CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 66Mentoring and Academic DevelopmentYouth Development and Social SupportCrime Patterns and Interventions

Review of Three Recent Randomized Trials of School-Based Mentoring and commentaries

Open access
Wheeler, Marc E, Keller, Thomas E, DuBois, David L·2010·Child Policy Nexus
DOI 10.1002/j.2379-3988.2010.tb00064.x
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Between 2007 and 2009, reports were released on the results of three separate large-scale random assignment studies of the effectiveness of schoolbased mentoring programs for youth.The studies evaluated programs implemented by Big Brothers Big Sisters of America (BBBSA) affiliates (Herrera et al., 2007), Communities In Schools of San Antonio, Texas (Karcher, 2008), and grantees of the U.S. Department of Education's Student Mentoring Program (Bernstein et al., 2009).Differences in the findings and conclusions of the studies have led to varying responses by those in practice and policy roles.The results of the BBBSA trial led the organization to undertake an initiative to pilot and evaluate an enhanced school-based mentoring model.Findings of the Student Mentoring Program evaluation were cited as a reason for eliminating support for the program in the FY 2010 federal budget (Office of Management and Budget, 2009).In this report, we present a comparative analysis of the three studies.We identify important differences across the studies in several areas, including agency inclusion criteria, program models, implementation fidelity and support, and criteria utilized in tests of statistical significance.When aggregating results across the studies using meta-analytic techniques, we find evidence that school-based mentoring can be modestly effective for improving selected outcomes (i.e., support from non-familial adults, peer support, perceptions of scholastic efficacy, school-related misconduct, absenteeism, and truancy).Program effects are not apparent, however, for academic achievement or other outcomes.Our analysis underscores that evidence-based decision-making as applied to youth interventions should take into account multiple programmatic and methodological influences on findings and endeavor to take stock of results from the full landscape of available studies.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/j.2379-3988.2010.tb00064.x

Cites

63 of 63 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Our findings from studies that did not show significant benefits from mentoring align with earlier systematic reviews and meta-analyses by Wood and Mayo-Wilson (2012) and Wheeler et al. (2010).

    “Our findings from studies that did not show significant benefits from mentoring align with earlier systematic reviews and meta-analyses by Wood and Mayo-Wilson (2012) and Wheeler et al. (2010).”

    From Outcome domains and assessment measures in school-based youth mentoring programs: a systematic review (2026) · cites this paper as Wheeler et al. (2010)

    The Meta-analytic Synthesis of Findings (page unavailable) reports significant benefits for six of 19 school-based mentoring outcomes, while the Abstract says effects were not apparent for academic achievement or other outcomes. Thus the review aligns with findings of no significant benefit for some outcomes, but not with a general claim that mentoring showed no significant benefits. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Wheeler et al. (2010) highlighted factors such as the absence of supplementary implementation support and a relatively high percentage of youth in the intervention group who were never paired with a mentor, which affected certain outcomes.

    “Likewise, Wheeler et al. (2010) highlighted factors such as the absence of supplementary implementation support and a relatively high percentage of youth in the intervention group who were never paired with a mentor, which affected certain outcomes.”

    From Outcome domains and assessment measures in school-based youth mentoring programs: a systematic review (2026) · cites this paper as Wheeler et al. (2010)

    In “Weighted Mean Effect Sizes and 95% Confidence Intervals” (page not supplied), Wheeler et al. identify both lack of additional implementation support and a relatively high share of intervention youth who were never paired with a mentor. They say these factors may have attenuated the SMP study’s findings; the claim’s statement that they affected outcomes is more definite than the source. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Wheeler et al. (2010) reported that SBM can be modestly effective for improving selected outcomes, particularly one year of participation in the program, which generally leads to a moderate impact on a range of school-related outcomes.

    “Similarly, Wheeler et al. (2010) reported that SBM can be modestly effective for improving selected outcomes, particularly one year of participation in the program, which generally leads to a moderate impact on a range of schoolrelated outcomes.”

    From Outcome domains and assessment measures in school-based youth mentoring programs: a systematic review (2026) · cites this paper as Wheeler et al. (2010)

    The review's “Weighted Mean Effect Sizes and 95% Confidence Intervals” section says one year of school-based mentoring tends to have modest effects on selected youth outcomes. It reports favorable effects for six of 19 outcomes, with effect sizes of .07–.18; the “Concluding Points” section likewise calls the school-related effects relatively small. Describing the impact as moderate across a range of school-related outcomes overstates those findings. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • A meta-analysis of three large-scale, school-based mentoring evaluations showed positive effects of mentoring on a range of school-related outcomes (Cohen's d ranging from .07 to .18).

    “Another meta-analysis of three large-scale, school-based mentoring evaluations showed positive effects of mentoring on a range of school-related outcomes (Cohen ' s d ranging from .07 to .18; Wheeler et al. 2010).”

    From The Effects of Youth Mentoring Programs: A Meta-analysis of Outcome Studies (2019) · cites this paper as Wheeler et al. 2010

  • Meta-analytic evaluations of mentoring programs have been conducted for small samples in the past.

    “meta -analytic evaluations of mentoring programs have been conducted for small samples in the past (e.g., three studies were included in Wheeler et al., 2010)”

    From Cross-age peer mentoring for youth: A meta-analysis (2022) · cites this paper as Wheeler et al., 2010

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. Harris, J. (2009, May). Match relationship quality as a predictor of academic improvement: Findings from a within-program study. In L. Holt (Chair), Relationship matters in mentoring relationships: Associations between mentors' and mentees' perceptions of relationship quality and mentees' academic and devel- opmental outcomes. Symposium conducted at the 17th annual conference of the Society for Prevention Research, Washington, DC.
  2. Higgins, J. P. T., & Green, S. (Eds.). (2008). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of Interventions (Version 5.0.2 [updated September 2009]). The Cochrane Collaboration. Retrieved from http://www.cochrane-handbook.org
  3. Some of the mentoring activities in the school-based mentoring programs reviewed by Wheeler, Karcher, and DuBois occurred after school and some occurred during the school day. 23793988, 2010, 3, · DOI
  4. Foster, E. M. (in press). Economic evalu- ation of mentoring programs. In D. L. DuBois & M. J. Karcher (Eds.), Handbook of youth mentoring (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  5. Rhodes, J., & DuBois, D. L. (2006). Understanding and facilitating the youth mentoring movement. Society for Research in Child Development Social Policy Report, 20(3), 1-19.
  6. Commentary School-Based Mentoring Room for Improvement Graig Meyer Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools, NC 23793988, 2010, 3, · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Wheeler, M. E., Keller, T. E., & DuBois, D. L.
Affiliations
Portland State University (US)
ORCID
Venue
Child Policy Nexus
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2010
Volume
24
Issue
3
Pages
1-27
ISSN
2978-4093 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1002/j.2379-3988.2010.tb00064.x
OpenAlex
W2885700153
Cited by
65
References
62
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 8
FWCI
8.31
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
academic.oup.com/pages/standard-publication-reuse-rights (vor)
Locations
Child Policy Nexus (publishedVersion)
Funders
Portland State University
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mentoring and Academic Development
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Youth Development and Social Support
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Crime Patterns and Interventions
Keywords
school-based mentoring, Big Brothers Big Sisters, student mentoring program, youth intervention, program effectiveness, implementation fidelity, peer support, academic performance, evidence-based decision making, program evaluation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review