Validating the college student mentoring scale (CSMS) for a peer mentoring program in higher education: an exploratory study in Hong Kong

Previous research by Kram (1988), Crisp (2006), and Jacobi (1991) showed that the conceptualisation of mentoring has been well supported by various theoretical frameworks. Budge (2006) noted that peer mentoring is an efficient student support system when resources are otherwise limited. Numerous researchers (Budny, Paul & Newborg, 2010; Abrahamson & Barter, 2011; Goff, 2011; Power, Miles, Peruzzi, & Voerman, 2011; Hughes, 2009; Heirdsfield, Walker, & Walsh 2007; Fowler & Muckert, 2004; Colvin & Ashman, 2010; Page & Hanna, 2008; Hill & Reddy, 2007; Meyers, Silliman & Gedde, 2010; Fox & Stevenson, 2006; Rodger & Tremblay, 2003; Nwaokoro, 2010; Hall, 2007; Crisp & Cruz, 2010) have conducted mentoring studies using qualitative, outcome based, and program specific methods. Jacobi (1991), however, stated that it remains ambiguous whether mentoring correlates with academic performance, which may be the result of inconsistency in the measurement of mentoring and its construct validity. Due to the lack of standardized measurement tools, the allocation of resources to mentoring programs is difficult to justify empirically, since there is little evidence to support the reliability and validity of program outcomes. This study validates the College Student Mentoring Scale (CSMS) using a first-year university students’ peer mentoring program implemented in Hong Kong. It provides valuable insights into the applicability of the scale in Hong Kong in the context of a predominantly Hong Kong Chinese educational culture. The study also provides further insight into the use of the scale with different student groups, for example, with differing genders and frequency of interaction (mentee initiated contact after first meeting organized by the university). Useful insights are obtained that enable university management to allocate resources for student support systems; these appear to be critical elements that further prepare students for surviving and excelling first in their higher education, and eventually in their workplace. Results also provide insights for student development counsellors in terms of more reliable means to support first-year students at the university level.