Evaluating research mentors working in the area of clinical translational science: a review of the literature.

Emma Meagher*, Lauren Taylor, Jeff Probsfield, Mike Fleming

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articlepeer-review

34 Scopus citations


The goal of this paper is to review the evaluation of mentors with a focus on training new investigators in clinical translational science. These scholars include physicians and Ph.D. scientists who are generally assistant professors in clinical departments. This white paper is one of a series of articles focused on the programmatic elements of effective mentoring practices and the "current state of the art." Evaluating mentor performance and providing formative feedback can lead to stronger mentoring and ultimately lead to increased success of new clinical and translational investigators. While there is general agreement that mentor evaluation can be helpful, the process is difficult. Trainees are reluctant to share negative experiences and to rate their mentors. Mentors are not sure they want to be evaluated. Program leaders are not sure how to effectively use the information. This white paper provides mentees, mentors, and program leaders with new perspectives on mentor evaluation and ideas for future research.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)353-358
Number of pages6
JournalClinical and Translational Science
Issue number5
StatePublished - Oct 2011

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • General Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
  • General Neuroscience
  • Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics(all)


Dive into the research topics of 'Evaluating research mentors working in the area of clinical translational science: a review of the literature.'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this