Mentoring Function Scales

Abstract

The Mentoring Function Scales (MFS), developed by Tepper, K., et al. (1996), is a concise 16-item instrument designed to measure the perceived extent to which a mentor provides specific types of support to a protégé. The scale is bifurcated into two primary, empirically confirmed factors: eight items assessing psychosocial mentoring functions and eight items assessing career-related mentoring functions. This measure is crucial for research examining the quality and impact of mentoring relationships within organizational settings, providing a clear structure for assessing the multidimensional nature of mentoring support.

Keywords

Mentoring Function Scales, MFS, Mentoring Relationship, Career-Related Functions, Psychosocial Support, Organizational Behavior, Employee Development, Psychometrics.

Authors

Tepper, K., et al. (1996)

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Mentoring Function Scales (MFS) is to systematically quantify the level of support and assistance received by a protégé from their mentor across distinct domains. Specifically, the scale was developed to validate and measure the two theoretically proposed dimensions of mentoring effectiveness: instrumental career support and socio-emotional psychosocial support.

By using a clear 16-item structure, researchers and practitioners can assess the perceived strength and quality of the mentoring relationship. This assessment provides a foundation for understanding how different types of mentoring functions relate to professional outcomes, job satisfaction, and career advancement within organizational psychology research.

Construct

The MFS measures the overarching construct of Mentoring Functions, which describes the specific behaviors and resources provided by a mentor to facilitate the protégé’s professional and personal development. The scale operationalizes this construct through two distinct sub-dimensions, confirming classical models of mentoring research:

• Psychosocial Mentoring Functions: These items focus on the interpersonal and emotional support aspects of the relationship, including serving as a role model, providing encouragement, conveying respect, and offering a safe space for discussing personal or professional anxieties (Items 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, and 15).
• Career-Related Mentoring Functions: This dimension covers tangible, career-advancing support, such as coaching, sponsorship, providing challenging assignments, increasing visibility with senior management, and protecting the protégé from unnecessary risks (Items 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, and 16).

Validity

Construct validity was primarily established through the detailed factor analytic procedure reported by Tepper et al. (1996). The empirical results, derived from a large, diverse sample, strongly supported the theoretical two-factor model, demonstrating that the items reliably loaded onto the intended dimensions of psychosocial and career-related mentoring functions. This structural confirmation provides strong evidence that the scale measures the intended latent constructs effectively.

Reliability

While the original 1996 study focused heavily on the latent structure and validity of the MFS, the robust two-factor structure confirmed via factor analysis suggests high underlying reliability for both subscales. Subsequent applications of the MFS in organizational research typically report high internal consistency, often quantified using Cronbach’s alpha, confirming the consistency of the items within each functional domain.

Factor Analysis

The factor structure of the MFS was rigorously tested using a comprehensive sample of 568 employees drawn from five distinct organizational settings. The analysis employed an oblique rotation technique, which allows the resulting factors to correlate, reflecting the natural relationship often observed between psychosocial support and career development in mentoring. The structural analysis successfully confirmed the original two factors identified in mentoring literature.

The two confirmed factors are the psychosocial mentoring functions factor (comprising items 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, and 15) and the career-related mentoring functions factor (comprising items 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, and 16). Additional descriptive data analysis, including assessment of skewness and kurtosis for all 16 items, was also presented in the foundational study to detail the distribution characteristics of the response data.

Instrument

Test Type: Self-report inventory; Psychometric Scale

Format: 16 items utilizing a 5-point Likert-type response scale. The scoring ranges from 1 = not at all, to 5 = to a very large extent.

Language Available: English (Original development language)

Population Group: Employees and organizational protégés.

Age Group: Adult working population.

Population Details: The initial validation involved five distinct organizational samples totaling 568 employees from various sectors, including financial services, banking, insurance, health care, manufacturing, education, and accounting/finance.

Test Methodology: Quantitative survey administration followed by factor analysis and descriptive statistics (skewness and kurtosis) to determine the latent structure.

Keywords

Organizational Psychology, Mentoring Functions, Career Development, Psychosocial Support, Employee Survey, Scale Validation, Psychometric Testing.

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: N/A (Information not provided in source documentation)

Affiliation Email addresses: N/A (Information not provided in source documentation)

Correspondence Address: N/A (Information not provided in source documentation)

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

Test Year: 1996

Permissions and Fees: The scale was published in an academic journal, Educational and Psychological Measurement, and is typically utilized for non-commercial academic research purposes, requiring proper citation of the original source (Tepper, K., et al., 1996).

Reference’s

• Tepper, K., et al. (1996). Latent structure of Mentoring Function Scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement 56:848–57.
• Dreher, G. F., and Ash, R. A. (1990). A comparative study of mentoring among men and women in managerial, professional, and technical positions. Journal of Applied Psychology 75:539–46.
• Noe, R. (1988). An investigation of the determinants of successful assigned mentoring relationships. Personnel Psychology 41:457–79.
• Tepper, B. J. (1995). Upward maintenance tactics used in supervisory mentoring and non mentoring relationships. Academy of Management Journal 38:1191–205.
• Tepper, B. J., et al. (1993). Strength of subordinates’ upward influence tactics and gender congruency effects. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 23:1903–19.

Items of the Mentoring Function Scales

IMPORTANT: The following scale items must be preserved in their original language and must not be changed in any way.

Scoring: 5 = to a very large extent; 4 = to a large extent; 3 = to some extent; 2 = to a slight extent; and 1 = not at all.

1. Encouraged you to try new ways of behaving on the job.
2. Assigned responsibilities to you that have increased your contact with people who will judge your potential for future advancement.
3. Discussed your questions or concerns regarding feelings of competence, commitment to advancement, relationships with peers and supervisors or work/family conflicts.
4. Reduced unnecessary risks that could have threatened your opportunities for promotion.
5. Served as a role model.
6. Helped you meet new colleagues.
7. Demonstrated good listening skills in your conversations.
8. Given you assignments or tasks that have prepared you for higher positions.
9. Conveyed feelings of respect for you as an individual.
10. Helped you finish assignments or tasks or meet deadlines that otherwise would have been difficult to complete.
11. Encouraged you to talk openly about anxieties and fears that detract from your work.
12. Encouraged you to prepare for advancement.
13. Shared personal experiences as an alternative perspective to your problems.
14. Given you assignments that present opportunities to learn new skills.
15. Displayed attitudes and values similar to your own.
16. Given you assignments that have increased your contact with higher level managers.