Measuring impact: a prospective evaluation of a mentoring scheme for aspiring clinical psychologists from black, Asian and Minority Ethnic backgrounds

ABSTRACT

Mentoring schemes for aspiring BAME clinical psychologists, are being introduced in universities across the UK. The aim of this study was to conduct a mixed-methods prospective evaluation of the 2021/2022 mentoring scheme. Mentees (n = 8) and mentors (n = 20) completed an online questionnaire at the beginning (T1) and end (T2) of the 2021/2022 mentoring scheme. Quantitative data was analysed descriptively and using a mixed ANOVA. Content analysis was conducted on qualitative contributions. Mentees reported having the confidence and knowledge necessary to apply for the clinical psychology doctorate and assessments of mentoring skills were high. Participants provided their goals and expectations for the scheme, as well as constructive feedback. The findings suggest an overall modest, positive impact of the mentoring scheme. Wider implications include ensuring mentoring pairs establish regular contact and providing additional support for mentors to mitigate self-doubt.

KEYWORDS:

• Clinical psychology
• doctorate
• mentoring
• BAME
• diversity

There is a distinct lack of clinical psychologists from Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) backgrounds in the UK. Data from the 2021 census indicates that 18.3% of people in England and Wales are from BAME backgrounds (Office of National Statistics, 2022). Statistics from NHS Digital (2019) indicate that, as of May 2019, 9.6% of the qualified clinical psychologists working for the NHS are from BAME backgrounds. This incongruity creates a major issue in the delivery of mental health services across the UK.

Ethnically diversifying the clinical psychology profession can help create a more culturally sensitive health care service (Haigh et al., 2014). Additionally, research directly demonstrates that a diverse mental health workforce can improve therapy engagement and mental health outcomes (Aggarwal et al., 2016; Chao et al., 2012; Ziguras et al., 2003). The option of being able to work with a clinician who may be able to identify with patient culture may encourage more BAME service users to seek psychological help. Although, it is important to be mindful that some service users may prefer not to work with someone from similar backgrounds due to stigma or fear of being judged (Smith & Trimble, 2016). Nevertheless, the crucial point is that a diverse workforce facilitates the possibility of choice.

Despite undergraduate psychology courses attracting similar number of BAME students as White students (Palmer et al., 2021), research shows that this comparability diminishes for postgraduate courses, especially clinical doctorate training. Statistics from the Clearing House for Postgraduate Courses in Clinical Psychology show that for the year 2021 DClinPsy entry (doctorate in clinical psychology), 22.3% of applications came from individuals from BAME backgrounds (Leeds Clearing House, 2021). Of these applicants, 21.4% were accepted onto a DClinPsy course. Low applications from those from BAME backgrounds onto such programmes have been related to not being able to gain relevant work experience and the systemic disadvantage BAME students encounter throughout their education, meaning that they are less likely to meet basic course entry criteria (Ragaven, 2018; Scior et al., 2007).

Widening access initiatives

Initiatives to diversify the clinical psychology profession are needed in order to prevent colonial power structures in the field (Cullen et al., 2020). As these authors suggest, meaningful change is created by changing an oppressive environment itself, rather than perpetuating a norm of people adapting to that oppressive environment. Mentoring relationships involve an experienced individual (mentor) sharing experiences, guidance, and advice with less experienced individuals (mentee) to promote personal and professional growth (Peterson & Ramsay, 2021). Research shows that mentoring can offer mentees from ethnic minority groups valuable access to resources and opportunities, such as networking and attendance at conferences (Rasheem et al., 2018). In addition, mentors can facilitate transformational growth and help establish a support system of encouragement. In a pilot mentoring project by Peterson and Ramsay (2021), findings revealed that mentors and BAME mentees found the mentoring experience ‘overwhelmingly positive’ (p. 37), with mentees in particularly citing it as a helpful experience for employability and career guidance. Additionally, research indicates that mentoring can be a mutually beneficial experience, with planned and unplanned learning taking place for both the mentee and mentor (Snoeren et al., 2016).

To improve equity of access and inclusion for BAME entrants to DClinPsy training, Health Education England (HEE) set out an action plan by offering funding to develop mentoring schemes for aspiring BAME clinical psychologists. In 2019, the University of Bath implemented its first mentoring scheme to support and provide guidance to aspiring clinical psychologists from BAME backgrounds. Each aspiring clinical psychologist was paired with two mentors, a qualified clinical psychologist and a trainee clinical psychologist, to facilitate and encourage applications to DClinPsy programmes.

As HEE’s action plan is a newly implemented initiative, empirical support evaluating the impact of these mentoring schemes, is yet to be conducted. Given that the mentor scheme at the University of Bath is in its third year, this study used a mixed-methods approach to measure the impact of the mentor scheme and explore the experiences of mentors and mentees who took part in the scheme during the 2021/2022 academic year. The following research questions were investigated:

Measuring Impact:

1. Do mentees’ confidence about the skills they require for the DClinPsy increase by participating in the scheme?

2. Do mentees’ knowledge of the core requirements and experiences required for the DClinPsy increase by participating in the scheme?

3. Do perceptions of mentors’ mentoring skills change over time?

Exploring Experiences:

• (4) What are the mentees’ and mentors’ goals and expectations for the scheme?

• (5) How do mentors and mentees evaluate the scheme?

Methods

Design

An online questionnaire was distributed at the start (T1) and end (T2) of the 2021/2022 mentoring scheme. A mixed-methods approach in the form of a triangulation design (Creswell & Clark, 2007) was used to enable the strengths of each data type to be combined in a complementary manner, creating a focused, yet rich, methodological strategy (Tashakkori et al., 2020). For the quantitative stage, participants were asked to measure the impact before and after participating in the mentor scheme. This was via closed questions that assessed mentee’s confidence and knowledge for applying for the DClinPsy and a measure to assess mentors’ mentoring ability (RQ1, RQ2 and RQ3). Following this, qualitative questions were asked to gain an insight into the mentor and mentees’ goals, expectations and evaluation of the scheme (RQ4 and RQ5). This study received ethical approval from the University of Bath Department of Psychology Research Ethics Committee (code: 21–283).

Participants

At both T1 and T2, there were 8 complete mentee responses and 20 complete mentor responses (N = 28). The mentees’ age ranged from 21 to 25 years (M = 22.9 years, SD = 1.89). All mentees were female. 75% of mentees were of an Asian background; 25% selected ‘Other’. 37.5% of mentees’ highest degree completed was a masters; 62.5% of mentees’ highest degree completed was an undergraduate degree.

Ten of the mentor responses were from trainee clinical psychologists. The remainder were qualified clinical psychologists. The mean age of the mentors was 33.0 years (SD = 8.79) and ranged from 24 to 70+ years. 80% of mentors were female; 20% were male. All the mentors were White.

Measures

Assessment of confidence and knowledge for DClinPsy application

Mentees were presented with four statements to measure their confidence and knowledge of the requirements necessary for applying for the DClinPsy e.g. ‘I feel confident that I have the skills necessary to apply for a clinical doctorate programme’. These four statements were devised by this paper’s authors, in line with the general aims of the mentoring scheme. Mentees were asked to rate their level of agreement with the statements on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly agree) to 7 (strongly disagree).

Assessment of mentoring skills: the mentoring competency assessment (MCA - Fleming et al., 2013)

The MCA is a 26-item measure designed for mentees to rate their mentors and mentors to self-rate their mentoring skills on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (not at all skilled) to 4 (moderately skilled) to 7 (extremely skilled). Higher scores indicate being more competent in a mentoring skill. The MCA has been rigorously tested for reliability and construct validity (Lau et al., 2016; Pfund et al., 2014). Developers of the tool found that the coefficient alpha scores were quite high (approximately .9; 1.00 represents perfect reliability, Harker et al., 2019). In the current sample, Cronbach’s α = .98.

Goals, expectations and evaluation

To address RQ4, participants were presented with two open-ended questions at T1 to outline their goals and expectations for the mentoring scheme. To address RQ5, at T2 participants were asked the closed questions: would they recommend the scheme to others and to provide a 5-star rating. They were also given the option to provide feedback on the scheme via a free-text response.

Procedure

Members of the mentoring scheme were contacted via email and invited to take part via an online portal, hosted on the platform Qualtrics. Participants were asked to read an information form. If they wished to take part, they were then asked to provide their informed consent. Participants were then asked to provide demographic details and to answer a series of closed and open-ended questions about their involvement in the mentoring scheme. At the end of the questionnaire, participants were asked to create a unique ID code which would be used to link their T1 and T2 data together. Participants were debriefed and provided with resources if they wished to seek further information and/or wellbeing support.

Data analysis

Descriptive statistics were used to summarise mentees’ change in confidence and knowledge of the requirements for the DClinPsy. For the MCA scores, a 2 × 2 mixed-design ANOVA was performed. The between-subjects factor had two levels: mentee or mentor. The within-subjects factor had two levels: T1 and T2. The dependent variable was mean MCA score. Descriptive statistics were used to indicate how many mentees and mentees would recommend the scheme to others and to provide the averages of the 5-star ratings. The data was analysed using IBM SPSS Statistics (Version 27). For the qualitative data on goals, expectations and evaluation, an inductive content analysis was conducted. The content analysis was performed in line with guidance provided by Kuckartz (2019), Kyngäs (2020) and Schreier (2012). Units of analysis were selected, which were words and phrases used to state goals and expectations, and data familiarisation took place. The data was analysed at a manifest level by reading through the data and marking instances of open codes. Similarities and differences between open codes were identified to group into sub-categories. The sub-categorises were analysed for similarities to form main categories. Moreover, frequencies of how often a subcategory was coded were calculated. Responses that evaluated the scheme were grouped into ‘Benefits’ and ‘Areas of improvement’.

Results

Measuring impact

RQ1 and RQ2: assessment of confidence and knowledge for the DClinPsy

Levels of agreement were mostly consistent between T1 and T2 as depicted by Figure 1. At T1, 7 out of 8 (87.5%) of mentees agreed they were confident in having the skills necessary to apply for the doctorate; at T2 6 out of 8 mentees (75%) agreed. At both time-points, 87.5% of mentees agreed that they were confident in their research abilities. At T1, 87.5% of mentees agreed that they knew what work experience and core requirements were necessary for applying for the DClinPsy; at T2 this increased to 100%.

Figure 1. Flow diagram of the data collection and analysis process.

RQ3: assessment of mentoring skills

Assessments of mentoring skills were mostly consistent between T1 and T2. For mentees, the mean MCA score was M = 6.40 at T1 (SD = 0.55) and M = 6.02 at T2 (SD = 0.87). The highest possible MCA rating is 7, suggesting that by the end of the scheme, mentees perceived their mentors as highly skilled in their mentoring ability. For mentors, M = 5.08 (SD = 0.77) at T1 and M = 4.86 (SD = 0.74) at T2. Figure 2 provides a visual illustration of these findings.

Figure 2. Mentees’ confidence and knowledge at T1 and T2.

A mixed ANOVA necessitates preliminary assumption testing to check for outliers, normality, homogeneity of variances, homogeneity of covariances and sphericity (Murrar & Brauer, 2018) – no serious violations were noted. The mixed ANOVA indicated that there was no statistically significant interaction between member type and time on MCA scores; F(1, 26) = 0.26, p = .615, η_p² = .010. There was no statistically significant main effect of time on differences in MCA scores; F(1, 26) = 3.25, p = .088, η_p² = .108. There was a statistically significant main effect of member type on differences in MCA scores; F(1, 26) = 21.8, p = < .001, η_p² = .46. As stipulated by Cohen’s guidelines (Cohen, 1988), the magnitude of this effect is large, as indicated by η_p² (.01 = small effect, .06 = moderate effect, .14 = large effect). As depicted in Figure 3 this effect indicates that regardless of time, mentors’ MCA scores were significantly different to mentees.

Figure 3. Mean mentoring competency assessment scores between T1 and T2.

Error bars represent between-subjects 95% confidence interval.

Exploring experiences

RQ4 and RQ5: goals, expectations and evaluation of the mentoring scheme - mentees

At T1, participants were asked open-ended questions about their goals and expectations for the mentoring scheme (summarised in Table 1). For the mentees, their goals for the mentoring scheme largely centred around personal development. This included the sub-categories gaining knowledge (e.g. ‘To have a clear understanding of requirements for international students’ - Mentee 2), readiness (e.g. ‘To increase my confidence in my abilities and get them across’ - Mentee 7), and support for a successful career (‘Plan my future’ - Mentee 1).

Table 1. Mentees’ goals, expectations and evaluation of the mentoring scheme.

Goals	Expectations	Evaluation
Personal development Gaining knowledge Readiness Support for a successful career	Career Support Support for the DClinPsy Broader career support Receiving support as an international student	Benefits: More clarity More confidence Having both a trainee and qualified clinical psychologist as a mentor Areas for improvement: Mentors to clearly communicate their capacity for support at the start Scheme organisers to hold reflective spaces Long-term access to the scheme

Mentees’ expectations for the mentoring scheme centred around the main category of receiving career support. This was mostly to do with specific support for the DClinPsy process, whether that be through getting applications reviewed or having interview practice. A few responses indicated an expectation of support for other opportunities and jobs (e.g. ‘how to apply for jobs, abilities required for each roles and eventually get a job’ - Mentee 5). Another sub-category derived was to do with receiving support as an international student.

At T2, participants were asked whether they would recommend the mentoring scheme to others, to rate the scheme out of 5-stars and to evaluate the scheme. All the mentees said they would recommend the scheme to others. On average, the mentees gave the scheme a star rating of 4.25 out of 5.

Four mentees completed the open-ended question that asked for an evaluation of the scheme. Mentees were quite complimentary about the scheme (e.g. ‘It’s an amazing initiative which has helped me with getting more clarity!’ - Mentee 7) and noted that the scheme helped them ‘feel confident and supported throughout the application process’ (Mentee 1). Another point described was the benefit of having both a trainee and qualified clinical psychologist as mentors. Mentees also provided suggestions for improvement, such as mentors making it clearer at the start of the mentoring arrangement what their capacity is and how much support they would be able to offer. One mentee suggested that for future, the scheme’s organisers could create spaces for mentees to reflect on differences in culture and another suggested ‘having access to the scheme after graduation’ (Mentee 6).

RQ4 and RQ5: goals, expectations and evaluation of the mentoring scheme - mentors

Mentors also provided their goals and expectations for the scheme (summarised in Table 2). The mentors’ goals were based around the main categories, making a difference and seeing the scheme as a learning experience. For the former, the sub-categories were: developing the next generation of clinical psychologists and empowerment (e.g. ‘Supporting my mentee to develop confidence in their own skills, talents and abilities’ - Mentor 6). For the second main category, seeing the scheme as a learning experience, mentors’ responses included improving their mentoring ability and for the scheme to facilitate reflexivity. This was mostly on a cultural level e.g. ‘Prompting me to think about differences in background/culture’ (Mentor 13), but also on a wider level e.g. ‘To gain fresh insights into the profession’ (Mentor 2).

Table 2. Mentors’ goals, expectations and evaluation of the mentoring scheme.

Goals	Expectations	Evaluation
Making a difference Developing the next generation of psychologists Empowerment Learning experience Reflexivity Improve mentoring ability	To provide support Career support Help the mentee to develop skills Share knowledge Regular meetings New insights Learning experience Conversations on social issues Uncertainty Unsure of what to expect Unsure of how to support	Benefits: A two-learning process Great opportunity for mentees – to network and learn more about the field Areas for improvement: Difficulties in establishing regular meetings More training/resources needed for mentors Uncertainty regarding mentee’s suitability for the scheme

Three main categories were used to capture the mentors’ expectations. Paralleling the mentees, one main category was to provide support. Under this included sub-categories such as helping the mentee to develop transferable skills. For example, Mentor 9 expected ‘that the mentee will be able to use [their] knowledge of clinical psychology and the application process to gain skills and knowledge which are useful for moving towards successful application’. Further sub-categories were regular meetings and sharing knowledge of clinical psychology. ‘New insights’ was used to term the next main category. This was for mentors who stated they expected the scheme to be a learning experience and to foster conversations surrounding equality and inclusion. A third main category was developed to do with uncertainty. This was to depict responses where mentors described feeling unsure of what to expect with the mentoring scheme.

All the mentors said they would recommend the scheme to others. On average, the mentors gave the scheme an average star rating of 4.

Eleven mentors provided feedback on the scheme. One mentor mentioned how it was a ‘two-way learning process’ and another mentioned how it was a good opportunity for mentees to network and understand careers within the profession. However, there were some issues described. One was the difficulties in establishing regular meetings. To help mitigate this, one mentor suggested that expectations ‘must be clear at the outset’ (Mentor 10). Another mentor suggested that the scheme organisers should send reminders to encourage mentors and mentees to arrange meetings. Other mentors alluded to more training and resources needed to fulfil their role e.g. having ‘monthly Q&A sessions’ (Mentor 1) and ‘information on who to direct mentees to if they have concerns outside the application’ (Mentor 3). Some mentors were also uncertain about whether the scheme was suitable for their mentee, whether that be because they already had an ‘established network’ (Mentor 6) or because their mentee was not planning on working in the NHS.

Discussion

The aim of the current study was to explore the impact of the University of Bath’s mentoring scheme for BAME aspiring clinical psychologists. Findings were that mentees’ agreed they had confidence in their abilities and knowledge of DClinPsy requirements at the start and at the end of the scheme. They rated their mentors’ mentoring skills quite highly and there was no significant change in this over time. Mentees’ main goal for the scheme was to do with personal development and expected to receive career support. Their evaluation of the scheme was complimentary noting that the scheme, for example, helped improve confidence. Mentees also provided suggestions for improvement such as clearer communication from mentors regarding the level of support they can offer.

Mentors rated their own mentoring ability quite highly, but less than how the mentees rated the mentors’ mentoring ability. Their main goals for the scheme were to make a difference and to receive a learning experience. Mentors’ expectations for the scheme were around providing support and gaining new insights. There was also a sense of uncertainty with not knowing what to expect. With their evaluation of the scheme, responses described how the scheme was a great opportunity for mentees and a two-way learning experience, bearing similarities to research highlighting how mutual learning strengthens the mentoring relationship (Snoeren et al., 2015). However, the mentors expressed their difficulties in having regular meetings with their mentees, the desire for more training/resources and their uncertainty regarding their mentee’s suitability for the scheme. Overall, it appears the mentoring scheme offered a modestly positive impact in helping aspiring clinical psychologist from BAME backgrounds. There were also some tangible areas of improvement for future coordination of the scheme.

Assessment of confidence and knowledge for the DClinPsy

Mentees’ confidence and knowledge for the DClinPsy application were mostly consistent across time. An explanation for this could be that the mentees joined the mentoring scheme with a high, pre-existing level of confidence and knowledge, leading to a lack of change. This could have been gained through personal preparation or other mentoring arrangements. Furthermore, there was an induction event prior to completing the questionnaires, where a presentation and Q&A session was held on the DClinPsy admissions process. This somewhat corroborates with an open day evaluation held by Yorkshire and Humber Clinical Psychology Training Programmes for potential applicants from BAME communities (Ketley, 2019). Ketley found that attendees indicated a high level of agreement before and after the open day in statements that evaluated the attendees’ confidence (an example statement: e.g. ‘I feel optimistic about how likely I am to be accepted onto training in the future’). However, mentees signed up to the mentor scheme may be seeking additional guidance to navigate the profession.

Assessment of mentoring skills

Perceptions of mentoring skills remained relatively stable between T1 and T2 for both the mentees and mentors. There is a paucity of research that evaluates mentors’ mentoring ability for BAME individuals applying for postgraduate education in general, much less clinical psychology. However, there are some studies available that investigate the impact of mentoring schemes for BAME students applying for undergraduate education. For example, Wilson et al. (2014) argue that the literature indicates that mentoring has an overall, modest positive impact on underrepresented groups accessing higher education. To an extent, this overall, modest positive impact is reflected in the findings in the current study. Despite the little change in MCA scores over time, mentees’ scores indicated that they perceived their mentors as highly skilled in their mentoring ability at both time-points. Hence, this would suggest that the quality of mentoring ability is high from the outset of the scheme.

The mixed ANOVA revealed that there was a main effect of member type on assessment of mentoring skills, with mentors self-assessing their ability lower than the mentees’ assessment. It is possible that the mentees exhibited a social desirability bias and provided an overly positive assessment of their mentors’ mentoring skills. Conversely, it is possible that the mentors underrated their mentoring ability. Corroborating this is research by Richardson et al. (2020) who found that doctoral trainees in psychology are prone to self-doubt, due to academic and clinical pressures to perform well. The qualified mentors may also be susceptible to this, with research findings’ indicating the pressures of the job role can incite self-criticism (Charlemagne‐Odle et al., 2014). Furthermore, there may be an element of the mentors doubting their ability to be culturally competent, thus fuelling fears of ‘getting it wrong’ (Hagqvist et al., 2020).

Goals and expectations

The mentees’ primary goal was centred around personal development. They aimed for the scheme to increase their knowledge and readiness for making a DClinPsy application and receive support for a successful career. This is reminiscent of findings from a systematic review on mentoring programmes for underrepresented minority faculty members, which found that mentees’ goals often centre around professional development (Beech et al., 2013). One of the mentors’ goals was to make a difference by developing the next generation of psychologists and empowering mentees by equipping them with the skills necessary to be successful in their DClinPsy application and wider careers. Similarly, the mentees’ primary expectation from the scheme was to receive career support and the mentors expected to provide this support. Thus, it is encouraging to see that the mentor and mentees’ goals and expectations were aligned, as this is conducive to a productive mentoring relationship (Straus et al., 2013).

Moreover, the mentors had some additional goals and expectations. For example, other key goals included learning to improve their mentoring ability or reflexive capacity. In addition, mentors expected to learn from the mentoring experience by engaging in conversations related to equality, diversity and inclusion. Such findings are reflective of some studies in the mentorship literature which propose that mentors can also personally gain from mentoring (Hudson, 2013; Lunsford et al., 2017). The second main category related to mentors’ expectations was ‘Uncertainty’. This represented responses regarding uncertainty with how to best support mentees and not knowing what to expect from the scheme. These are feelings that are not uncommon amongst mentors (Termini et al., 2021). In conjunction with the findings from this study related to mentors’ lower MCA scores compared to mentees’, perhaps mentors of future cohorts of the mentoring scheme would benefit from further guidance to help fulfil their mentoring duties. It is pertinent to consider that this mentoring scheme is a relatively new initiative, and therefore it is likely that with time, self-evaluations of mentoring competency would increase, as suggested by Astrove and Kraimer (2022).

Evaluation of the scheme

The mentoring scheme’s success is partly indicated by the high average star ratings and by the fact that all the mentees and mentors agreed they would recommend the scheme to others. The qualitative responses provided constructive feedback, echoing some qualitative findings on evaluations of open day events for aspiring BAME applicants (Appiah et al., 2022; Walton, 2019). For example, one mentee praised how the scheme offered both a trainee and qualified clinical psychologist as mentors. However, another mentee noted that reflective spaces could be arranged for future cohorts to discuss the impact of differences in culture in the profession. The mentors’ feedback raised some challenges, which are not uncommon in mentoring relationships (Benishek et al., 2004). A prominent issue which was the difficulty in establishing regular meetings. It appears for some mentoring arrangements, there was less discussion of practical expectations for the scheme (i.e. when and how often meetings would be held). This apparent lack of communication led to some mentors expressing disappointment in not being able to establish consistent contact with their mentees. One mentor suggested this issue could be allayed by the scheme’s organisers sending reminders to mentoring pairs to establish contact. Another point raised was for mentors to have additional training and resources to enhance their mentoring ability. Such input has been evidenced to lead to high quality mentoring relationships (Pfund et al., 2014; Stelter et al., 2020).

Strengths and limitations

The strengths of this study were the use of the MCA and its mixed-methods design. While there are alternative measures that could have been used to measure the quality of mentoring (Byars-Winston & Dahlberg, 2019), the value of using the MCA stems from its excellent construct validity and for being recommended over other available scales in a systematic review of mentorship measurement tools (Chen et al., 2016). The mixed-methods design helped provide a more comprehensive understanding of the impact of the mentoring scheme (Almalki, 2016). A further strength is the assessment of mentoring skills from both the perspective of the mentee and the mentor, as both parties’ opinions are important for the scheme. One of the limitations of the study was that there was difficulty in improving response rates, despite participants being sent reminders to complete the questionnaire at both time-points. Thus, the findings may not be fully representative of all members participating in the mentoring scheme. Secondly, December 2021 was practically the most suitable time for T1 dissemination, yet, it may have been better to administer the T1 questionnaire earlier to obtain a more initial assessment of mentoring skills. This is because by December 2021, some of the mentees had met with their mentors more than once.

Recommendations

The overall modest, positive impact of the mentoring scheme would substantiate ongoing institutional support for its implementation. However, it is important to take this inference tentatively due to the sample size and the timing of the T1 questionnaire. Despite the mentees’ positive impression of the scheme, the mentors self-rated their mentoring ability slightly lower than the mentees. Additionally, the content analysis revealed there may be feelings of uncertainty in their role and some of the mentors’ feedback alluded to more training being necessary to fulfil their role. Therefore, it may be beneficial to provide future mentors with training and resources to help them feel more confident in their role. The feedback shared provided some other tangible areas of improvement:

• Scheme organisers to clearly stress to both parties the time commitment required to partake in the scheme and to recommend to mentoring pairs to set meeting times in advance.

• Scheme organisers to remind mentors and mentees throughout the year to arrange meetings.

• Scheme organisers to facilitate reflective spaces for mentees on aspects of social and personal identities (e.g. culture, race, religion).

Conclusion

This study aimed to explore the impact of the University of Bath’s mentoring scheme for aspiring clinical psychologists from BAME backgrounds. Most mentees agreed they possessed the confidence and knowledge necessary to apply for the DClinPsy. Mentors’ mentoring skills were rated highly at T1 and T2 which suggests a high-quality mentoring relationship from the outset. Mentees’ goals for the scheme were related to personal development and they expected to receive career support. The mentors’ goals were related to making a difference and being a part of a learning experience. They expected to support mentees and gain new insights, although at times they did not know what to expect from the scheme. Both mentees and mentors provided complimentary feedback about the scheme, such as it being a great opportunity for mentees to learn more about the field. They also provided constructive feedback, such as addressing difficulties in keeping in contact with mentors/mentees regularly. Altogether, the mentoring scheme offered a modest, positive impact in helping aspiring clinical psychologist from BAME backgrounds. Future evaluations should consider improving the representation of responses, perhaps by disseminating the questionnaires for completion at in-person events such as the induction event.

Acknowledgements

We would like to acknowledge Catherine Butler for initiating and setting up the mentoring scheme at the University of Bath. This research was supported by Health Education England (HEE).

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This research was supported by Health Education England (HEE).