Advancing the Conceptualization and Measurement of Mentorship: The Mentoring Experiences in Research & Graduate Education (MERGE) Scale

Abstract

Interest in mentoring remains widespread within the scientific community, as mentorship is considered crucial to developing the scientific workforce. A longstanding focus on the positive aspects of mentorship obscures the reality that some mentoring relationships may be ineffective, counterproductive, or harmful. Progress has been limited by the absence of a scale capable of measuring both the positive and negative mentoring experiences of doctoral students. We addressed this need by developing a new scale: the Mentoring Experiences in Research and Graduate Education (MERGE). Results of three sequential multi-method studies (total N = 1,308) provide evidence for: (a) the content and response process validity of the MERGE; (b) a six-factor structure capturing the range of mentoring experiences; (c) negative mentoring experiences as empirically distinct from the absence of positive mentoring; (d) convergent, discriminant and criterion-related validity of the MERGE, with each factor demonstrating unique patterns of association with outcomes; and (e) the incremental validity of the MERGE in predicting outcomes beyond an existing measure of mentoring competence. We conclude by discussing implications for the use of the scale in doctoral education, including both theory advancement and applied practice.