↓ Skip to main content

An Evaluation of Specialist Mentoring for University Students with Autism Spectrum Disorders and Mental Health Conditions

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (81st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (65th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
15 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
50 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
184 Mendeley
Title
An Evaluation of Specialist Mentoring for University Students with Autism Spectrum Disorders and Mental Health Conditions
Published in
Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, September 2017
DOI 10.1007/s10803-017-3303-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rebecca Lucas, Alana I. James

Abstract

Mentoring is often recommended to universities as a way of supporting students with Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD) and/or mental health conditions (MHC), but there is little literature on optimising this support. We used mixed-methods to evaluate mentees' and mentors' experiences of a specialist mentoring programme. Mentees experienced academic, social and emotional support, although subtle group differences emerged between students with ASD and MHC. The quality of the mentee-mentor relationship was especially important. Mentors also reported benefits. Thematic analysis identified that effective mentoring requires a tailored partnership, which involves a personal relationship, empowerment, and building bridges into the university experience. Mentoring can effectively support students with ASD and/or MHC, but this is highly dependent on the development of tailored mentee-mentor partnerships.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 184 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 184 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 27 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 18 10%
Student > Bachelor 17 9%
Researcher 15 8%
Other 33 18%
Unknown 51 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 49 27%
Social Sciences 30 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 8%
Arts and Humanities 9 5%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 2%
Other 20 11%
Unknown 58 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 October 2019.
All research outputs
#3,378,629
of 25,711,518 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders
#1,407
of 5,436 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#56,087
of 310,637 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders
#32
of 94 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,711,518 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,436 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 310,637 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 94 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.