CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 38Mentoring and Academic DevelopmentYouth Development and Social SupportCounseling Practices and Supervision

“I dunno, what do you wanna do?”: Testing a framework to guide mentor training and activity selection

Open access
Karcher, Michael J., Herrera, Carla, Hansen, Keoki·2010·New Directions for Youth Development
DOI 10.1002/yd.349
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Whether relational or goal-directed interactions are most useful in youth mentoring has been frequently debated, but until recently, little work had been done to understand how such interactions manifest to create viable relationship styles. The authors' findings in the first study they explore in this article support Karcher and Nakkula's assertion that relational and goal-directed interactions are distinct. The authors found that both made significant contributions to relationship quality, but for children and preadolescents, relational interactions appeared to be more strongly associated with the quality of the mentoring relationship than did goal-oriented interactions. Karcher and Nakkula further suggest that it is when the focus of interactions (relational and goal-directed) emerges through collaborative dialogue that the strongest relationship styles emerge. In their second study, the authors found that cross-age peer mentoring (school-based) matches that selected their activities collaboratively had higher-quality mentoring relationships (mentor and youth reported) than those matches whose activities were typically selected unilaterally by either the program or the mentee alone.

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/yd.349

Cites

18 of 18 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?

  • Studies comparing the contribution of relational and recreational focus and engagement with a more goal-oriented and instrumental approach have proved inconclusive.

    “Indeed, studies comparing the contribution of relational and recreational focus (i.e., interactions concentrating on relationship building and strengthening to promote emotional well-being) and engagement with a more goal-oriented and instrumental approach (i.e., interactions that target specific behavioral goals and skills using structured activities) [68,69] have proved inconclusive.”

    From Unpacking Community-Based Youth Mentoring Relationships: An Integrative Review (2021) · cites this paper as [69]

    The Method and results section compares relational and goal-directed conversations and finds both positively associated with mentor-reported relationship quality, with a stronger association for relational conversations (.39 versus .11). The Discussion cautions against treating this as proof that a developmental approach is superior to an instrumental one, because the study did not test all elements of the instrumental style together. That caution supports uncertainty about the broader comparison, but the paper does report a directional result rather than describing its own comparison as inconclusive. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

2 of the 20 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Karcher, M. J. (2009). Increases in academic connectedness and self-esteem among high school students who serve as cross-age peer mentors. Professional School Coun- seling, 12(4), 292-299.
  2. Karcher, M. J. (2004). The motivations of Hispanic mentors and the activities they use in their mentoring of Hispanic youth. Presented at the Montgomery Lecture Award Symposium of the Latino Research Initiative, University of Nebraska- Lincoln;
  3. Harris, J. T., & Nakkula, M. J. (1999). Match Characteristics Question- naire (MCQ) V.1. Unpublished measure. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Graduate School of Education.
  4. In D. L. DuBois & M. J. Karcher (Eds.), Handbook of youth mentoring (pp. 348-363). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Karcher, M. J., Herrera, C., & Hansen, K.
Affiliations
  • The University of Texas at San Antonio (US)
  • Public/Private Ventures (US)
  • Big Brothers Big Sisters of America (US)
ORCID
Venue
New Directions for Youth Development
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2010-06
Volume
2010
Issue
126
Pages
51-69
ISSN
  • 1533-8916 (ISSN-L)
  • 1537-5781
DOI
10.1002/yd.349
OpenAlex
W2085440659
Cited by
38
References
20
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 5
FWCI
3.05
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor, 49 d)
Locations
  • New Directions for Youth Development (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mentoring and Academic Development
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Youth Development and Social Support
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Counseling Practices and Supervision
Keywords
youth mentoring, mentor training, relational interaction, mentoring relationship quality, activity selection, collaborative dialogue
MeSH terms
Psychology, Adolescent, Adult, Cooperative Behavior, Female, Goals, Humans, Interpersonal Relations, Male, Mentors, Peer Group, School Health Services, Teaching

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