Rapid Responses to:
|
|
Rapid Responses: Rapid Responses published:
-
![[Read Rapid Response]](/icons/misc/sectionDOWN.gif)
"Belief" in mentoring and antisocial behavior may both be increasing...
- James M. Howard (27 February 2004)
-
Conclusions Don't Match the Evidence
- Rey A. Carr (10 March 2004)
-
Matching what we know with what we do
- Kristin Liabo, David L. DuBois, Patricia Lucas, Trevor A. Sheldon, Helen Roberts (8 April 2004)
-
Limitations Not Adequately Addressed
- Rey A. Carr (16 May 2004)
|
|
|||
|
James M. Howard, independent biologist 1037 North Woolsey Avenue, Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701-2046, U.S.A.
Send response to journal:
|
It is my hypothesis that human evolution is currently identifiable as the "secular trend," the increase in size and earlier onset of puberty occurring in our children. Based on my work, "Androgens in Human Evolution," (Rivista di Biologia / Biology Forum 2001; 94: 345-362), the secular trend represents a change in our population. That is, I suggest the secular trend actually is an increase in the percentage of individuals of higher testosterone. The increase in percentage of individuals of higher testosterone brings with it an increase in the characteristics of these individuals. I suggest one of these characteristics is the increase in "antisocial behavior." Roberts, et al., would not be writing about this if it were not increasing. I suggest most of the negative behaviors that are increasing within our population actually may be reducible to increased lack of impulse control. I think this lack of impulse control results from reduced development of the advanced prefrontal lobes, the part of the brain which actually makes us different from other animals. "Antisocial behaviors" are behaviors which are not controlled. High testosterone has been connected with increased lack of impulse control. A mentor may act as a source of impulse control for young people who cannot control their impulses. When that mentor is absent, impulse control wanes. Some individuals may "learn" to control impulses, if their brains are sufficiently developed. The degree of effect of "mentoring," therefore, relies on brain development. If the brain is underdeveloped, mentoring will have no effect in absentia. Therefore, mentoring should sometimes works. If my hypothesis is correct, mentoring will increasingly fail. I agree with Helen Roberts, et al., that we must be careful of the use of our precious time and treasure for programs that may not be working and, of those that "work," may fail in the future. It is also a part of my work that the secular trend will also generate increases in "belief systems." Belief systems are acts of impulse, that is, they are not based on consideration of evidence. Without evidence, support of "mentoring" as a means to control increasing antisocial behavior among our young is a "belief system." If my hypothesis is correct, this will eventually affect the groups of individuals who are elected to public office. More of our governmental control will be based on belief systems and our taxes will be used according to belief systems, not real evidence. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Rey A. Carr, Chief Knowledge Officer Peer Resources, Victoria, British Columbia (www.mentors.ca)
Send response to journal:
|
The authors of this article try to make a strong argument for the idea that mentoring at-risk youth has considerable momentum, but lacks any real foundation based on research. However, their conclusions are not on solid ground. First, the authors have ignored many significant studies (which actually contradict most of their conclusions about the outcomes of mentoring). One important paper they seem to have overlooked, for example, is the 2002 report, Mentoring Programs and Youth Development: A Synthesis by Susan Jekielek, Kirstin Moore, and Elizabeth Hair. The studies they do cite that appear to show negative outcomes (one study that is 17 years old and another study which is 25 years old) actually place those outcomes in a specific context and did in fact also show positive outcomes. Ironically an article that appeared 15 years later in one of the same journals showed that mentoring had played a significant role in reducing anti-social behavior. (See: An Integrated Components Preventive Intervention for Aggressive Elementary School Children: The Early Risers Program by Gerald J. August, George M. Realmuto, Joel M. Hektner, and Michael L. Bloomquist that appeared in the Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. Vol. 69 (4) August 2001, pp. 614-626) In addition to missing significant studies, the authors take a very narrow view of research. Rather than recognizing the findings of literally thousands of practitioners, the validity of anecdotal, narrative, single-case studies, phenomenological, and other qualitative methods, the authors think that the quantitative research method they espouse ought to drive mentoring programs and activities. True progress in science also comes from the other way around: research that follows practice. Another interesting aspect of their study is that one of the authors is based in a university in a major US city that is the home of one of the most prolific mentoring organizations in North America, yet no mention is made in the article of any of the results consistently demonstrated by this non-profit organization. As Mark Fulop of the Mentoring Exchange has suggested this organization and hundreds like it in North America have thousands of stories to tell about the power and impact of mentoring. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Kristin Liabo, Research Fellow City University 20 Bartholomew Close, London EC1A 7QN, David L. DuBois, Patricia Lucas, Trevor A. Sheldon, Helen Roberts
Send response to journal:
|
Dear Sir, Rey Carr suggests that we are ignoring significant studies which contradict our conclusions. However, if one compares the studies we used with those reviewed by Jekielek et al it will be clear that we are looking at the same studies, but by using findings from the largest meta- analysis on mentoring covering even wider ground.1 This analysis included 55 evaluations of mentoring programmes, which were assessed for methodological quality, compared with the 10 studies used in the review by Jekielek et al. We are not alone in questioning the uncritical endorsement of mentoring,2;3 and want to make clear that far from being anti- mentoring, we are pro-intervention and wish to support the development of programmes on the basis of the best evidence we can muster. Carr feels that we are ignoring the many organisations in North America with stories to tell about the power and impact of mentoring. We agree that the best way to understand the experience of mentoring is through observations and accounts of peoples’ experiences, whether positive or negative, and this information can help us deliver better services. However, the best way to reliably assess whether or not an intervention is doing more good than harm is by experimental studies which compare progress of those who do and don’t receive mentoring, in a randomised trial. Both the types of qualitative approaches suggested by Carr and rigorously controlled outcome evaluations are equally important, but tell us different things. Our focus on the latter is consistent with our aims of addressing evidence of when mentoring does and does not “work” under different conditions of implementation and for differing subgroups of youth. Our paper drew on evaluations of a large mentoring organisation in the US and Europe4;5 which should be commended for its efforts in evaluation. Their randomised controlled trial found evidence of positive effects from mentoring, but also indicated that it may have harmful effects that are concentrated among a sub-sample of particularly vulnerable young people. This finding can alert mentoring organisations to the possible harms to some groups of youngsters. Our goal, like Carr’s, is to improve outcomes for young people. In order to do so, and avoid doing harm, we need to aspire to a quality stamp on every intervention that we put in place. The desire to do good is no guarantee of ability to do good. Kristin Liabo
References: 1. DuBois DL, Holloway BE, Valentine JC, Cooper H. Effectiveness of mentoring programs for youth: a meta-analytic review. Am J Community Psychol 2002;30:157-97. 2. Hall JC. Mentoring and young people. A literature review. Glasgow: SCRE Centre;2003 3. McCord J, Sptaz Wisdom C, Crowell NA. Juvenile crime. Juvenile justice. Washington DC: National Academy Press; 2001 4. Grossman JB, Tierney JP. Does mentoring work? An impact study of the Big Brothers Big Sisters program. Eval Rev 1998;22:403-26 5. Grossman JB, Rhodes JE. The test of time: predictors and effects of duration in youth mentoring programs. Am J Community Psychol 2002;30:199- 206 Competing interests: All the authors are involved in research on evidence-based services. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Rey A. Carr, CEO V8S 4E3
Send response to journal:
|
Nowhere in my review of the authors' study did I imply that the group held an "anti-mentoring" viewpoint or attitude. My concern was that their conclusions do not account for the studies that contradict their findings. Their response shows that they still do not actually account for the contradictory findings. In addition, they make a weak case for why quantitative methods are superior to qualitative in determining whether anyone might be harmed or helped by mentoring. Their rationale would barely receive a passing grade in a research seminar on methodology and I'm disappointed to see their out-of-date view of qualitative methods repeated again in this forum. I'm glad to learn that they have an open mind regarding the outcomes of mentoring and they support the importance of research in answering questions about mentoring. Competing interests: None declared |
|||