http://jhh.sagepub.com/ 

Higher EducationJournal of Hispanic

http://jhh.sagepub.com/content/9/3/232The online version of this article can be found at:

 DOI: 10.1177/1538192710371982

2010 9: 232Journal of Hispanic Higher EducationGloria Crisp and Irene Cruz

Undergraduate Students Attending a Hispanic Serving InstitutionConfirmatory Factor Analysis of a Measure of ''Mentoring'' Among

  

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of: 

  American Association of Hispanics in Higher Education, Inc.

can be found at:Journal of Hispanic Higher EducationAdditional services and information for     

http://jhh.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:  

http://jhh.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:  

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:  

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:  

http://jhh.sagepub.com/content/9/3/232.refs.htmlCitations:  

at University of Texas at San Antonio on July 10, 2010jhh.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Journal of Hispanic Higher Education9(3) 232 –244

© The Author(s) 2010Reprints and permission: http://www. sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/1538192710371982http://jhh.sagepub.com

Confirmatory Factor Analysis of a Measure of “Mentoring” Among Undergraduate Students Attending a Hispanic Serving Institution

Gloria Crisp1 and Irene Cruz1

Abstract

The present study validated the underlying domains that comprise the mentoring experiences of students attending a Hispanic Serving Institution. Mentoring was hypothesized to comprise four interrelated components as measured by the College Student Mentoring Scale. T test results indicated different groups of students received similar mentoring experiences, whereas confirmatory factor analyses revealed the mentoring model was valid. The factor structure was found to be significantly different between White and Hispanic students.

Resumen

El estudio actual validó los dominios subyacentes que componen las experiencias de mentoría de estudiantes de una Institución al Servicio de los Hispanos. Se hipotetizó que mentoría sería compuesta de cuatro componentes interrelacionados como medidos por el College Student Mentoring Scale. Los resultados de la prueba t indicaron que distintos grupos de estudiantes recibieron experiencias de mentoría semejantes mientras que análisis factorial confirmatorio indicó que el modelo de mentoría fue válido. Se descubrió que la estructura factorial fue significativamente diferente para estudiantes angloamericanos y estudiantes hispanos.

1University of Texas at San Antonio, San Antonio, TX, USA

Corresponding Author:Gloria Crisp, University of Texas at San Antonio, One UTSA Circle, MB 3.472, San Antonio, TX 78249, USAEmail: gloria.crisp@utsa.edu

at University of Texas at San Antonio on July 10, 2010jhh.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Crisp and Cruz 233

Keywords

Latino/a, Hispanic Serving Institutions, mentoring, undergraduate students, factor analysis

Nearly half of all Hispanic students enrolled at colleges and universities across the United States currently attend one of the 6% of colleges and universities classified as a Hispanic Serving Institution (HSI; Laden, 2004; Santiago, 2007). HSIs are colleges and universities that document having at least 25% Hispanic full-time enrollment, of which at least half are low income (Bordes & Arredondo, 2005). HSIs are assumed to support Hispanic students’ academic success as well or even better than Predomi-nately White Institutions. However, evidence to explain the activities or programs that promote the success of Hispanic students attending HSIs is practically nonexistent (Laird, Bridges, Morelon-Quainoo, Williams, & Holmes, 2007).

It is critical that institutions, including HSIs, implement and subsequently measure efforts to support the academic success of Hispanic students (Harrell & Forney, 2003). Although Hispanic students may be provided emotional support to attend college, in many cases Hispanic parents are unable to provide their children with cultural capital, knowledge on how to navigate the collegiate system, or assistance with coursework because of a lack of proficiency with English, a lack of exposure to the American edu-cational system, or work demands (Ceballo, 2004). In turn, the role of mentoring, as one possible means of supporting Hispanic students, has been the focus of numerous recent empirical investigations (e.g., Bordes & Arredondo, 2005; Castellanos & Jones, 2004; Ceballo, 2004; Flores & Obasi, 2005; Harrell & Forney, 2003; Hurtado, Carter, & Spuler, 1996; Santos & Reigadas, 2002; Solberg, Valdez, & Villarreal, 1994; Solberg & Villarreal, 1997; Suarez, 2003; Torres & Solberg, 2001; Zalaquett & Lopez, 2006).

Findings to date indicate that mentoring may have an overall positive impact on the degree and career aspirations, academic achievement, college adjustment, and transfer success of Hispanic students during college. However, definitional, methodological, and theoretical issues have made it difficult to accurately measure the impact that mentoring has on college students or to understand the components/aspects of mentor-ing that are associated with positive student outcomes (Crisp, 2009; Crisp & Cruz, 2009; Jacobi, 1991). Of greatest concern is the absence of a firm conceptual base to support the structure of formalized mentoring programs at colleges and universities (Haring, 1999) that is necessary to gain an understanding deeper than the extent to which mentoring is beneficial to college students (Schockett & Haring-Hidore, 1985), including the specific experiences involved in a comprehensive mentoring program. There is also a need to examine mentoring models at various educational settings or with various student populations (Rodriguez, 1995) as it is critical that mentoring efforts are as tailored as possible to best meet the needs of students (Johnson, 1989).

Despite initial findings that point to mentoring having a positive impact on the academic success of Hispanic students, no study to date has explicitly studied the mentoring experiences of students attending an HSI. Moreover, with the exceptions of Santos and Reigadas (2002), no study has attempted to conceptualize or define the

at University of Texas at San Antonio on July 10, 2010jhh.sagepub.comDownloaded from

234 Journal of Hispanic Higher Education 9(3)

mentoring experiences of Hispanic college students. As such, the present study sought to build on the previous work of Crisp (2009) by validating the underlying domains that comprise the mentoring experiences of a group of traditionally underrepresented students attending an HSI. The study addressed the following research questions:

Research Question 1: Are there significant differences between how different groups of students experience mentoring?

Research Question 2: To what extent are the mentoring items valid indicators of the corresponding construct they are designed to measure?

Research Question 3: Is the hypothesized factor structure invariant for different groups of students?

Theoretical FrameworkThe present study used a mentoring theory developed by Nora and Crisp (2007) that combines theoretical perspectives in primary and secondary education, psychology, and business literature (i.e., Cohen, 1995; Kram, 1988; Levinson, Carrow, Klein, Levinson, & McKee, 1978; Miller, 2002; Roberts, 2000; Schockett & Haring-Hidore, 1985). The theory proposes that mentoring is perceived and experienced by undergraduate college students as four interrelated constructs. The first construct, Psychological and Emotional Support, is thought to encompass a sense of listening, providing moral and emotional support, identifying problems, and providing encouragement as well as the establish-ment of a supportive relationship in which there is a mutual understanding and link between the student and the mentor. The second construct, Degree and Career Support, represents the underlying notion that mentoring involves an assessment of the student’s strengths, weaknesses and abilities, and guidance with setting academic and career goals and with decision making.

Academic Subject Knowledge Support is the third construct, centering on the acquisition of necessary skills and knowledge; on educating, evaluating, and challeng-ing the student academically; on employing tutoring skills and focusing on subject learning in contrast to mentoring that focuses on life learning; and on establishing a teaching–learning process. The fourth construct, The Existence of a Role Model, con-centrates on the presence of a role model in the student’s life as well as the opportunity for the student to learn from the mentor’s present and past actions and achievements/failures. In this dimension, the emphasis is on sharing, or self-disclosing, life experi-ences and feelings by the mentor to personalize and enrich the relationship between himself/herself and the student (Nora & Crisp, 2007).

MethodParticipants

Participants were drawn from a cluster random sample of core undergraduate courses offered in spring 2008 at a large doctoral granting HSI in the south. The selection of

at University of Texas at San Antonio on July 10, 2010jhh.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Crisp and Cruz 235

courses excluded distance education, dual enrollment, honors, developmental courses, and courses reserved for certain majors. Students in selected classes were asked to complete the College Student Mentoring Scale (CSMS) during the first 20 minutes of class during the first half of the spring term. A sample of at least 394 students, a stan-dard set by Gorsuch (1983), was sought. The survey response rate was 62%. Of the 363 participants, females were slightly overrepresented (54%) compared with the col-lege undergraduate population (51%). However, the ethnic distribution of the sample was found to be representative of the student population, with 42% of the respondents identifying as White, 42% of survey respondents identifying as Hispanic, 8% self-identifying as African American, 6% as Asian American, and less than 1% as Native American. The mean survey respondent was 2 years older (M = 22, SD = 6.1) than the average undergraduate attending the university (M = 20, SD = 4.0).

InstrumentationThe CSMS items (Crisp, 2009) were derived from factors developed from the above-mentioned theoretical framework (Nora & Crisp, 2007). The first latent construct, Psychological and Emotional Support, was measured by eight items related to encourag-ing the student to discuss problems, talking openly about personal issues, providing emotional support, and talking about social issues. The second construct, Degree and Career Support, was assessed using six items associated with assisting the student through the sacrifices associated with the student’s degree, examining degree options, guiding an appraisal of the student’s skills, and encouraging educational opportunities.

Academic Subject Knowledge Support was measured by five items related to encouraging discussion regarding problems with coursework, assisting in the achieve-ment of academic aspirations, and providing ongoing support regarding coursework. The fourth latent construct, the Existence of a Role Model, was measured by six items involving the student having someone whom he or she admires and looks up to regard-ing college issues, someone who sets a good example, and someone who shares per-sonal examples of difficulties he or she has overcome to accomplish his or her academic goals. For each of the 25 items, a 5-point Likert-type scale was used with the following anchors: (5) strongly agree, (4) agree, (3) neutral, (2) disagree, and (1) strongly disagree (a copy of the survey is available on request).

Data AnalysisT tests were used to compare the mean response between different groups of students. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was then used to test the fit of the above-mentioned theoretical model that proposes that mentoring is perceived by HSI students as four interrelated constructs. The decision to use CFA was based on the identification of theo-retical relationships between the observed and latent variables and the desire to determine the ability of a hypothesized model, based on a preestablished theory, to fit an observed set of data (Garson, 1998; Thompson, 2004). Missing values were imputed using maxi-mum likelihood estimation implemented by expectation maximization algorithms. The

at University of Texas at San Antonio on July 10, 2010jhh.sagepub.comDownloaded from

236 Journal of Hispanic Higher Education 9(3)

fitting function used in the present analysis was maximum likelihood, as it has been shown to yield consistent and accurate estimates of population parameters when the sample size is adequate and the model is correctly specified (Thompson, 2004).

Model identification. More than one model may reasonably fit a given study. In fact, the fit of a hypothesized model is viewed as more valid when the fit occurs in the context of several rival or alternative models (Thompson, 2004). Therefore, we tested the fit of three models, allowing Models 1 and 2 to serve as rival models and Model 3 to serve as the hypothesized measurement model. Serving as a baseline model, Model 1 forced all items to load onto a single latent variable. Consistent with prior research that has shown mentoring to be a multidimensional construct (e.g., Cohen, 1995; Schockett & Haring-Hidore, 1985), Model 1 was hypothesized to fit the data poorly. An orthogonal (uncorrelated) four-factor solution was examined in the second model. Model 2 was also hypothesized to fit the data poorly as prior research has shown men-toring constructs to be highly correlated (Crisp, 2009). Finally, we tested the validity of the hypothesized theoretical framework (Nora & Crisp, 2007), suggesting that men-toring is perceived by students attending an HSI to comprise four previously identified interrelated constructs.

Model evaluation. The acceptability of the fitted CFA solution was assessed on its overall goodness of fit, amount of model misspecification, and the size, statistical significance, and interpretability of the parameter estimates of the model (Brown, 2006). Acceptable model fit was defined by the following criteria: a nonsignificant chi square (c2), chi-square divided by degrees of freedom (c2/df; <2.0), adjusted goodness of fit index (≥.90), root mean square of approximation (<.06), root mean square resid-ual (<.08), normed fit index (≥.90), comparative fit index (≥.95), Tucker–Lewis index (≥.95; Garson, 2006; Mulaik et al., 1989; Thompson, 2004). Covariance residuals with values greater than 2.58 were considered outside of the appropriate range (Brown, 2006; Byrne, 2001). Parameters erroneously freed with t test statistics less than ±2.0 and modification indices that exceeded 10 were considered candidates to be fixed (Thompson, 2004). Parameter estimates were also evaluated for substantive and sta-tistical sense (Brown, 2006).

Testing invariance among ethnic groups, gender, and classification. Next, as recom-mended by Rodriguez (1995) and Shultz, Colton, and Colton (2001), determination of whether the survey items performed the same for different groups of students was assessed. Separate factor analyses were run for each group. Because the best fitting model was found to be a good fit for each of the subgroups, a multiple group analysis was used to assess invariance through automatically generated cross-group con-straints. Consistent with recommendations by Byrne (2001) and Kline (2005), a series of CFAs were run, examining similarity among groups by imposing increasingly strin-gent criteria (Streiner, 2006). The models were run using AMOS 7.0.

ResultsIndependent sample t test results revealed that overall, different subgroups of students perceived receiving similar levels of mentoring support, as only a few significant

at University of Texas at San Antonio on July 10, 2010jhh.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Crisp and Cruz 237

differences were found between groups for each of the 25 mentoring items. Female respondents reported receiving significantly more encouragement as compared with males, with two survey questions hypothesized to measure Degree and Career Support including assistance in considering educational opportunities beyond their current plans, t(323) = 2.096, p <.05, and assistance in carefully examining their degree or certificate options, t(358) = 2.078, p <.05.

In comparing the mentoring experiences among White and Hispanic students, a significant difference was only found for one mentoring item, designed to measure Emotional and Psychological Support. Specifically, White students reported receiv-ing significantly more support from a mentor who expressed confidence in their abil-ity to succeed, t(301) = 2.200, p < .05. Finally, when comparing the mean item responses between freshmen and sophomore participants, a significant difference was found for three mentoring items hypothesized to measure three different mentor-ing constructs. First, freshmen were more likely to feel encouraged in discussing problems with coursework than sophomores, t(278) = 2.581, p < .01. Second, fresh-men were more likely to discuss degree choice with a mentor, t(280) = 2.254, p < 05. Finally, freshmen were more likely to have their assumptions questioned and guided through a realistic appraisal of their skills by a mentor, t(280) = 2.388, p <.05.

Model EvaluationAs hypothesized, Models 1 and 2 were not found to be an acceptable fit, as evidenced by goodness of fit indices that were well outside the standard values, standardized residuals outside of the appropriate range, and large modification indices. Model 3 was found to be a plausible fit, as evidenced by goodness of fit indices that were close to the accepted values. Moreover, evidence of an acceptable fit was demonstrated by an examination of the standardized residual covariances that indicated all the residuals were acceptably small (i.e., <2.58). Therefore, modification indices and expected parameter change (EPC) values were examined in an attempt to improve the fit of the model. Twenty-four covariances with modification indices greater than 10 were iden-tified for respecification and were subsequently respecified in cases where the change was consistent with theory.

The revised Model 3 improved the fit of the model. Although the chi-square was found to be significant, c2(242) = 467.279, p < .001, the chi square to degrees of freedom ratio value was less than 2.0, providing evidence of a good fit. Furthermore, the other fit indices suggested the revised version of Model 3 fit the data well as all the indices except for the adjusted goodness of fit index were found to be in the appropriate range. A good model fit was also verified by an absence of large residu-als, as all but two residuals were found to be acceptably small. The validity of the revised Model 3 was also supported by a strong positive correlation between each of the factors (r = .784-.863). In addition, factor and error variances were found to be positive, variances were found to be statistically significant (p < .001), standard errors were small (.072-.112), and standardized estimates were substantively mean-ingful (.603-.786; see Table 1).

at University of Texas at San Antonio on July 10, 2010jhh.sagepub.comDownloaded from

238 Journal of Hispanic Higher Education 9(3)

Testing Invariance Among Gender, Ethnicity, and Classification

As a preliminary assessment of invariance between gender, ethnicity, and student clas-sification, the best fitting model (i.e., revised Model 3) was individually run for males (n = 165), females (n = 195), White students (n = 152), Hispanic students (n = 151), freshmen (n = 134), and sophomores (n = 148). Because of the small sample sizes, invariance could not be examined for other ethnic groups, or for juniors and seniors. Results indicated that although the chi square was significant, the model held well across gender, ethnic group, and classification as the chi square degrees of freedom ratio was less than 2.0, and the majority of the fit statistics were in the appropriate range for all groups.

A multiple group analysis was then used to assess invariance. The unconstrained model, which allowed parameter estimates to be freely estimated, served as the base-line. Factorial invariance was examined, restricting the magnitude of factor loadings (i.e., regression weights) to be equal, although still permitting different unique vari-ances, common factor variances, and covariances for all groups. An omnibus test of invariance was conducted to determine whether restricting factor loadings produced a significant increase in the model chi square. No significant difference was found between the unconstrained model and the second model that restricted factor loadings for gender (Ddf = 21, Dc2 = 22.925, p > .05) and classification (Dc2 = 31.299, p > .05), indicating that the constraint of the factor loadings did not significantly degrade the fit of the model for those groups. However, a significant difference was found between the factor loadings for ethnicity (Dc2 = 35.801, p < .05).

Next, the factor variances and covariances were held constant. Once again, no sig-nificant difference was found between the unconstrained model and the third model that restricted factor variances and covariances gender (Ddf = 32, Dc2 = 41.332, p > .05) and classification (Dc2 = 38.408, p >.05), but a significant difference was once again found between the factor variances and covariances for White and Hispanic students (Dc2 = 52.792, p < .05). Under the final condition, residual variances of the items across

Table 1. Fit Statistics for Maximum Likelihood Confirmatory Factor Analysis

Absolute Fit IndicesComparative

Fit Indices

Model c2 c2/df AGFI RMSEA RMR NFI CFI TLI

1 1390.340*** 5.056 .715 .097 .072 .785 .819 .8032 2305.030*** 8.382 .632 .131 .410 .644 .671 .6413 1091.617*** 4.058 .777 .084 .067 .831 .867 .8513 (Revised) 467.279*** 1.931 .893 .047 .042 .928 .963 .955

Note: n = 430; AGFI = adjusted goodness of fit index; RMSEA = root mean square of approximation; RMR = root mean square residual; NFI = normed fit index; CFI = comparative fit index; TLI = Tucker–Lewis index.***p <.001.

at University of Texas at San Antonio on July 10, 2010jhh.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Crisp and Cruz 239

groups were held constant across the groups. No significant difference was found between the unconstrained model and the third model that restricted residual variances for classification (Ddf = 83, Dc2 = 72.410, p > .05), indicating that the survey items performed similarly for both freshman and sophomores. Significant differences were found, however, between the residual variances for men and women (Dc2 = 108.809, p < .05) and for White and Hispanic students (Dc2 = 126.396, p < .05; Table 2).

DiscussionThe following section interprets the study findings within the context of each of the three research questions. Study limitations are then addressed within a brief discussion of recommendations for future research.

Research Question 1A comparison of item means revealed differences in the degree to which males and females and freshmen and sophomore students attending an HSI experienced mentor-ing. Females indicated receiving more mentoring support (i.e., item means were higher for all the items). It is not clear whether there is a true difference between the amount and quality of mentoring that females receive or whether the female respon-dents chose to respond more favorably to the survey for other reasons. Future research should explore this potential difference. Similarly, freshmen were found to experience more mentoring support than sophomores on all but three items. It is unclear what other variables might have influenced the freshmen or sophomore participants’ men-toring experiences and to what degree this finding is practically meaningful and should be explored further. Findings also indicated that White and Hispanic students per-ceived receiving similar degrees of mentoring support, with item responses being higher on some items for White students and lower on other items. This finding sug-gests that HSIs, or at least the one used in the present study, may be doing a good job of providing mentoring support to Hispanic students.

Research Question 2As previously stated, a major weakness of the current mentoring literature has been an absence of a conceptual base to support the structure of programs (Haring, 1999). The present study therefore contributes to both literature and practice by offering a psycho-metrically reliable and valid mentoring theory and scale for use with undergraduate students attending an HSI, as evidenced by good model fit (i.e., revised Model 3) and poor fit of the alternative models; that is, the study provides evidence that students attending an HSI perceive mentoring to comprise four interrelated types of support: (a) psychological and emotional, (b) degree and career, (c) academic subject knowl-edge, and (d) the existence of a role model. In turn, the present study contributes to practice by offering a theoretical framework that can be used in the development and assessment of mentoring programs/interventions at HSIs.

at University of Texas at San Antonio on July 10, 2010jhh.sagepub.comDownloaded from

240

Tabl

e 2.

Tes

ts o

f Mea

sure

men

t In

vari

ance

am

ong

Gen

der,

Ethn

ic G

roup

s, an

d C

lass

ifica

tion

Abs

olut

e Fi

t In

dice

sC

ompa

rativ

e Fi

t In

dice

s

c2c2 /

dfA

GFI

RM

SEA

RM

RN

FIC

FIT

LIDd

fDc

2Si

g.

Sing

le g

roup

sol

utio

ns (

gend

er)

M

ales

381.

041*

**1.

574

.803

.059

.056

.870

.947

.934

Fe

mal

es39

0.05

7***

1.16

2.8

15.0

56.0

57.8

64.9

42.9

29M

easu

rem

ent

wei

ghts

794.

049*

**1.

572

.812

.040

.069

.863

.944

.934

2122

.93

.348

Fact

oria

l cov

aria

nces

812.

446*

**1.

575

.813

.040

.096

.860

.943

.934

3241

.33

.125

Mea

sure

men

t re

sidu

als

879.

932*

**1.

552

.817

.039

.099

.848

.940

.936

8310

8.81

.030

*Si

ngle

gro

up s

olut

ions

(et

hnic

ity)

W

hite

404.

035*

**1.

667

.747

.067

.061

.854

.934

.919

H

ispa

nic

351.

451*

**1.

452

.806

.055

.057

.843

.943

.930

Mea

sure

men

t w

eigh

ts79

1.28

6***

1.56

7.7

91.0

43.0

79.8

72.9

35.9

2321

35.8

0.0

23*

Fact

oria

l cov

aria

nces

808.

276*

**1.

566

.791

.043

.116

.838

.934

.923

3252

.79

.012

*M

easu

rem

ent

resi

dual

s88

1.88

1***

1.55

5.7

93.0

43.1

15.8

24.9

28.9

2483

126.

40.0

02**

Sing

le g

roup

sol

utio

ns (

clas

sific

atio

n)

Fres

hmen

384.

577*

**1.

589

.768

.067

.062

.813

.919

.899

So

phom

ores

423.

477*

**1.

750

.760

.071

.066

.825

.914

.894

Mea

sure

men

t w

eigh

ts80

6.23

2***

1.59

6.7

86.0

45.0

78.8

27.9

26.9

1221

31.3

0.0

69Fa

ctor

ial c

ovar

ianc

es81

3.34

2***

1.57

6.7

89.0

44.0

84.8

25.9

27.9

1532

38.4

1.2

02M

easu

rem

ent

resi

dual

s84

7.34

4***

1.49

4.8

01.0

41.0

82.8

18.9

31.9

2783

72.4

1.7

90

Not

e: A

GFI

= a

djus

ted

good

ness

of f

it in

dex;

RM

SEA

= r

oot

mea

n sq

uare

of a

ppro

xim

atio

n; R

MR

= r

oot

mea

n sq

uare

res

idua

l; N

FI =

nor

med

fit

inde

x;

CFI

= c

ompa

rativ

e fit

inde

x; T

LI =

Tuc

ker-

Lew

is in

dex.

*p

< .0

5, *

*p <

.01,

***

p <

.001

.

at University of Texas at San Antonio on July 10, 2010jhh.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Crisp and Cruz 241

Research Question 3

Empirical findings by Shultz et al. (2001) suggest that a “one size fits all” approach to mentoring might not be effective for a diverse group of students. Although t test results indicated that different groups of participants experienced similar degrees of mentor-ing, results of the multiple group analyses indicate that the hypothesized model differs in structure, factor loadings, and residuals for White and Hispanic students. This find-ing indicates that mentoring scales and/or interventions that are not specifically designed for different groups of students might be invalid, supporting previous work of Crisp (2009), Haring (1999), and Rodriguez (1995). Moreover, although the mentoring model did not seem to differ with respect to the number of factors or pattern of factor loadings for men and women, gender differences were observed with respect to the errors of measurement. In contrast, the hypothesized factor structure was found to be invariant for freshman and sophomore students, suggesting that students’ conceptual-ization of mentoring at HSIs may be consistent over time.

Recommendations for Future ResearchAlthough the present study adds to our understanding of how mentoring is perceived by students who attend HSIs, additional research is recommended to continue this rela-tively new line of research. Although Model 3 was found to be an acceptable fit, this does not mean that equivalent models would not also be acceptable or even a better fit to the data (Brown, 2006). Future research should not rule out this possibility. In addi-tion, although the present study reveals the various mentoring experiences of students attending an HSI, it is not clear what aspects of mentoring were received from various individuals in the students’ lives (e.g., family, staff, faculty, peers). As such, future research should investigate the source of various types of mentoring support in an effort to identify and target the types of support students may not be receiving from mentors outside of the institution (such as academic subject knowledge support). As an exten-sion of the present study, qualitative work is also recommended that explores how mentoring is “valued,” “needed,” and “reflected on” by different groups of college students, especially Hispanic students.

Results of the present study also indicate that additional research is needed to understand the conceptual differences in how White and Hispanic students attending an HSI perceive and experience mentoring. Moreover, difference among other ethnic groups, namely, African American and Asian American students, could not be explored in the present study because of inadequate sample size. It is therefore recommended that future research examine how various groups who attend HSIs perceive and expe-rience mentoring as well as the types of mentoring support needed by different groups of students (both on and off campus).

The focus of the present study was to understand how mentoring was perceived by students attending an HSI rather than testing the impact of a holistic mentoring experi-ence on student outcomes. As such, additional studies are needed that qualitatively and

at University of Texas at San Antonio on July 10, 2010jhh.sagepub.comDownloaded from

242 Journal of Hispanic Higher Education 9(3)

quantitatively explore the impact that mentoring has on various measures of success among students attending HSIs. For instance, it is suggested that Nora and Crisp’s (2007) mentoring theory be incorporated within current persistence theory and used to test the direct and indirect relationship between mentoring and student persistence. Moreover, studies that investigate the impact of mentoring on intermediary student outcomes, such as college adjustment and institutional commitment, are also worthy of investigation. Finally, it is recommended that the validity of the CSMS be validated at additional HSIs (both 2- and 4-year) around the country as well as among Hispanic students attending different types of institutions.

Authors’ Note

A previous version of this study was presented at the 2008 Annual Forum of the Association for Institutional Research. The authors would like to thank Alex Bowers and Graciela Reyes for their contributions.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no conflicts of interest with respect to the authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research and/or author-ship of this article:

This research was supported by a COEHD Faculty Research Award from the University of Texas at San Antonio.

References

Bordes, V., & Arredondo, P. (2005). Mentoring and 1st year Hispanic college students. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 4, 114-133.

Brown, T. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications and programming. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Castellanos, J., & Jones, L. (2004). Hispanic undergraduate experiences in American higher edu-cation. In J. Castellanos & L. Jones (Eds.), The majority in the minority (pp. 1-14). Sterling, VA: Stylus.

Ceballo, R. (2004). From barrios to Yale: The role of parenting strategies in Latino families. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 26, 171-186.

Cohen, N. H. (1995). The principles of adult mentoring scale. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 66, 15-32.

Crisp, G. (2009). Conceptualization and initial validation of the College Student Mentoring Scale (CSMS). Journal of College Student Development, 50, 177-194.

Crisp, G., & Cruz, I. (2009). Mentoring college students: A critical review of the literature between 1990 and 2007. Research in Higher Education, 50, 525-545.

at University of Texas at San Antonio on July 10, 2010jhh.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Crisp and Cruz 243

Flores, L. Y., & Obasi, E. M. (2005). Mentors’ influence on Mexican American students’ career and educational development. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 33, 146-164.

Garson, D. (1998). Factor analysis. Retrieved from http://www2.chass.ncsu.edu/garson/pa765/factor.htm

Garson, D. (2006). Structural equation modeling. Retrieved from t http://www2.chass.ncsu.edu/garson/pa765/structur.htm

Gorsuch, R. L. (1983). Factor analysis (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Haring, M. J. (1999). The case for a conceptual base for minority mentoring programs. Peabody

Journal of Education, 74, 5-14.Harrell, P. E., & Forney, W. S. (2003). Ready or not, here we come: Retaining Hispanic and first

generation students in postsecondary education. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 27, 147-156.

Hurtado, S., Carter, D. F., & Spuler, A. (1996). Latino student transition to college: Assessing difficulties and factors in successful college adjustment. Research in Higher Education, 37, 135-157.

Jacobi, M. (1991). Mentoring and undergraduate academic success: A literature review. Review of Educational Research, 61, 505-532.

Johnson, C. S. (1989). Mentoring programs. In M. L. Upcraft & J. Gardner (Eds.), The fresh-man year experience: Helping students survive and succeed in college (pp. 118-128). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guildford Press.

Kram, K. E. (1988). Mentoring at work: Developmental relationships in organizational life. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

Laden, B. V. (2004). Hispanic serving institutions: What are they? Where are they? Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 28, 181-198.

Laird, T. F., Bridges, B. K., Morelon-Quainoo, C. L., Williams, J. M., & Holmes, M. S. (2007). African American and Hispanic student engagement at minority serving and predominantly White institutions. Journal of College Student Development, 48, 39-56.

Levinson, D. J., Carrow, C. N., Klein, E. B., Levinson, M. H., & McKee, B. (1978). The seasons of a man’s life. New York, NY: Ballentine.

Miller, A. (2002). Mentoring students & young people: A handbook of effective practice. Lon-don, England: Kogan Page.

Mulaik, S. A., James, L. R., Van Alstine, J., Bennett, N., Lind, S., & Stillwell, C. D. (1989). Evaluation of goodness-of-fit indices for structural equation models. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 430-445.

Nora, A., & Crisp, G. (2007). Mentoring students: Conceptualizing and validating the multi-dimensions of a support system. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory and Practice, 9, 337-356.

Roberts, A. (2000). Mentoring revisited: A phenomenological reading of the literature. Mentor-ing and Tutoring, 8, 145-170.

Rodriguez, Y. E. (1995). Mentoring to diversity: A multicultural approach. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 66, 69-77.

at University of Texas at San Antonio on July 10, 2010jhh.sagepub.comDownloaded from

244 Journal of Hispanic Higher Education 9(3)

Santiago, D. A. (2007). Choosing Hispanic-serving institutions (HSIs): A closer look at Latino students’ college choices. Washington, DC: Excelencia in Education.

Santos, S. J., & Reigadas, E. T. (2002). Latinos in higher education: An evaluation of a univer-sity faculty mentoring program. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 1, 40-50.

Schockett, M. R., & Haring-Hidore, M. (1985). Factor analytic support for psychosocial and vocational mentoring functions. Psychological Reports, 57, 627-630.

Shultz, E. L., Colton, G. M., & Colton, C. (2001). The adventor program: Advisement and mentoring for students of color in higher education. Journal of Humanistic Counseling, Education and Development, 40, 208-218.

Solberg, V. S., Valdez, J., & Villarreal, P. (1994). Social support, stress, and Hispanic college adjustment: Test of a diathesis-stress model. Hispanic Journal of Behavior Sciences, 16, 230-239.

Solberg, V. S., & Villarreal, P. (1997). Examination of self-efficacy, social support, and stress as predictors of psychological and physical distress among Hispanic college students. Hispanic Journal of Behavior Sciences, 19, 182-201.

Streiner, D. L. (2006). Building a better model: An introduction to structural equation modeling. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 51, 317-324.

Suarez, A. L. (2003). Forward transfer: Strengthening the educational pipeline for Latino com-munity college students. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 27, 95-117.

Thompson, B. (2004). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Torres, J. B., & Solberg, V. S. (2001). Role of self-efficacy, stress, social integration, and family support in Latino college student persistence and health. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 59, 53-63.

Zalaquett, C. P., & Lopez, A. D. (2006). Learning from the stories of successful undergraduate Latina/Latino students: The importance of mentoring. Mentoring and Tutoring, 14, 337-353.

Bios

Gloria Crisp is an Assistant Professor of Higher Education in the Department of Educational Leadership and Cultural Studies at The University of Texas at San Antonio. Her research centers on mentoring college students, community college issues, factors influencing the movement of minority students through the K-20 pipeline, the impact of policy on Hispanic access and per-sistence, quantitative methods and theory building and testing.

Irene Cruz is an advanced doctoral student in the Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies at The University of Texas at San Antonio.

at University of Texas at San Antonio on July 10, 2010jhh.sagepub.comDownloaded from