Kim, S. C., Oliveri, D., Riingen, M., Taylor, B., & Rankin, L. (2013). Journal of Professional Nursing, 29(6), e43-e49.
Reviewed: July 2021
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Nursing Fundamentals course performance |
Graduate-to-undergraduate student mentoring vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
86.80 |
85.03 |
Yes |
-- |
|
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Asian | 6% | |
| Black | 2% | |
| Other or unknown | 18% | |
| White | 75% |
| Hispanic | 16% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 84% |
The study is set in a private, four-year school of nursing located in southern California that has its own graduate nursing program. The participants were undergraduate nursing students in their first semester of the baccalaureate nursing program who were enrolled in the required entry-level nursing fundamentals course. The mentors were graduate-level nursing students at the same university.
Students were an average of 20 years old. Almost all students were female (96%), three-quarters (75%) were White, 6% were Asian, and 2% were Black. About 16% were Hispanic. Ninety percent of students had a high school diploma as their highest degree and the remaining 10% of students had an Associate's degree. Nearly 71% had no previous health care experience. Students had an average cumulative GPA of 3.31.
The mentor program had an initial two-hour training, an icebreaker session for all mentees and mentors, and mentor-mentee dyad interactions during the semester. The mentor-mentee dyad interactions consisted of up to 20 hours of informal face-to-face interactions as well as E-mentoring methods outside the clinical setting. E-mentoring methods included phone calls, text messages, emails, or Facebook interactions. The mentors were instructed to provide emotional support, help socialize mentees into the nursing profession, and serve as role models. They were not allowed to do any tutoring or help with class assignments. Mentors submitted confidential written journals discussing the meetings, barriers or facilitators of the process, and total contact hours. They received up to a 20-hour credit towards their clinical hour requirements for the master of science in nursing.
The students in the comparison group did not receive any mentoring.
Mentors received a two-hour mentorship training session led by two of the study authors. During the session, the leaders reviewed mentor-mentee dyad role expectations, mentoring phases, effective mentoring skills, interpersonal relationship building, communication skills, and conflict resolution. Over the course of the semester, mentors kept a journal describing their contacts and interactions with mentees, but the journal was not monitored or checked until the end of the semester. There was no monitoring of mentors.
An indicator of the effect of the intervention, the improvement index can be interpreted as the expected change in percentile rank for an average comparison group student if that student had received the intervention.
For more, please see the WWC Glossary entry for improvement index.
An outcome is the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that are attained as a result of an activity. An outcome measures is an instrument, device, or method that provides data on the outcome.
A finding that is included in the effectiveness rating. Excluded findings may include subgroups and subscales.
The sample on which the analysis was conducted.
The group to which the intervention group is compared, which may include a different intervention, business as usual, or no services.
The timing of the post-intervention outcome measure.
The number of students included in the analysis.
The mean score of students in the intervention group.
The mean score of students in the comparison group.
The WWC considers a finding to be statistically significant if the likelihood that the finding is due to chance alone, rather than a real difference, is less than five percent.
The WWC reviews studies for WWC products, Department of Education grant competitions, and IES performance measures.
The name and version of the document used to guide the review of the study.
The version of the WWC design standards used to guide the review of the study.
The result of the WWC assessment of the study. The rating is based on the strength of evidence of the effectiveness of the intervention. Studies are given a rating of Meets WWC Design Standards without Reservations, Meets WWC Design Standards with Reservations, or >Does Not Meet WWC Design Standards.
A related publication that was reviewed alongside the main study of interest.
Study findings for this report.
Based on the direction, magnitude, and statistical significance of the findings within a domain, the WWC characterizes the findings from a study as one of the following: statistically significant positive effects, substantively important positive effects, indeterminate effects, substantively important negative effects, and statistically significant negative effects. For more, please see the WWC Handbook.
The WWC may review studies for multiple purposes, including different reports and re-reviews using updated standards. Each WWC review of this study is listed in the dropdown. Details on any review may be accessed by making a selection from the drop down list.
Tier 1 Strong indicates strong evidence of effectiveness,
Tier 2 Moderate indicates moderate evidence of effectiveness, and
Tier 3 Promising indicates promising evidence of effectiveness,
as defined in the
non-regulatory guidance for ESSA
and the regulations for ED discretionary grants (EDGAR Part 77).
Resources
Newsflash
Contact Us
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube