The One Question Every Mentoring Program Should Ask

Jean Rhodes

A single global question can also provide a useful and validated first reading of relationship health.

When programs evaluate mentoring relationships, they often ask a whole range of questions about listening, support, trust, understanding, growth, and satisfaction. Those dimensions matter. But single global question can also provide a useful first reading of relationship health. This question gives programs a brief temperature check. It can be repeated over time and can open a conversation when a relationship needs attention.

The question?

How close do you feel to your mentor?

That simple question gives programs a brief temperature check. It can be repeated over time and can open a conversation when a relationship needs attention.What the mentoring research shows

My colleagues and I used this question in a secondary analysis of the Mentoring Enhancement Demonstration Program evaluation dataset. The sample included 2,165 youth ages 9 to 16 from 30 community- and school-based mentoring programs across the United States. Youth rated their closeness to their mentor on a four-point scale, from “Not Close at All” to “Very Close” (Werntz et al., 2023). Perceived closeness served as a mediator between mentoring approaches and youth outcomes. Closeness was associated with relationship and youth indicators in strong and predictable ways. This included growth-focused mentoring (r = .62), youth-centered mentoring (r = .65), relational tension (r = -.15), and later depressive symptoms (r = -.13), emotional symptoms (r = -.09), and conduct problems (r = -.09).

My colleagues and I also conducted a secondary analysis of this evaluation dataset. The original sample included 2,165 mentees, and the analytic sample included 2,030 after missing-data exclusions. The same closeness item served as a variable in a latent-profile analysis of youth presenting challenges (Poon et al., 2022). Youth-reported closeness differed across the risk profiles, while mentor-reported closeness did not.

Together, the studies provide empirical precedent for using this one youth-reported item as a global indicator within a broader evaluation. They show that the item carries meaningful information about mentoring approaches, youth characteristics, and later outcomes. We don’t yet have evidence of equivalence between the item and a multi-item closeness scale is absent, so reasons for a young person’s rating remain open for discussion.

Why one item can work

Bergkvist and Rossiter argue that single-item measures are most defensible when they assess a concrete attribute linked to a clear object (Bergkvist & Rossiter, 2007). A young person’s overall sense of closeness to a mentor fits that description. The question asks for an integrated judgment about a relationship the respondent knows firsthand.

Related work in couple and psychotherapy research reaches a similar conclusion. A well-chosen global relationship item can track satisfaction or alliance with low respondent burden, while brief follow-up tools can provide more detail when needed (Duncan et al., 2004; Fülöp et al., 2020; Miller et al., 2006).

A single question can bring together experiences of attention, trust, comfort, reliability, interest, and connection. It asks for the relationship as experienced by the young person. A multi-item scale separates those dimensions and provides a more detailed account.

Evidence from job satisfaction research also supports the use of global items for global judgments. A meta-analysis found substantial agreement between single-item measures of overall job satisfaction and multi-item scales (Wanous et al., 1997). Scarpello and Campbell argued that a global rating can include aspects of an experience that separate facet questions may leave out (Scarpello & Campbell, 1983).

The practical advantage is shorter administration and lower respondent burden. A brief question also makes repeated measurement easier, which matters when programs want to notice change during a match. Verster and colleagues found that single-item ratings generally aligned well with corresponding subscales for specific experiences. Agreement was weaker for complex, multidimensional constructs (Verster et al., 2021; Loo, 2002).

What the question tells a program

A closeness item can indicate whether a relationship feels connected, distant, or uncertain from the young person’s perspective. A low score may reflect missed meetings, a recent disagreement, a poor match, wider stress, or a relationship that feels useful without feeling emotionally close. The score identifies a point for inquiry. The reasons for the score require follow-up. A simple question can begin that inquiry:

“What would make this relationship more helpful to you?”

The first questio gives a global rating. Follow-up questions create an opening for repair, adjustment, or support.

References

Bergkvist, L., & Rossiter, J. (2007). The Predictive Validity of Multiple-Item versus Single-Item Measures of the Same Constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 44, 175–184. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.44.2.175

Duncan, B., Psyd, Miller, S. D., Sparks, J., & Claud, D. A. (2004). The Session Rating Scale: Preliminary Psychometric Properties of a “Working” Alliance Measure.

Fülöp, F., Bőthe, B., Gál, É., Cachia, J., Demetrovics, Z., & Orosz, G. (2020). A two-study validation of a single-item measure of relationship satisfaction: RAS-1. In Current Psychology (Vol. 41, pp. 2109–2121). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-020-00727-y

Loo, R. (2002). A caveat on using single‐item versus multiple‐item scales. In Journal of Managerial Psychology (Vol. 17, pp. 68–75). https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940210415933

Miller, S. D., Duncan, B., Brown, J., Sorrell, R., & Chalk, M. (2006). Using Formal Client Feedback to Improve Retention and Outcome: Making Ongoing, Real-time Assessment Feasible.

Poon, C. Y. S., Herrera, C., Jarjoura, R., McQuillin, S. D., Keller, T., & Rhodes, J. (2022). Deconstructing “Risk” in Youth Mentoring Programs: How Environmental Stressors and Presenting Challenges Shape Mentoring Relationship Outcomes. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 42, 793–821. https://doi.org/10.1177/02724316221078833

Scarpello, V., & Campbell, J. (1983). JOB SATISFACTION: ARE ALL THE PARTS THERE? In Personnel Psychology (Vol. 36, pp. 577–600). https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1744-6570.1983.TB02236.X

Verster, J., Sandalova, E., Garssen, J., & Bruce, G. (2021). The Use of Single-Item Ratings Versus Traditional Multiple-Item Questionnaires to Assess Mood and Health. European Journal of Investigation in Health, Psychology and Education, 11, 183–198. https://doi.org/10.3390/ejihpe11010015

Wanous, J. P., Reichers, A. E., & Hudy, M. J. (1997). Overall job satisfaction: how good are single-item measures? The Journal of Applied Psychology, 82 2, 247–252. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.82.2.247

Werntz, A., Poon, C. Y. S., & Rhodes, J. (2023). Striking the Balance: The Relative Benefits of Goal- and Youth-Focused Approaches to Youth Mentoring Relationships. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 52, 1448–1458. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-023-01751-4