Mentoring special youth populations

Britner, Preston A.; Balcázar, Fabricio E.; Blechman, Elaine A.; Blinn‐Pike, Lynn; Larose, Simon

doi:10.1002/jcop.20127

Cited by 56 publications

(48 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Previous research has explored mentoring relationship quality as an indicator of the degree of success in these relationships. Quality has been consistently linked to positive outcomes with higher quality relationships leading to a greater impact across outcomes, such as increased problem-solving skills, goal achievement, and identity development (Britner, Balcazar, Blechman, Blinn-Pike, & Larose, 2006;Deutsch & Spencer, 2009;Rhodes & Lowe, 2009). Yet, much remains unknown about the specific processes that lead to higher quality mentoring relationships.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Peer-mentoring relationships involve two individuals who share a common characteristic or similar level of experience, where one individual provides support to the other (Balcazar, Kelly, Keys, & Belfanz-Vertiz, 2011). Mentoring programs utilize mentoring relationships as a means of promoting positive outcomes for a wide range of ages and for many specific populations (Britner et al, 2006;Eby et al, 2013;Ensher et al, 2001;Shpigelman & Gill, 2012;Sipe, 2002). These populations often include at-risk youth, college students, and new employees.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…One population that historically has had limited participation in mentoring programs is individuals with disabilities, resulting in relatively few studies on the impact of mentoring for this population (Ahrens, Dubois, Lozano, & Richardson, 2010;Bell, 2012;Britner et al, 2006;Shpigelman & Gill, 2012;Stumbo, Blegen, Lindahl-Lewis, 2008). An exception is the growing recognition of the benefits of peer support for individuals with psychiatric disabilities, including increased self-advocacy and quality of life (Chinman, et al, 2014;Gidugu et al, 2014).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…An exception is the growing recognition of the benefits of peer support for individuals with psychiatric disabilities, including increased self-advocacy and quality of life (Chinman, et al, 2014;Gidugu et al, 2014). This recognition, combined with the limited, yet positive evidence for the population as a whole, indicates that the impact of mentoring for individuals with disabilities is consistent with the larger body of work on mentoring (Ahrens et al, 2010;Bell, 2012;Britner et al, 2006;Rhodes & Lowe, 2009).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A few studies have examined the impact of peers with DD and showed these individuals were successful as peer tutors in promoting skill development (Bobroff & Sax, 2010;Hibbert, Kostinas, & Luiselli, 2002). Although there has been limited involvement of individuals with DD in a mentoring role, consistency in the benefits of mentoring across populations, suggests there could be a positive impact for transition-age youth with DD (Britner et al, 2006;Chinman et al, 2014;Rhodes & Lowe, 2009). …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Exploring the Self-Disclosure Process in Peer Mentoring Relationships for Transition-Age Youth With Developmental Disabilities

Ryan

Kramer

Cohn

2016

Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Limited involvement of youth with developmental disabilities (DD) in mentoring programs has resulted in limited knowledge about the quality and impact of these relationships. The self-disclosure process has been identified as one factor impacting relationship development (Reis & Shaver, 1988). We proposed a theoretical model to examine the role of the self-disclosure process as a mechanism in peer mentoring relationship development for transition-age youth with DD by determining if selfdisclosure occurred, the type of information shared, how peer mentors responded, and if the process differed by perceived relationship quality. This retrospective, observational study purposefully selected nine peer mentoring dyads from a problem-solving intervention with a peer mentoring component to examine relationships judged by the researchers, peer mentors, and peer mentor supporters to be of variable quality (strong, moderate, weak), including 9 youth and 5 peer mentors with DD. Peer mentoring included 8 structured calls each with specific objectives. Phone call recordings were coded and dyads were grouped by perceived quality to determine how the self-disclosure process differed by relationship quality. The findings indicated self-disclosure occurred in each relationship at high rates (59%) and peer mentors responded to almost all selfdisclosures (98%). A higher quantity of self-disclosure and more frequent disclosure of vi emotions were found in relationships of higher quality. Peer mentors in higher quality relationships more frequently responded to self-disclosure with advice or their own selfdisclosure. Implications of findings and use of the self-disclosure process as a mechanism for promoting high quality peer mentoring relationships are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Exploring the Self-Disclosure Process in Peer Mentoring Relationships for Transition-Age Youth With Developmental Disabilities

Ryan

Kramer

Cohn

2016

Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Does Natural Mentoring Matter? A Multilevel Meta‐analysis on the Association Between Natural Mentoring and Youth Outcomes

Dam

Smit

Wildschut

et al. 2018

American J of Comm Psychol

137

129

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this meta‐analytic review, we examined the relation between natural mentoring and youth outcomes in four domains: academic and vocational functioning, social‐emotional development, physical health, and psychosocial problems. Natural mentoring relationships are thought to foster positive youth development and buffer against the risks associated with the tumultuous years of adolescence. Two separate meta‐analyses were conducted on the presence of a natural mentor and the quality of the natural mentoring relationship, including thirty studies from 1992 to present. The findings indicated that the presence of a natural mentor was significantly associated with positive youth outcomes (r = .106). A larger effect size was found for the quality of the natural mentoring relationship in terms of relatedness, social support, and autonomy support (r = .208). The largest effect sizes were found for social‐emotional development and academic and vocational functioning. Risk‐status (e.g., teenage mothers, homeless youth, youth in foster care, and youth of alcoholic parents) did not moderate the relation between presence and quality of natural mentoring relationships and youth outcomes, which may indicate that natural mentors are generally beneficial for all youth regardless of risk‐status. Implications for theory and practice concerning the quality of the natural mentoring relationship are discussed.

show abstract

Does having a similar disability matter for match outcomes?: A randomized study of matching mentors and mentees by visual impairment

Heppe

Kupersmidt

Kef

et al. 2018

Journal Community Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Mentoring is modestly effective for youth with a chronic illness or physical disability; however, program effectiveness may be enhanced when mentors and mentees are matched on shared interests and experiences. To test this hypothesis, mentees were randomly assigned to having a mentor with or without visual impairment (VI). Results showed that mentors without VI were younger and more likely to work or be educated in a helping profession and less likely to have a fixed mindset and extremely high positive expectations than mentors with VI. The main analyses on match outcomes showed that mentors with VI had significantly fewer and shorter match meetings, had a weaker relationship with their mentees, and were more likely to end their match prematurely. Mentor age, helping profession background, and fixed mindset were confounds in several analyses and reduced the significance of the relationship between VI group and match meeting quantity. The only relationship that remained significant controlling for covariates showed that matches including a mentor with VI were significantly more likely to end in premature closure than matches including a mentor without VI. Implications of the findings for future research and program practices related to matching were discussed.

show abstract

Mentoring special youth populations

Cited by 56 publications

References 29 publications

Exploring the Self-Disclosure Process in Peer Mentoring Relationships for Transition-Age Youth With Developmental Disabilities

Exploring the Self-Disclosure Process in Peer Mentoring Relationships for Transition-Age Youth With Developmental Disabilities

Does Natural Mentoring Matter? A Multilevel Meta‐analysis on the Association Between Natural Mentoring and Youth Outcomes

Does having a similar disability matter for match outcomes?: A randomized study of matching mentors and mentees by visual impairment

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About