The One Question Every Mentoring Program Should Ask

By Jean Rhodes

When programs evaluate mentoring relationships, they often ask a range of questions about mentors’ listening and support styles, as well as mentees’ perceived trust, understanding, growth, and satisfaction. These dimensions matter. But a single global question can also provide a brief temperature check. Repeated over time, it can alert staff when a relationship may need follow-up and attention.

The question is simple: “How close do you feel to your mentor?”

My colleagues and I examined responses to this question in a secondary analysis of data from Jarjoura et al.’s 2018 Mentoring Enhancement Demonstration Program evaluation (Jarjoura et al., 2018). The secondary-analysis sample included more than 2,000 youth ages 9 to 16 from 30 community- and school-based mentoring programs across the United States. Each youth rated closeness to their mentor on a four-point scale ranging from “Not Close at All” to “Very Close” (Werntz et al., 2023).

The item was associated with other relationship indicators in relatively strong and predictable ways, including growth-focused mentoring (r = .62), youth-centered mentoring (r = .65), and relational tension (r = −.15). It was also associated with youths’ later depressive symptoms (r = −.13), emotional symptoms (r = −.09), and conduct problems (r = −.09). In another study of youth risk, Poon et al. (2022) found that youth-reported closeness varied meaningfully across youth risk profiles. Together, these studies suggest that this single item conveys useful information about mentoring approaches, youth characteristics, and later outcomes.

This pattern aligns with psychotherapy research, which has shown that well-chosen global relationship items can track client satisfaction and therapeutic alliance with little respondent burden, while brief follow-up measures can provide greater detail when needed (Duncan et al., 2004; Miller et al., 2006). Research on relationship satisfaction likewise supports the utility of global items (Fülöp et al., 2020). Evidence from job-satisfaction research points in the same direction. A meta-analysis found substantial agreement between single-item measures of overall job satisfaction and multi-item scales (Wanous et al., 1997). Single items may also capture a broad, overall appraisal that can be obscured when experiences are divided into separate components (Scarpello & Campbell, 1983).

In other words, a single question can bring together a young person’s experiences of attention, trust, comfort, reliability, interest, and connection. A multi-item scale separates these dimensions and provides a more detailed account. Both approaches have value, but they serve somewhat different purposes.

There is also a practical advantage to shorter measures. A brief question reduces respondent burden and makes repeated measurement easier, which matters when programs want to detect change over time. A low score may reflect missed meetings, a recent disagreement, a mismatch in expectations, or another problem in the relationship. The reasons behind the score require follow-up. But a simple question can begin that inquiry: “What would make this relationship more helpful to you?”

That question creates an opening for repair, adjustment, and supervision.

References

Duncan, B. L., Miller, S. D., Sparks, J. A., & Claud, D. A. (2004). The Session Rating Scale. Preliminary psychometric properties of a “working” alliance measure. In G. S. Hubble, B. L. Duncan, & S. D. Miller (Eds.), The heart and soul of change. Delivering what works in therapy (2nd ed., pp. 191–214). American Psychological Association. Note that the originally supplied reference was incomplete and should be checked against the specific source intended.

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. Current Psychology, 41, 2109–2121. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-020-00727-y

Jarjoura, G. R., Herrera, C., Jucovy, L., Weiss, C., & others. (2018). Evaluation of the Mentoring Enhancement Demonstration Program. Technical report. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Miller, S. D., Duncan, B. L., Brown, J., Sorrell, R., & Chalk, M. B. (2006). Using formal client feedback to improve retention and outcome. Making ongoing, real-time assessment feasible. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 33, 25–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-005-0014-0

Poon, C. Y. S., Herrera, C., Jarjoura, G. R., McQuillin, S. D., Keller, T. E., & Rhodes, J. E. (2022). Deconstructing “risk” in youth mentoring programs. How environmental stressors and presenting challenges shape mentoring relationship outcomes. Journal of Early Adolescence, 42, 793–821. https://doi.org/10.1177/02724316221078833

Scarpello, V., & Campbell, J. P. (1983). Job satisfaction. Are all the parts there? Personnel Psychology, 36, 577–600. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1983.tb02236.x

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

Werntz, A. J., Poon, C. Y. S., & Rhodes, J. E. (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