Cited by 146Career Development and DiversityMentoring and Academic DevelopmentHigher Education Research Studies

Protégé Perceptions of High Mentorship Quality Depend on Shared Values More Than on Demographic Match

Open access
Hernandez, Paul R., Estrada, Mica, Woodcock, Anna, Schultz, P. Wesley·2017·The Journal of Experimental Education

Abstract

Mentoring, particularly same-gender and same-race mentoring, is increasingly seen as a powerful method to attract and retain more women and racial minorities into science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education and careers. This study examines elements of a mentoring dyad relationship (i.e., demographic and perceived similarity) that influence the quality of mentorship, as well as the effect of mentorship on STEM career commitment. A national sample of African American undergraduates majoring in STEM disciplines were surveyed in their senior year. Overall, perceived similarity, rather than demographic similarity, was the most important factor associated with protégé perceptions of high quality mentorship and high quality mentoring was in turn associated with higher commitment to STEM careers. We discuss the implications for mentoring underrepresented students and broadening participation in STEM.

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 · 10.1080/00220973.2016.1246405

Cites

56 of 56 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

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: 1

  1. Kram KE (1985). Improving the mentoring process. Training and Development Journal, 39(4), 40– 43.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hernandez, P. R., Estrada, M., Woodcock, A., & Schultz, P. W.
Affiliations
  • West Virginia University (US)
  • University of California, San Francisco (US)
  • California State University, San Marcos (US)
Corresponding author
Hernandez, Paul R.
Venue
The Journal of Experimental Education
Published
2016-11-08
Volume
85
Issue
3
Pages
450-468
ISSN
  • 0022-0973 (ISSN-L)
  • 1940-0683
OpenAlex
W2556029992
Cited by
146
References
56
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 33 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 1
FWCI
32.58
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Journal of Experimental Education (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of General Medical Sciences (R01GM075316)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Career Development and Diversity
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mentoring and Academic Development
  • Social Sciences › Education › Higher Education Research Studies
Keywords
mentoring, perceived similarity, demographic similarity, mentorship quality, underrepresented students, broadening participation in STEM

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