Table 3: Mean scores of career satisfaction and intent to stay in nursing. Mean 89.05 89.79 86.35 18.51 18.44 18.80 t 1.30 df 171 P .098 t −.20 df 45.91 P .42 Nursing Research and Practice Variable MNCSS total Mentoring No mentoring Intent to stay total Mentoring No mentoring n 173 136 37 167 132 35 MNCSS score Mentoring Relationship No mentoring Relationship Intent to stay Mentoring Relationship No mentoring Relationship n 136 37 n 132 35 Mean 89.79 86.35 SD 13.94 15.56 Mean 18.44 SD 7.93 18.80 10.02 Table 4: Mean scores of career satisfaction and t-test comparing mentoring relationship and career satisfaction. Table 5: Mean scores of intent to stay and t-test comparing mentoring relationship with intent to stay. of the study, and the MNCSS may not have been sensitive enough to detect a diﬀerence between the groups. The sample of nurses in this study, although consistent with the age reported in the literature at the time of the study, represented nurses who may be more than halfway through their career; therefore, the results of this study may not be representative of the younger population of nurses. For hypothesis 3, the correlation of career satisfaction to intent to stay in nursing was weak (r = .15). A large number of participants in this study indicated that they had participated in an informal mentoring rela- tionship; although the deﬁnitions were provided to the participants in the letter of explanation, the possibility exists that the participating nurses may not have diﬀerentiated role modeling, coaching, and precepting as concepts diﬀerent from informal mentoring. There were several limitations noted in this study. A modiﬁed Total Dillman Method (TDM) was used to distribute the surveys; however, there was only a 27% overall return rate. While this was not extremely low, the rate of return did not reach the projected 60% that Dillman [42– 44] suggested could be achievable by multiple contacts with the intended study population. Due to the cost of multiple mailings, it was not possible to send out four mailings, as suggested by the TDM. In addition, Dillman recommended a short letter of explanation. This was not possible for this study due to the nature of the deﬁnitions that were necessary to include for the intended study population. Range 46 to 112 46 to 111 53 to 112 0 to 40 2 to 40 0 to 35 7 SD 14.33 13.94 15.56 8.38 7.93 10.02 Median 92.00 93.00 86.00 20.00 20.00 20.00 Another limitation may have been attributable to the overall population that received the survey. The database lists for RN names and addresses were not as accessible as expected, and since the names were randomly selected from the lists, it was not possible to know in advance if those who received the survey actually met the inclusion criteria for the study of being currently employed in clinical practice, education, administration, or research despite having an active RN license and meeting the age criterion. In addition, the random search for names nationwide was a time intensive and ﬁnancially expensive process. Another limitation pertained to the unevenness of the survey response rate from those who had participated in a mentoring relationship (n = 136) and those who had not participated in a mentoring relationship (n = 37). It was diﬃcult to achieve an adequate sample size for RNs who had not participated in a mentoring relationship. From the 722 surveys that were mailed, there was only a 5.12% rate of return for the group that had not participated in a mentoring relationship. This may have been attributable to the following reasons: RNs who were not in a mentoring relationship did not participate because they thought the survey pertained only to RNs who had been in a mentoring relationship; RNs who had not participated in a mentoring relationship are no longer in nursing; or there is more mentoring occurring in the profession than is typically thought. Although a mentoring relationship at any point in a nurse’s career may have signiﬁcance, the question on the survey pertaining to participation in a mentoring relationship did not ask when the mentoring relationship occurred; therefore, the mentoring relationship may have occurred recently or 20 or more years ago. In addition, the survey question that asked the study participant about participation in a mentoring relationship was a self-assessment of their participation and role in a mentoring relationship. Although the distinctive deﬁnitions of a preceptor, a mentor, and a prote´ge´ were included in the letter of explanation, participants who responded positively to participating in an informal mentoring relationship may have been referring to a precepting relationship or role mod- eling, not necessarily a mentoring relationship in the truest form of the deﬁnition. And lastly, RNs who were dissatisﬁed with nursing as a career may not have been interested in participating in a research survey. There are implications for nursing related to this study’s ﬁndings. With the predicted shortage of nurses, the impli- cations of this study and the recommendations for future