PURPOSE: To define the characteristics of effective mentor-protégé relationships in a Clinical Research Training Program (CRTP) and to assess the agreement among mentors and protégés regarding those attributes. METHOD: The authors administered an anonymous survey to protégés who completed the Albert Einstein College of Medicine's CRTP during its first seven years (2000-2006) and their mentors. Statements included aspects of mentoring thought to be important within the program, such as availability (Statement 1) and oversight of the thesis process (Statements 2-4). Additional statements were related both to career development (e.g., looking out for the best interests of the scholar and assisting in negotiations for a faculty position after program completion [Statements 5 and 6]) and to the expectation that the mentor would continue to be a resource for the protégé in years to come (Statement 7). The authors assessed overall agreement among mentors and protégés, using matched pair analysis. RESULTS: Overall response was 70.7% (133/188), with fewer matched pairs (n = 50, 50%). Seventy-five percent of respondents agreed strongly or somewhat with all statements. Analysis indicated significant agreement with Statements 2, 4, 6, and 7. Median scores from protégés did not differ whether their mentor responded (paired) or not (unpaired); however, mentor-protégé pairs had significantly greater agreement with Statements 3-7 than unpaired mentors and protégés (P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: Mentors and protégés seemed to agree that mentors within a CRTP demonstrated effective mentor attributes, including fostering a long-term relationship with the protégé.
PURPOSE: To define the characteristics of effective mentor-protégé relationships in a Clinical Research Training Program (CRTP) and to assess the agreement among mentors and protégés regarding those attributes. METHOD: The authors administered an anonymous survey to protégés who completed the Albert Einstein College of Medicine's CRTP during its first seven years (2000-2006) and their mentors. Statements included aspects of mentoring thought to be important within the program, such as availability (Statement 1) and oversight of the thesis process (Statements 2-4). Additional statements were related both to career development (e.g., looking out for the best interests of the scholar and assisting in negotiations for a faculty position after program completion [Statements 5 and 6]) and to the expectation that the mentor would continue to be a resource for the protégé in years to come (Statement 7). The authors assessed overall agreement among mentors and protégés, using matched pair analysis. RESULTS: Overall response was 70.7% (133/188), with fewer matched pairs (n = 50, 50%). Seventy-five percent of respondents agreed strongly or somewhat with all statements. Analysis indicated significant agreement with Statements 2, 4, 6, and 7. Median scores from protégés did not differ whether their mentor responded (paired) or not (unpaired); however, mentor-protégé pairs had significantly greater agreement with Statements 3-7 than unpaired mentors and protégés (P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: Mentors and protégés seemed to agree that mentors within a CRTP demonstrated effective mentor attributes, including fostering a long-term relationship with the protégé.