispanic or Caucasian. Average organizational tenure was 2.3 years, ranging from a few months
to 28 years.
Measures
The MFQ-9, drawn from Scandura and Ragins (1993), was used. The reliability for this
data on the MFQ-9 was .78, and the reliabilities were .77, .67, and .69 for the psychosocial
support, career support, and role modeling scale data, respectively.
Analyses
Convergent and discriminant validity. The convergent and discriminant validity of the
measure was evaluated using maximum likelihood estimation in Lisrel 8.51 (Jreskog &
Srbom, 1993). Sample covariances served as input for the estimations, each item was specified
as loading on only one factor, the errors were specified as uncorrelated among themselves, and
the latent trait factor correlations were freely estimated. The same four rival models tested in
Study 2 were tested here, and the same examination of convergent and discriminant validity was
conducted.
Scale reliabilities and item-total correlations. Coefficient alpha internal consistency
reliabilities and item-total correlations were examined for the MFQ-9 and its scales.

Multidimensional Mentoring Measure 19

Results
Convergent and Discriminant Validity
The fit statistics for the four alternative models are presented in Table 5. The
hypothesized three factor model fit best, with 2 = 61.07 and df = 24 (p .01), and a ratio of the
chi-square to degrees of freedom of approximately 2, indicating a good fit (Bentler & Bonett,
1980). Additionally, the three factor model fit significantly better than the next-best fitting
model (2a), with a chi-square difference of 215.41 (df = 2), significant at the p .001 level.
Finally, the fit indices indicated an excellent fit: SRMSR = .031, GFI = .98, TLI = .96, NFI = .96,
CFI = .98, and RMSEA = .04. The RMSEA confidence interval comparisons show that the three
factor model is significantly better than any of the others (i.e., there is no overlap with any of the
other models confidence intervals).
The completely standardized factor loadings and error variances for the MFQ-9 are
presented in Table 6. All of the loadings were statistically significant (p .01), and most were
large. The loadings ranged from .45 to .81. Four loadings were below .70: item 1 (.68), item 5
(.45), item 12 (.58), and item 15 (.67).
Disattenuated correlations and average variance indices are presented in Table 7.
Correlations ranged from .42 to .54, with an average of .49. The correlations were significant (p
.01) and significantly less than 1.0 (p .01). The correlations between the subdimensions were
not high enough to suggest a second order factor. Finally, the hypothesized dimensions
accounted for a large proportion of variance (on average) in their indicators: vc() = .44 for
career support, vc() = .55 for psychosocial support, and vc() = .44 for role modeling.
Comparing vc() with the disattenuated correlations, all twelve comparisons fit Fornell and

Multidimensional Mentoring Measure 20

Larckers (1981) criteria (i.e., the average variance was greater than the square of the constructs
correlations with other variables).
Reliability and Item-total Correlations
The reliability estimate for the data on the MFQ-9 was .78 (reliabilities were .67, .77, and
.69 for career, psychosocial, and role modeling scale data, respectively). Item-total correlations
for all three scales items ranged from .38 to .66. Only the deletion of item 5 (rit = .38) in the
career support scale would result in an improvement in the coefficient alpha (from .67 to .70).
Discussion
While the construct validity evidence collected in Study 3 was generally supportive, some
was not. The fit statistics obtained for the theoretical model indicated an excellent fit of the
model to the data. Notably, both model comparison techniques (change in 2 and RMSEA
confidence interval comparisons) supported the three factor model as significantly better than the
alternative models. Additionally, all of the factor loadings were statistically significant.
Evidence for discriminant validity was also strong. Each of the factor correlations was
significantly less than 1.0, and the average variance comparisons using vc() met the criteria in all
of the comparisons.
On the other hand, some of the evidence was not so supportive. Four of the factor
loadings in this study were below the .70 threshold, albeit most only slightly so. Reliability for
the overall measure was adequate, but two of the scales were slightly below the .70 rule-ofthumb. While these results are somewhat surprising, they should not generate too much alarm.
First, it is important to recall that all of the items demonstrated strong content adequacy (Study
1). Additionally, the low loadings were not replicated in Study 2--only item 1 had low loadings

Multidimensional Mentoring Measure 21

in both Study 2 and Study 3. Finally, it should be noted that the loadings for item 1 were close to
.70 (.69 and .68 in Studies 2 and 3).
The results of this study draw attention to item 5. This item was the only one for which
deletion would have resulted in an improvement in a scales reliability. Item 5 also obtained the
lowest factor loading in this study. Given these results, item 5 should probably be looked at
more carefully in future studies. However, we note that the poor results obtained in this study are
possibly sample specific, as item 5 was not problematic in Study 2.
General Discussion
Unfortunately, as noted by many others (e.g., Cook et al., 1981; Podsakoff & Dalton,
1987; Schriesheim et al., 1993; Stone-Romero, 1994), the field generally does not devote enough
attention to measurement development and validation. Researchers tend to use measures to
evaluate substantive hypotheses prior to evaluating the construct validity of the measures. Thus,
the purpose of this study was to evaluate the validity of a commonly used measure in mentoring
research, Scandura and Ragins (1993) mentoring measure.
The analyses of Scandura and Ragins (1993) 15-item scale in Study 2 were not as
supportive as expected. While the content validity analysis was excellent (three factors, strong
theoretical factor loadings, no substantial cross-loadings), the results of some of the other
analyses were disappointing. The confirmatory factor model did not fit well, in that three of the
four fit indices employed were below the .90 criterion. Additionally, the comparisons
recommended by Fornell and Larcker (1981) were not supportive of the distinctiveness of the
constructs. The poor results of the confirmatory factor analysis and the Fornell and Larcker
(1981) average variance comparisons suggested that the Scandura and Ragins measure could be
modified to better represent the construct. The content adequacy results implied that the current

Multidimensional Mentoring Measure 22

items did indeed represent the theoretical constructs, and thus that new items were probably not
needed. Using the results of the above analyses and the theoretical construct definitions, the
MFQ-9 was constructed and reevaluated.
The analyses of the MFQ-9 were very supportive of its validity. Convergent and
discriminant analyses were strongly supportive of the MFQ-9. In the confirmatory factor
analyses, the three factor model fit the data extremely well in both Study 2 and Study 3. Factor
loadings were strong in both samples, with some minor exceptions in Study 3. Similarly,
reliabilities and item-total correlations were strong in Study 2. While two of the estimated
reliabilities in Study 3 were below the .70 recommendation (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994), they
were only slightly below. These lower factor loadings and reliability estimates could be due to
the sample (accountants), or to the diverse activities represented by these items since it is a short
form attempting to capture broad behavioral categories.
Additional evidence of the convergent and discriminant validity strongly supported the
MFQ-9. The average variance explained by each latent variable was considerable. Furthermore,
the comparisons of the squared correlations with the average variance indicator (Fornell &
Larcker, 1981) all exceeded the criteria in Study 3, supporting the distinctiveness of the factors.
The correlation between the 15-item scale and the MFQ-9 scale was very high (r = .94),
indicative that these two measures assess the same global construct. The hierarchical regression
results also supported the convergent validity of the MFQ-9. It appears to assess the same global
mentoring construct as Ragins and McFarlins measure. Based on these results, we consider the
convergent and discriminant validity of the MFQ-9 to be strongly supported. Furthermore, the
concurrent validity assessment also supported the MFQ-9. All of the relationships were as
predicted, with one nonsignificant exception (psychosocial support and commitment).

Multidimensional Mentoring Measure 23

A recent study by Pellegrini and Scandura (2005) provided additional support for the
MFQ-9. A three factor structure was supported in two separate samples (those satisfied with
their mentors and those dissatisfied with their mentors). Interestingly, the psychometric
properties of the MFQ-9 were stronger in the dissatisfied sample than in the satisfied sample.
The authors recommended that further investigation is needed.
Limitations
The primary limitation of this study was the use of self-report measures, which may lead
to method bias. However, as Allen et al.s (2004) recent meta-analysis noted, affective variables
have stronger correlations with mentoring functions than objective variables (e.g., compensation,
promotions, salary growth). With the use of affective variables (as in this study), it is necessary
to assess employees perceptions directly. Additionally, the inclusion of the anxiety measure and
the differential correlations it obtained with the mentoring scales (as opposed to the positive
correlations with job satisfaction and organizational commitment) help to alleviate some of the
concerns of common method bias. That is, it does not appear that respondents were merely
responding positively to each item.
A second limitation of this study is the sample in Study 3 used to confirm the factor
structure of the revised Scandura and Ragins (1993) measure. This sample, comprised entirely of
CPAs, could be considered unique and the results from analyses potentially ungeneralizable to
other organizational populations. However, the Study 3 sample was merely used to confirm
results obtained with a much more diverse sample (Study 2). Relatedly, it would have been ideal
to evaluate concurrent validity by looking at the relationship of the MFQ-9 with outcome
variables in Study 3. Unfortunately, we were unable to collect this additional data due to
organizational constraints.

Multidimensional Mentoring Measure 24

Future Research
Obviously, given the results of Studies 2 and 3, more research is needed on the validity of
the MFQ-9. In particular, investigations of relationships with other variables in other
organizational settings would be useful. Also, further investigation of item 5 is required.
Additionally, the measurement model tests conducted in Study 2 point to a potentially
interesting area for further study. Traditionally, role modeling is considered part of the
psychosocial function (Kram, 1985). Scanduras measure (Scandura, 1992; Scandura and
Ragins, 1993) proposes that the role modeling function is separate and distinct from the
psychosocial function. While the analyses in Study 3 supported this distinction, the analyses in
Study 2 did not. What is particularly interesting is that the Study 2 analyses indicated that role
modeling was more closely associated with the career support function (not the psychosocial
function). This presents a potentially useful area for future study, both from a theoretical and an
empirical standpoint.
Summary
The analyses reported in this paper indicated that the original 15-item multidimensional
mentoring measure (Scandura & Ragins, 1993) needed refinement. Based on the results of
multiple samples and analyses, the measure was refined to a 9-item measure assessing three
dimensions: career support, psychological support, and role modeling. This shorter measure still
provides researchers the ability to look at either the three dimensions separately, or at the
global mentoring construct. Ultimately, a shorter measure with superior evidence of validity
had been developed: the 9-item Mentoring Functions Questionnaire (MFQ-9). The MFQ-9 is
now recommended (instead of the original 15-item version developed by Scandura and Ragins
[1993]).

Multidimensional Mentoring Measure 25

Footnote
1

The analyses were also conducted using the full 33-item measure, and the results are

not substantially different from the analyses with the 27-item measure. The results are available
from the first author upon request.
2

The third logical two factor model (with career support and psychosocial support

loading on one factor and role modeling on the second) was not tested due to theoretical
considerations. Kram (1985) hypothesized two dimensions, career support and psychosocial
support, with role modeling a subdimension of psychosocial support. Yet the correlation in the
Study 2 data indicated that role modeling was more strongly related to career support. Thus,
Models 2a and 2b were tested to allow evaluation of whether role modeling is better viewed as a
subdimension of career support or psychosocial support. Comparison with the three factor model
then allowed determination of whether two or three factors best represented the data.

Multidimensional Mentoring Measure 26

References
Allen, T.D., Eby, L.T., Poteet, M.L., Lentz, E., & Lima, L. (2004). Career benefits
associated with mentoring for protgs: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89,
127-136.
Bentler, P.M., & Bonett, D.G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness-of-fit in the
analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588-606.
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A.
Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136162). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Cook, J.D., Hepworth, S.J., Wall, T.D., & Warr, P.B. (1981). The experience of work.
London: Academic Press.
Ensher, E.A., & Murphy, S.E. (1997). Effects of race, gender, perceived similarity, and
contact on mentor relationships. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 50, 460-481.
Ford, J.K., MacCallum, R.C., & Tait, M. (1986). The application of exploratory factor
analysis in applied psychology: A critical review and analysis. Personnel Psychology, 39, 291314.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D.F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with
unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39-50.
Jreskog, K.G., & Srbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8 user's reference guide. Chicago:
Scientific Software International.
Korman, A.K. (1974). Contingency approaches to leadership: An overview. In J. G. Hunt
& L. L. Larson (Eds.), Contingency approaches to leadership (pp. 189198). Carbondale:
Southern Illinois University Press

Multidimensional Mentoring Measure 27

Kram, K.E. (1985). Mentoring at work: Developmental relationships in organizational
life. Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman.
Lankau, M.J., & Scandura, T.A. (2002). An investigation of personal learning in
mentoring relationships: Content, antecedents and consequences. Academy of Management
Journal, 45, 779-790.
Liden, R.C., & Maslyn, J.M. (1998). Multidimensionality of leader-member exchange:
An empirical assessment through scale development. Journal of Management, 24, 43-72.
Mathieu, J., & Zajac, D.M. (1990). A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents,
correlates, and consequences of organizational commitment. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 171194.
Medsker, G.J., Williams, L., & Holahan. (1994). A review of current practices for
evaluating causal models in organizational behavior and human resources management research.
Journal of Management, 20, 439-464.
Neilson, T.R., Carlson, D.S., & Lankau, M.J. (2001). The supportive mentor as a means
of reducing work-family conflict. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 59, 364-381.
Noe, R.A. (1988). An investigation of the determinants of successful assigned
mentoring relationships. Personnel Psychology, 41, 457-479.
Nunnally, J.C., & Bernstein, I.H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd edition). New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Pellegrini, E.K., & Scandura, T.A. (2005). Construct equivalence across groups: An
unexplored issue in mentoring research. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 65, 323335.

Multidimensional Mentoring Measure 28

Podsakoff, P.M., & Dalton, D.R. (1987). Research methodology in organizational studies.
Journal of Management, 13, 419-441.
Porter, L.W., Steers, R.M., Mowday, R.T., & Boulian, P.V. (1974). Organizational
commitment, job satisfaction, and turnover among psychiatric technicians. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 59, 603-609.
Ragins, B.R., & Cotton, J.L. (1999). Mentor functions and outcomes: A comparison o
men and women in formal and informal mentoring relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology,
84, 529-550.
Ragins, B.R., & McFarlin, D.B. (1990). Perception of mentor roles in cross-gender
mentoring relationships. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 37, 321-339.
Rule, W.R., & Traver, M.D. (1983). Test-retest reliabilities of the State-Trait Anxiety
Inventory in a stressful social analogue situation. Journal of Personality Assessment, 47, 276277.
Scandura, T.A. (1992). Mentorship and career mobility: An empirical investigation.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13, 169-174.
Scandura, T.A., & Ragins, B.R. (1993). The effects of sex and gender role orientation on
mentorship in male-dominated occupations. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 43, 251-265.
Schriesheim, C.A., Powers, K.J., Scandura, T.A., Gardiner, C.C., & Lankau, M.J. (1993).
Improving construct measurement in management research: Comments and a quantitative
approach for assessing the theoretical content adequacy of paper and pencil survey-type
instruments. Journal of Management, 19, 385-417.

Multidimensional Mentoring Measure 29

Schwab, D.P. (1980). Construct validity in organizational behavior. In B. Staw & L.
Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 2, pp. 3-43). Greenwich CT: JAI
Press.
Sherwood, R.D., & Westerback, M.E. (1983). A factor analytic study of the State-Trait
Anxiety Inventory utilized with preservice elementary teachers. Journal of Research in Science
and Teaching, 20, 225-229.
Speilberger, C.D., Gorush, R.L. & Lushene, R.E. (1970). Manual for the state-trait
anxiety inventory. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Stone-Romero, E.F. (1994). Construct validity issues in organizational behavior. In J.
Greenberg (Ed), Organizational behavior: The state of the science (pp. 155-179). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Tepper, K., Shaffer, B.C., & Tepper, B.J. (1996). Latent structure of mentoring function
scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 56, 848-857.
Underhill, C.M. (2006). The effectiveness of mentoring programs in corporate settings:
A meta-analytical review of the literature. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68, 292-307.
Wanous, J.P. (1974). A causal-correlational analysis of the job satisfaction and
performance relationship. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, 139-144.
Weiss, D.J., Dawis, R.V., England, G.W., & Lofquist, L.H. (1967). Manual for the
Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire. Industrial Relations Center, University of Minnesota.
Williams, E.A. (1999). A field experimental investigation of relationship-based
mentoring training in team settings and team characteristics: Effects on employee attitudes and
outcomes. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Miami.

Multidimensional Mentoring Measure 30

Table 1
Exploratory Factor Analysis Results for the Content Adequacy Assessment
______________________________________________________________________________
Factor Pattern Coefficients
Career Psycho- Role
Item
Support social Model
______________________________________________________________________________
1. My mentor takes a personal interest in my career.
.55
-.16
.04
2. My mentor has placed me in important assignments.

.68

.10

-.09

3. My mentor gives me special coaching on the job.

.55

.01

.13

4. My mentor advised me of promotional opportunities.

.69

.04

-.06

5. My mentor helps me coordinate professional goals.

.65

-.02

.05

6. My mentor has devoted special time and consideration to my career. .63

-.14

-.03

7. I share personal problems with my mentor.

.07

-.67

-.03

8. I socialize with my mentor after work.

.01

-.66

-.06

9. I exchange confidences with my mentor.

.09

-.67

-.06

10. I consider my mentor to be a friend.

-.03

-.67

.10

11. I often go to lunch with my mentor.

-.01

-.56

.02

12. I try to model my behavior after my mentor.

-.13

-.01

.65

13. I admire my mentors ability to motivate others.

-.05

-.17

.47

14. I respect my mentors knowledge of the profession.

.23

.15

.57

15. I respect my mentors ability to teach others.

.09
.11
.61
______________________________________________________________________________
Note. Factor pattern coefficients .40 are underlined.

Multidimensional Mentoring Measure 31

Table 2
Fit Statistics for Alternative Theoretical Models for Scandura and Ragins Mentoring Measure
___________________________________________________________________________
Confidence
Factors
2
df
SRMSR
GFI TLI NFI CFI RMSEA Interval
___________________________________________________________________________
1

510.35

90

0.083

0.73

0.77

0.77

0.80

.16

(.15 ; .17)

2a

363.98

89

0.072

0.81

0.84

0.83

0.87

.12

(.11 ; .14)

2b

422.77

89

0.077

0.77

0.81

0.81

0.84

.15

(.14 ; .16)

3
297.82
87
0.067
0.84 0.88 0.86 0.90
.11
(.10 ; .12)
___________________________________________________________________________
Note. Model 2a allowed the role modeling items to load on the career support factor; model 2b allowed the role modeling items to
load on the psychosocial support factor. SRMSR = standardized root mean square residual; GFI = goodness of fit index; TLI =
Tucker-Lewis Index; NFI = normed fit index; CFI = comparative fit index; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation.

Mentoring Measures 32
Table 3
Completely Standardized Factor Loadings for the Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the
15-Item Measure
______________________________________________________________________________
Factor Loadings

Error Variance

Scales and Items

1
2
3
(Theta Delta)
______________________________________________________________________________
Career Support
1. My mentor takes a personal interest in my career.

.72

.49

2. My mentor has placed me in important assignments.

.71

.50

3. My mentor gives me special coaching on the job.

.69

.52

4. My mentor advised me of promotional opportunities.

.73

.47

5. My mentor helps me coordinate professional goals.

.71

.49

.77

.40

6. My mentor has devoted special time and

consideration to my career.
Psychosocial Support
7. I share personal problems with my mentor.

.77

.40

8. I socialize with my mentor after work.

.72

.48

9. I exchange confidences with my mentor.

.87

.25

10. I consider my mentor to be a friend.

.80

.36

11. I often go to lunch with my mentor.

.63

.60

Mentoring Measures 33
Table 3 Continued

Factor Loadings

Error Variance

Scales and Items

1
2
3
(Theta Delta)
______________________________________________________________________________
Role Modeling
12. I try to model my behavior after my mentor.

.71

.49

13. I admire my mentors ability to motivate others.

.88

.23

14. I respect my mentors knowledge of the profession.

.58

.67

15. I respect my mentors ability to teach others.

.79
.38
______________________________________________________________________________
Note. All parameter estimates are statistically significant (p < .01).

Mentoring Measures 34
Table 4
Average Variance and Disattentuated Correlations for Scandura and Ragins 15-Item
Measure
___________________________________________________________________________
vc()
Factor Intercorrelations (Phi Matrix)
___________________________________________________________________________
1
Career Support

.52

1.00

Psychosocial Support

.58

.74

1.00

Role Modeling
.56
.83
.74
1.00
___________________________________________________________________________
Note. Correlations are statistically significant (p < .001).

Mentoring Measures 35
Table 5
Fit Statistics for Alternative Theoretical Models for the MFQ-9 Measure
_____________________________________________________________________________
Confidence
Factors Study 2
df SRMSR GFI TLI NFI CFI RMSEA
Interval
_____________________________________________________________________________
1

2a

2b

243.08

27

0.086

.80

.72

.77

.79

.19

(.17 ; .21)

501.54

27

0.090

.86

.58

.67

.68

.16

(.15 ; .17)

134.12

26

0.068

.88

.86

.88

.90

.14

(.12 ; .16)

276.48

26

0.068

.92

.77

.82

.82

.12

(.11 ; .13)

211.20

26

0.082

.82

.75

.80

.82

.19

(.17 ; .21)

298.05

26

0.077

.91

.75

.80

.82

.12

(.11 ; .13)

79.30

24

0.046

.92

.93

.94

.95

.11

(.08 ; .13)

3
61.07 24 0.031
.98 .96 .96 .98 .04
(.03 ; .06)
____________________________________________________________________________
Note. Model 2a allowed the role modeling items to load on the career support factor; model 2b
allowed the role modeling items to load on the psychosocial support factor. SRMSR =
standardized root mean square residual; GFI = goodness of fit index; TLI = Tucker-Lewis Index;
NFI = normed fit index; CFI = comparative fit index; RMSEA = root mean square error of
approximation.

Mentoring Measures 36
Table 6
Completely Standardized Factor Loadings for the Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the MFQ-9
Measure
______________________________________________________________________________
Factor Loadings

Error Variance

Scales and Items

1
2
3 (Theta Delta)
______________________________________________________________________________
Career Support
1. My mentor takes a personal interest in my career.

.69(.68)

.52(.53)

5. My mentor helps me coordinate professional goals.

.75(.45)

.44(.80)

.84(.81)

.30(.34)

6. My mentor has devoted special time and

consideration to my career.
Psychosocial Support
7. I share personal problems with my mentor.

.74(.71)

.46(.49)

9. I exchange confidences with my mentor.

.86(.79)

.27(.38)

10. I consider my mentor to be a friend.

.83(.73)

.32(.47)

Role Modeling
12. I try to model my behavior after my mentor.

.73(.58) .47(.66)

13. I admire my mentors ability to motivate others.

.89(.73) .21(.45)

15. I respect my mentors ability to teach others.

.76(.67) .43(.55)
______________________________________________________________________________
Note. Estimates from Study 3 are in parentheses. All parameter estimates are statistically
significant (p < .01).

Mentoring Measures 37
Table 7
Average Variance and Disattentuated Correlations for the MFQ-9 Measure
______________________________________________________________________________
vc()
Factor Intercorrelations (Phi Matrix)
______________________________________________________________________________
1

Career Support

.58(.44)

1.00

Psychosocial Support

.65(.55)

.76(.54)

1.00

Role Modeling

.63(.44)

.78(.42)

.80(.50)

1.00

______________________________________________________________________________
Note. Estimates from Study 3 are in parentheses. Correlations are statistically significant (p <
.001).

Mentoring Measures 38
Table 8
Hierarchical Regression Results for the MFQ-9 Measure and Ragins and
McFarlins 27-Item Measure
______________________________________________________________________________
Dependent Variable,
Step, and
Variable
Entered

Standardized Regression Coefficients

Step 1
Step 2

.22**

.05**

R2

Job Satisfaction
1. MFQ-9

.19

--

2. Ragins and McFarlin

-.04
.05*
.00
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1. Ragins and McFarlin

.18*

.04

.03*

--

2. MFQ-9
-.19
.05*
.02
______________________________________________________________________________
Commitment
1. MFQ-9

.14

.10

.02

--

2. Ragins and McFarlin

-.06
.02
.00
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1. Ragins and McFarlin

.13

.06

.02

--

2. MFQ-9
-.10
.02
.00
______________________________________________________________________________
Anxiety
1. MFQ-9

.03

.18

.00

--

2. Ragins and McFarlin

--.20
.02
.02
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1. Ragins and McFarlin

-.07

-.20

.01

--

2. MFQ-9
-.18
.02
.01
______________________________________________________________________________

Mentoring Measures 39
Table 9
Correlations of Mentoring Measures and Subdimensions with Other Variables (Study 2)
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Variable
Mean SD
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1. 15-item measure
3.52
.83 (.93)
2. MFQ-9

3.52

.91

.94** (.91)

3. Career supporta

3.69

.94

.85** .88** (.82)

4. Psychosocial supporta

3.26

1.08

.80** .89** .65** (.85)

5. Role modelinga

3.60

1.04

.86** .90** .68** .68** (.83)

6. Ragins/McFarlinb

5.16

1.19

.73** .73** .68** .60** .69** (.91)

7. Job satisfaction

3.62

.74

.28** .23** .20*

.15

.26** .18*

(.86)

8. Commitment

3.35

.69

.20*

.14

.13

.06

.19*

.14

.51** (.85)

9. Anxiety

2.47

.53

-.01

.03

-.05

.11

.01

-.07

-.37** -.35** (.90)

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Note. Coefficient alpha reliabilities are on the diagonal in parentheses. N = 160.
a

Three-item scales from the MFQ-9 measure

Ragins and McFarlins 27-item measure of mentoring (excluding the social and parent scales)

p .10. * p .05. ** p .01.