ABSTRACT
The utility of the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire, Fifth Edition (16PF) as an indicator of mentor effectiveness was examined. A random sample of the 16PF scores of 74 mentors was drawn from a population of 837 mentors from Big Brothers Big Sisters. Caseworkers rated mentor's effectiveness using a rubric developed for this purpose. The rubric showed good interrater agreement. Caseworkers' ratings of mentor's effectiveness was used to rate mentors systematically as appropriate or inappropriate. The 16PF scores of mentors were compared at an alpha level of .05 for appropriate and inappropriate groups using independent t tests and multivariate analyses of variance, which reflected significant differences between male and female mentors on Factors E and Q3. Significant differences were also found between "appropriate" and "inappropriate" mentors on Factors L and Q4. These differences reflected only moderate effect sizes and lacked practical significance or meaning. The results suggest that, while the 16PF discriminates statistically between "appropriate" and "inappropriate" mentors, in terms of practical significance, the questionnaire is not particularly useful as an initial screening tool.
