Anderson, L., Silet K., & Fleming, M. (2012). Evaluating and giving feedback to mentors: New evidence-based approaches. Clinical and Translational Science, 5(1): 71–77. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-8062.2011.00361.x

This article presents an innovative six-component approach to mentor evaluation that includes the assessment of mentee training and empowerment, peer learning and mentor training, scholar advocacy, mentee–mentor expectations, mentor self-reflection, and mentee evaluation of their mentor.

Berk, R.A., Berg, J., Mortimer, R., Walton-Moss, B., Yeo, T.P. (2005). Measuring the effectiveness of faculty mentoring relationships. Academic Medicine, 80(1). https://www.bu.edu/sph/files/2012/01/Berk_Measuring-the-effectiveness-of-fac-mentoring-relationships.pdf

This article presents the work of an ad hoc Faculty Mentoring Committee whose tasks were to define “mentorship,” specify concrete characteristics and responsibilities of mentors that are  measurable, and develop new tools to evaluate the effectiveness of the mentoring relationship. The committee developed two tools: the Mentorship Profile Questionnaire, which describes the characteristics and outcome measures of the mentoring relationship from the perspective of the mentee, and the Mentorship Effectiveness Scale, a six-point agree– disagree-format Likert-type rating scale, which evaluates 12 behavioral characteristics of the mentor.

Black, C.J., Taylor, A.L., Shollen, S. L., Weber-Main, A. M., & Mulcahy, P. A. (2009). Faculty success through mentoring: A guide for mentors, mentees, and leaders. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

This book combines findings from the literature and practical tools. This guidance will assist academic leaders and faculty in implementing and participating in a successful formal mentoring program that can be used as a strategy for maintaining the vitality of a diverse faculty across all stages of an academic career. The authors included tools that institutions, mentors, and mentees can use to navigate successfully through the phases of a mentoring relationship. One of the unique features of this book is its explicit attention to the challenges to effective mentoring across genders, ethnicities, and generations.

Chen, Y., Watson, R., & Hilton, A. (2016). A review of mentorship measurement tools. Nurse Education Today, 40, 20-28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2016.01.020

This study reviews mentoring measurement tools in various fields to inform nursing educators on the selection, application, and development of mentoring instruments.

Lunsford, L.G. (2021). The mentor’s guide: Five steps to build a successful mentoring program (2^nd ed.). Routledge.

This guidebook contains a framework for evaluating mentoring programs and strategies for using data to improve those programs.

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2019). Assessment and evaluation what can be measured in mentorship, and how? The science of effective mentorship in STEMM. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/25568.

This chapter contains information about theoretical approaches to and tools for assessing mentoring in STEMM contexts.

National Center for Women & Information Technology. (2011). Evaluating a mentoring program guide. National Center for Women & Information Technology. https://wpassets.ncwit.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/18223637/evaluatingmentoringprogramguide_web.pdf

Although this guide was not developed specifically for higher education, it contains concise, step-by-step instructions for creating assessments for a mentoring program.

Ng, Y. X., Koh, Z. Y. K., Yap, H. W., Tay, K. T., Tan, X. H., Ong, Y. T., Tan, L. H. E., Chin, A. M. C., Toh, Y. P., Shivananda, S., Compton, S., Mason, S., Kanesvaran, R., & Krishna, L. (2020). Assessing mentoring: A scoping review of mentoring assessment tools in internal medicine between 1990 and 2019. PloS One, 15(5). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0232511

A scoping review is proposed to map available literature on mentoring assessment tools in Internal Medicine to guide design of new ones. The review aims to explore how novice mentoring is assessed in Internal Medicine, including the domains assessed, and the strengths and limitations of the assessment methods.

Sambunjak, D., Straus, S. E., & Marušić, A. (2006). Mentoring in academic medicine: A systematic review. JAMA, 296(9), 1103–1115. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.296.9.1103

The purpose of this study was to systematically review the evidence about the prevalence of mentorship and its relationship to career development. Mentoring is perceived as an important part of academic medicine, but the evidence to support this perception is not strong. Practical recommendations on mentoring in medicine that are evidence-based will require studies using more rigorous methods, addressing contextual issues, and using cross-disciplinary approaches.

UW Institute for Clinical and Translational Research. (n.d.). Mentor evaluation form examples. University of Wisconsin-Madison. https://ictr.wisc.edu/mentoring/mentor-evaluation-form-examples/

This source contains a list of links to mentoring evaluation tools including the Mentoring Competency Assessment designed by the University of Wisconsin-Madison and several mentor self-reflection tools.

Yukawa, M., Gansky, S.A., O’Sullivan, P., Teherani, A.,& Feldman, M.D. A new mentor evaluation tool: Evidence of validity. PloS One, 6. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0234345

Evidence was collected for the validity domains of content, internal structure and relationship to other variables of the Mentoring Evaluation Tool (MET). The MET demonstrates evidence of validity for research, clinical, educational or career mentors in academic health science careers. However, the MET did not distinguish individuals nominated as outstanding mentors from other mentors. The MET validity evidence can be studied further with mentor-mentee pairs and following prospectively the rating of mentors before and after a mentorship training program.