Mentoring Network Questionnaire Support Scales Reliable and Valid with University Faculty

The Developmental Network Questionnaire (DNQ) is used in business to self-assess relationships with developers, or people who support one's career. The Mentoring Network Questionnaire (MNQ) is an online modification of the DNQ and includes two scales that rate developer's contributions to career or psychosocial help. The psychometrics of these scales for different populations are unreported. This study analyzed the construct validity and reliability of the two scales measuring support provided by developers of university faculty. Mentors and mentees (G=156) from multiple Southwestern and Mountain West universities rated 741 developers on the MNQ's five-item career- and psychosocial-support scales. Participants responded on a seven-point scale ranging from "never, not at all" to "to the maximum extent possible." Multilevel confirmatory factor analysis (MCFA) using Mplus and the multi-level reliability coefficient omega assessed construct validity and internal consistency reliability, respectively. Results supported the validity of two latent constructs of career- and psychosocial support, each measured by the established five-item scale: Comparative fit index (CFI)=.93, Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI)=.91, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA)=.06, standardized root mean square residual (SRMR): W=.09, B=.10. The measurement model was improved when the "removes barriers" item was removed from the career-support scale (CFI=.96, TLI=.95, RMSEA=.05, SRMR: W=.06 B=.09. Factor loadings at both the within- and between-levels were strong and statistically significant. Reliability omegas ranged from .85 to .92. Career and psychosocial support provided to university faculty by developers in their networks may be validly and reliably measured at both the within- and between-levels by a modified four-item career support scale and the original five-item psychosocial support scale from the DNQ and the modified MNQ. Limitations include reduced statistical power due to small sample size and lack of testing at the university level. Future work will assess the responsiveness of these scales to measuring change over time in the amount of support provided.