An Evaluation of the Psychometric Properties of the Graduate Advising Survey for Doctoral Students

Introduction At one time, graduate training in the United States (U.S.) was hailed as one of the best systems of doctoral education in the world (Golde, 2006; Nettles & Millet, 2006). However, with vexing problems, such as a declining interest by American students going on for doctoral study, longtime to degree, high attrition rates (Ehrenber & Kuh, 2009), and disparate advising and mentoring experiences of doctoral students (Austin, 2002; Fagan & Suedkamp Wells, 2004), it is now questionable whether graduate education in the U.S. will continue to be able to produce the best and brightest researchers necessary to maintain a competitive edge in a global knowledge economy (Denecke, Frasier, & Redd, 2009). Therefore, much thought has been given to the ways in which graduate education, in general, and doctoral education, in particular, may need to be reformed (Walker, Golde, Jones, Bueschel, & Hutchings, 2008) in the 21st century. In particular, the way in which doctoral students are trained is one thorny aspect of graduate education that has come under increasing scrutiny (Walker et al., 2008). The apprenticeship model--where a doctoral student works one-on-one with a faculty member as an apprentice--is a defining characteristic of doctoral education in the U.S. Cornon (2008) observed that in good master-apprentice relationships, the master (advisor/supervisor) serves as teacher, mentor, cheerleader, and advocate. He indicates that when these relationships work well they can last a lifetime. Conversely, when the master-apprentice or advisor-advisee relationship does not work, it can be horrid (Walker et al., 2008) and produce many negative consequences for the advisee (Minor, 2003). Due to the critical, yet unpredictable, nature of the advisor-advisee relationship, doctoral advising has garnered much research in recent years (Barnes, 2010; Barnes & Austin, 2009; Barnes, Williams, & Archer, 2010; Knox, Schlosser, Pruitt, & Hill, 2006). Increasingly, quantitative survey research has been conducted that has built an empirically-based body of knowledge about doctoral students and their academic and advising experiences (see for example, Fagan & Suedkamp Wells, 2004; Golde & Dore, 2001; Nettles & Millet, 2006). What is missing, however, are surveys that are designed to generate knowledge about doctoral advising experiences within specific institutions. This gap is particularly significant given recent calls for graduate programs and departments to conduct their own assessments of graduate training and advising (Walker et al., 2008). Therefore, this study is designed to narrow this gap by analyzing the psychometric properties of an instrument that was developed at one large research university. The survey was designed to capture some of the key aspects of the doctoral advising experience that have been described in previous studies as critical to the advisor-advisee relationship. The advisor-advisee term is a U.S. based term. In other countries in the world advisors are called supervisors. The following review of literature identifies key themes in advising literature that provide a broader context for understanding the content of the survey items being examined in this study. Related Literature Generally speaking, the doctoral advisor is thought to be one of the most important people whom a doctoral student will interact with during her/his graduate degree program (Baird, 1995; Etzkowitz, Kemelgor, & Uzzi, 2000; Hartnett & Katz, 1977; Lovitts, 2001, 2004; Nettles & Millet, 2006). The importance of the doctoral advisor to the advisee stems from the amount of influence the advisor has on multiple aspects of the doctoral degree process. For example, Lovitts (2001, 2004) stated that the advisor impacts the nature and quality of the students' experiences, the socialization processes, and postgraduate options and opportunities. …