↓ Skip to main content

Mentoring Early-Career Preventionists: Current Views from Mentors and Protégés

Overview of attention for article published in Prevention Science, May 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
peer_reviews
1 peer review site

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
18 Mendeley
Title
Mentoring Early-Career Preventionists: Current Views from Mentors and Protégés
Published in
Prevention Science, May 2012
DOI 10.1007/s11121-012-0276-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marie-Hélène Véronneau, Jessica Duncan Cance, Ty A. Ridenour

Abstract

In prevention science, much of the training occurs outside of a formal graduate program and mentorship is invaluable to early-career individuals. A sample of the Society for Prevention Research (SPR) membership (N = 97) from a wide range of career levels completed an online questionnaire in spring 2010. Almost 20% identified as mentors, 32% as protégés, and 49% as both a mentor and a protégé. Most mentoring relationships were established in graduate school, but professional organizations such as SPR facilitated nearly one in five mentoring relationships. Qualitative results suggested that participants value their professional organization's support of mentoring and would support initiatives to increase mentoring relationships specifically among SPR members. Although all mentor functions and protégé responsibilities were rated as important, professional support was the highest ranked mentor function and taking initiative the highest ranked protégé responsibility. Additionally, the qualitative results revealed that interpersonal skills and commitment to the mentoring process were seen as key to positive mentoring relationships. We also found that formal documentation of mentoring agreements was rare and a slight preference for a match on gender or ethnicity was observed for protégés from nondominant groups. The discussion includes implications for individuals and implications for promoting high-quality mentoring within professional organizations.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 18 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 6%
Unknown 17 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 5 28%
Researcher 2 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 11%
Lecturer 1 6%
Unspecified 1 6%
Other 1 6%
Unknown 6 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 3 17%
Psychology 2 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 11%
Philosophy 1 6%
Unspecified 1 6%
Other 1 6%
Unknown 8 44%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 26 August 2016.
All research outputs
#14,144,226
of 22,665,794 outputs
Outputs from Prevention Science
#690
of 1,022 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#96,243
of 163,481 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Prevention Science
#3
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,665,794 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,022 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.2. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 163,481 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.