Full text of DOI:10.1111/1471-6402.00040

Psychology of Women Quarterly, 26 (2002), 25–35. Blackwell Publishing. Printed in the USA.
Copyright ꢀC 2002 Division 35, American Psychological Association. 0361-6843/02
THE RELATIONAL HEALTH INDICES: A STUDY
OF WOMEN’S RELATIONSHIPS
Belle Liang
Boston College
Allison Tracy, Catherine A. Taylor, Linda
M. Williams, Judith V. Jordan,
Jean Baker Miller
Wellesley College
A new measure of women’s relationships, the Relational Health Indices (RHI), comprises three scales that assess growth-
fostering connections with peers, mentors, and communities. The RHI was developed using the Relational Model
(Jordan, Kaplan, Miller, Stiver, Surrey, 1991; Miller & Stiver, 1997), a theory of women’s psychological development.
The 37-item measure assesses three conceptual dimensions of growth-fostering relationships: engagement, authenticity,
and empowerment/zest. This study examined the psychometric properties of the RHI with a group of 450 students at
a women’s liberal arts college, providing evidence for the reliability, validity, and utility of the new measure. The factor
analyses confirmed a three-subscale structure: engagement, authenticity, empowerment/zest. The RHI’s components
generally demonstrate good overall internal consistency. Furthermore, associations between RHI scales and convergent
validation scales were significant and in the direction hypothesized. Correlations with adjustment scales varied across the
RHI components. The RHI has potential for enriching our understanding of important, subtle qualities and complex
dynamics of both dyadic and group relationships, especially among women. The instrument is available for use by
researchers interested in continuing the scale and theory development.
The importance of social support and relationships in
women’s lives has been studied extensively (e.g., Boyce,
Harris, Silove, Morgan, Wilhelm, & Hadzi-Pavlovic, 1998;
Komproe, Rijken, Ros, & Winnubst, 1997; Warren, 1997).
Findings from such studies indicate that the quality and na-
ture of women’s relationships may be more meaningful than
their quantity or structure (Bryant, 1985; Fiore, Becker,
and additional social support (Genero, Miller, Surrey, &
Baldwin, 1992; Gottlieb, 1992; Jordan, 1992).
Along these lines, researchers at the Wellesley College
Stone Center have proffered the Relational Model as a the-
oretical paradigm for the assessment of women’s psycho-
logical development and well-being (Jordan et al., 1991;
Miller & Stiver, 1997). Whereas most traditional psycholog-
ical theories focus on the task of separation-individuation
as the ultimate goal of development, Relational Model the-
orists conceptualize ongoing, growth-fostering connection
as critical to women’s development (Jordan, 1986; Surrey,
&
Coppel, 1983; Waldrop & Halverson, 1975). In partic-
ular, relationships that are intimate and mutual can facili-
tate self-disclosure, emotional resiliency, coping strategies,
1
985). The Relational Model has been used to conceptu-
alize innovations in areas such as psychotherapy, inpatient
treatment, substance abuse, and HIV prevention among
women (Amaro, 1995; Covington, 1998; Finkelstein, 1996;
Nelson, 1996; Riggs & Bright, 1997).
Belle Liang, Boston College. Allison Tracy, Catherine Taylor,
Linda M. Williams, Judith Jordan, and Jean Baker Miller, Stone
Center of the Wellesley Centers for Women, Wellesley College.
The authors wish to thank the Office of Institutional Research,
Larry Baldwin, Lisa Desai, Angie Evans, Joyce Fletcher, Nancy
Genero, Irene Stiver, Jan Surrey, and student assistants, including
Stefanie Wolf and Cinnamon Stetler, for their important contri-
butions to our measurement conceptualization, development, and
testing. This project was supported by Stone Center funding to
the Office of the Director of Research, Linda M. Williams, Ph.D.
Address correspondence and reprint requests to: Belle Liang,
Boston College, Department of Counseling, Developmental and
Educational Psychology, Lynch School of Education, Campion
Hall 314, 140 Commonwealth Avenue, Chestnut Hill, MA 02467-
In response to critics who contend that such a model
over-idealizes caring qualities and denies personal needs
(
thus reinforcing the oppression of women), Jordan and
others have convincingly held that growth-fostering aspects
of women’s relational skills empower individuals as well as
their relationships by increasing a sense of self-worth, vital-
ity, and validation, a knowledge of self and others, and a de-
sire for further connection (Jordan, 1997; Westkott, 1997).
Based on clinical data, Relational Model theorists have
identified four major growth-fostering characteristics of
1
433.
25

2
6
LIANG ET AL.
relationships: mutual engagement (as defined by perceived
mutual involvement, commitment, and attunement to the
relationship), authenticity (the process of acquiring knowl-
edge of self and the other and feeling free to be genuine
in the context of the relationship), empowerment/zest (the
experience of feeling personally strengthened, encouraged,
and inspired to take action), and the ability to deal with
difference or conflict (the process of expressing, working
through, and accepting differences in background, perspec-
tive, and feeling; Jordan, 1992, 1997; Miller & Stiver, 1997).
Previous research has strongly suggested the significance in
relationships of these four characteristics.
Engagement may have a beneficial impact on individuals
as well as relationships as indicated by studies on closeness
and empathy. These qualities mediate stress and depression
and are associated with self-esteem, self-actualization, co-
operation, low interpersonal distress, and relationship satis-
faction (Beeber, 1998; Burnett & Demnar, 1996; Gawronski
signed to reflect the four distinct attributes of growth-
fostering relationships or relational health described above.
Lastly, the RHI is designed to assess three specific types of
relationships: peer, mentor, and community relationships.
The significance of this final distinction deserves further
discussion.
Significance of Studying Mentor, Peer,
and Community Relationships
Mentoring relationships. Adolescents consistently
identify nonparental adults as playing a major role in their
lives (Blyth, Hill, & Smith, 1982; Garbarino, Burston,
Raber, Russell, & Crouter, 1978). Despite this, surprisingly
little research has been conducted to elucidate the impact
and nature of mentoring relationships, especially for
females. Most of the empirical work on mentoring has
focused narrowly on adult professional development and
advancement (Carden, 1990; Fox, Waldron, Bohnert,
Hishinuma, & Nordquist, 1998; Hubbard & Robinson,
1998). This traditionally male model of mentoring ignores
the mutual and holistic qualities of mentoring described
by Levinson (1978) when he conceptualized the latter as a
form of love relationship.
A few investigators have adopted a broader perspec-
tive by viewing mentoring as not merely a “professional
transaction,” but as a relationship essential to psychological
growth and development. Two notable studies have under-
scored the impact of mentoring on females. For example,
females felt much more strongly than males that mentor-
ing helped them bridge professional and personal concerns
such as integrating career and family (Beck, 1989). In a
study of urban, adolescent girls, those with mentors who
listened, understood, and validated their experiences and
feelings evidenced transformations in personal confidence
and ability (Sullivan, 1996). Their mentors appeared to en-
able their social interactions and serve as a buffer against
social stressors.
&
Privette, 1997; Schreurs & Buunk, 1996; Shulman &
Knafo, 1997). Authenticity appears to be related to be-
ing liked, increased liking of others, and motivation in re-
lationships (Collins & Miller, 1994; Kay & Christophel,
1
995). Empowerment has a direct impact on positive affect,
meaningful activity, and creativity (Hall & Nelson, 1996;
Spreitzer, 1995). The ability to deal with difference or con-
flict appears to be related to higher self-esteem, more pos-
itive attitudes toward life, less depression or anxiety, and
enhanced internal locus of control (Kashani, Burbach, &
Rosenberg, 1988; Zhang, 1994).
Despite these relevant findings, empirical examination
of the Relational Model concepts has been limited by a
lack of validated instruments designed to reflect the model’s
concepts specifically and collectively. To date, we are aware
of only one published measure, Mutual Psychological De-
velopment Questionnaire (MPDQ; Genero et al., 1992),
that explicitly reflects the described concepts. The MPDQ
is a 22-item, self-report measure that asks respondents to
rate their perceptions of their relationship with someone
to whom they feel close, as well as their perceptions of the
other’s experience of this relationship.
The Relational Health Index is distinct from this mea-
sure in a number of ways. First, the MPDQ is an assess-
ment based on impressions during verbal interactions with
a partner. The RHI, on the other hand, includes attitudinal
and behavioral assessments in more general context (e.g.,
Peer relationships. Similarly, existing measures of peer
relationships are not designed to reflect relational qualities
that may be particularly salient in female friendships; yet it
is the quality of supportive peer relationships that is more
important among females compared to their male coun-
terparts (Bryant, 1985; Waldrop & Halverson, 1975). Stud-
ies examining gender differences in quality versus quantity
of peer support networks have revealed that whereas, in
general, boys and girls had networks of similar size (Riley
& Cocharan, 1987), network size had differential signifi-
cance. Interestingly, one study demonstrated that girls who
had intense and intimate friendships were rated as more
socially mature than other girls, whereas boys who had a
greater number of friends were rated as more socially ma-
ture (Waldrop & Halverson, 1975).
“
I can be genuinely myself with my mentor”). This is par-
ticularly useful in assessing mentoring relationships whose
growth-fostering impact may occur through modes other
than dyadic, verbal interaction (e.g., classroom or group
instruction, coaching on a sports team, role-modeling, or
advocacy). In the same way, growth-fostering community
or group interaction may be manifest in ways other than
in verbal communication (e.g., shared physical activities).
Second, the RHI community scale can assess relationships
in groups larger than a dyad. Third, whereas the MPDQ
reflects a more unitary concept, the RHI items were de-
Research on peer friendships has shown that women’s
relationships are more dyadic, self-disclosing, empathic,

Relational Health Indices
27
and intimate than were men’s, which tend to center on
shared activities such as sports (Belle, 1987; Booth & Hess,
rent validity. As indication of convergent validity, it was
expected that adequacy of social support, quality of so-
cial support, and mutuality in relationships would be posi-
tively associated with growth-fostering relationships. As in-
dication of concurrent validity, it was hypothesized that a
“relationally healthy” peer, mentor, or community relation-
ship would be negatively related to poor outcomes in self-
concept, mood state, and sense of connection. These out-
comes were selected for the following reasons.
1
974; Candy, Troll, & Levy, 1981). Females tend to rate
close, same-sex friendships equally as intimate or even more
intimate than they rate their relationships with their parents
(
Blyth & Foster-Clark, 1987; Buhrmester & Furman, 1987).
Community relationships. In addition to dyadic re-
lationships such as close peer and mentor attachments,
community or group affiliation has been shown to have
an important impact on social and psychological func-
tioning. Community relationships contribute to a sense of
belonging. Sense of belonging has been described as em-
bodying two characteristics: the experience of being val-
ued, needed, or important with respect to other people,
groups, or environments, and the experience of fitting in
or being congruent with other people, groups, or envi-
ronments through shared or complementary characteris-
tics (Hagerty, Williams, Coyne, & Early, 1996). Hagerty
and colleagues posit that prerequisites of a sense of be-
longing include: energy for involvement, the desire and po-
tential for meaningful engagement, and the potential for
sharedorcomplementaryattributes(Hagerty, Lynch-Sauer,
Patusky, Bouwsema, & Collier, 1992). Women, compared
to men, are more likely to report a sense of belonging due
to their community membership and involvement (Hagerty
et al., 1996). Moreover, compared to other women and men,
women who report a sense of belonging seem to report
fewer social and psychological problems, such as loneliness,
depression, and anxiety.
First, girls and women are highly oriented to others;
hence, their experience of negative emotion toward self
(e.g., poor self-esteem and depression) is often linked
to experiences of hurt and concern over relationships
(Csikszentmihalyi & Larson, 1984; Larson & Asmussen,
1991). Second, stressful transitions that are common during
late adolescence, such as school transition (entering or ex-
iting a school setting) may further exacerbate developmen-
tal instabilities in self-esteem and sense of connection by
disrupting existing social networks. In combination, these
changes can overwhelm an adolescent’s coping ability and
thereby increase stress. Therefore, it stands to reason that
salient peer, mentor, and community relationships that are
high in authenticity, engagement, empowerment/zest, and
conflict tolerance ameliorate personal insecurity and loneli-
ness, especially during stressful times such as college tran-
sition and may contribute to the development of certain
competencies and coping resources. Accordingly, it was ex-
pected that the composite and subscale scores of the RHI
would be inversely related to poor self-esteem, depression,
perceived stress, and loneliness.
The need for separate indices. Although research de-
scribed above suggests that mentor, peer, and community
relationships all contribute to positive outcomes in women’s
lives, there are several reasons that separate indices should
be used to assess these different types of relationships. First,
thepresenceandqualityofthesethreetypesofrelationships
may vary across individuals. Further, these types of relation-
ships may have differential impacts on women’s adjustment,
particularly because they are characterized by unique dy-
namics(e.g., powerdifferentialsinmentorrelationshipsand
group dynamics in community relationships). In the RHI,
these differences are reflected in the wording of the items
chosen to represent each facet of relational health across
the three types of relationships.
METHOD
Initial Instrument Development
Four aspects of growth-fostering relationships were initially
identified from the Relational Model framework of psycho-
logical development (Jordan et al., 1991; Miller & Stiver,
1997; Surrey, 1985): engagement, empowerment/zest, au-
thenticity, and differences/conflict. To assess these four as-
pects of relationships, an initial pool of 44 items (18 Mentor,
16 Peer, 10 Community) was created, drawing from the ex-
tant literature on the Relational Model and related work, as
well as suggestions from Relational Model theorists. These
items were then evaluated by two focus groups. In the first
group, Relational Model theorists were asked to rate the
relevance of the items in the initial item pool to the four
relational constructs. In the second, a parallel focus group
was conducted with eight students from the same popula-
tion from which the study participants were to be drawn.
These students critically assessed the four constructs and
the items in the initial pool for relevance to their real-life
relationships. Based on feedback from these focus groups,
items were added, omitted, or reworded.
The Present Study
This study sought to establish the positive effects of authen-
ticity, engagement, empowerment/zest, and conflict toler-
ance on adjustment in peer, mentor, and community rela-
tionships. In order to accomplish this purpose, we created
three relationship scales that could be used independently
for studying each type of relationship. Specific psychomet-
ric properties of the RHI were evaluated, including factor
structure, internal consistency, and convergent and concur-
The revised measure and scales (108 items) were subse-
quently pilot-tested on 25 students, who were asked to fill

2
8
LIANG ET AL.
out the survey and to indicate items that seemed ambiguous
or irrelevant. The distributions of these items were also ex-
amined in order to identify items with possible ceiling or
floor effects. The items were then modified and fine-tuned
in light of pilot test results.
(closest friend), mentor (most important, if more than one)
and community relationships:
Closest friend: “Someone whom you feel attached to
through respect, affection, and/or common interests,
someone you can depend on for support and who
depends on you.” Of the 448 students who selected a
best friend, nearly all (93%) indicated that the friend
they chose was female.
Mentor: “An adult who is often older than you, has
more experience than you, and is willing to listen,
share her or his own experiences, and guide you
through some part or area of your life.” Of the 302
students who selected a mentor, most (69.5%) indi-
cated that the mentor was female.
As a final step, Relational Model theorists were asked
to categorize each of the revised items as reflective of au-
thenticity, engagement, difference/conflict, or empower-
ment/zest. They were also asked to identify any aspects
of these Relational Model concepts they felt were miss-
ing and should be included in a comprehensive assessment
of growth-fostering mentor, peer, and community relation-
ships. In the end, a total of 76 items were retained as the
preliminary version of the RHI to be tested in this study. Of
these, 23 assessed peer relationships (RHI-P), 25 assessed
mentor relationships (RHI-M), and 28 assessed community
relationships (RHI-C). The responses to each item were
designed to be scored by respondents on a 5-point Likert
scale (1 = never to 5 = always), with a high mean compos-
ite score on each of these indices corresponding to a high
degree of relational health in the context of peer, mentor,
and community relationships.
Community: “Your college community.”
Comparison Measures
Convergent validity. As indications of convergent va-
lidity, two existing, previously validated measures were
identified that address constructs similar to the relational
aspects identified for the RHI. The Mutual Psychologi-
cal Development Questionnaire (MPDQ; Genero, Miller,
Surrey, & Baldwin, 1992) is a 22-item measure that reflects
RelationalModelconceptsincludingperceivedmutualityin
close relationships. This scale was used to assess both close
friendships and important mentoring relationships by ask-
ing the respondent to rate their relationship with the friend
and with the mentor they had previously identified. Since
this scale was designed for assessing dyadic relationships,
no equivalent was possible for the community relationships.
The Quality of Relationships Questionnaire (QRI;
Pierce, Sarason, Sarason, Solky-Butzel, & Nagle, 1997) is
designed to assess three aspects of a dyadic relationship:
support, depth, and conflict. It was used to assess a close
mentor and a close peer relationship. As with the MPDQ,
this scale was used to assess both peer and mentor relation-
ships but not community relationships.
Participants
Because this study was particularly aimed at elucidating
characteristics of women undergoing a challenging transi-
tion period, such as the transition in and out of college,
a sample of 850 first- and senior-year students at a small
women’s liberal arts college in the Northeast was selected.
DatawerecollectedneartheendofFallsemester, astressful
time for first-year students due to the imminence of their
first college final exams, and a stressful time for fourth-
year students due to graduation preparation activities (i.e.,
job interviews, graduate school application deadlines). The
survey packets were distributed after obtaining Institutional
Review Board approval for the sample and procedure. Four
hundred fifty who had not participated in the focus groups
or pilot study returned the survey, a 53% response rate. Eth-
nic distribution of the sample was 58% White, 28% Asians/
Pacific Islander, 4.3% Black, 4.3% Hispanic, 1% Native
American, and 4% other backgrounds. This ethnic composi-
tionwasroughlyequivalenttothatofthecollegepopulation.
These students ranged in age from 17 to 23 years (M = 19,
SD = 1.5). Roughly two-thirds of the sample were first-year
students and one-third were seniors. All of these partici-
pants lived on campus during the time of the assessment.
In addition, the friend support subscale of the Mul-
tidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (Zimet,
Dahlem, Zimet, & Farley, 1988), a 4-item measure of per-
ceived social support from friends, was used as a third mea-
sure to assess the convergent validity of the Peer-related
RHI scale.
Concurrent validity. Several scales measuring the con-
structs of self-esteem, loneliness, depression, and stress
were used to examine concurrent validity of the RHI.
Rosenberg’s Self-Esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1965) was
used to assess individuals’ self-perceptions. Loneliness was
assessed by the University of California, Los Angeles Lone-
liness Scale (Russell, Peplau, & Cutrona, 1980). Depression
was assessed with the Center for Epidemiological Stud-
ies Depression Scale (CES-D; Radloff, 1977). And respon-
dents’ levels of stress was assessed using the Perceived
Stress Scale (Cohen, Kamarck, Mermelstein, 1983).
Procedure
Each of the study participants received a packet contain-
ing preliminary RHI survey items, validity scales, and de-
mographic questions. Each participant was instructed to
complete the entire survey package in one sitting. Partic-
ipants were also informed to keep in mind the following
definitions, as they responded to questions regarding peer

Relational Health Indices
29
Administration of measures. Because of concerns that
the inclusion of all of these scales would prove to be too
unwieldy for a self-administered survey, it was decided to
administer the peer and mentor versions of the MPDQ
and the QRI to a subset of the sample. Four versions of
the questionnaire were created: (1) a survey containing the
peer version of both the MPDQ and QRI measures, (2) one
containing the mentor version of both, (3) one containing
the peer version of the MPDQ and the mentor version of
the QRI, and (4) one containing the mentor version of the
MPDQ and the peer version of the QRI. These surveys
were randomly distributed to study respondents. By using
thismethod, itwaspossibletoobtaindataoneachscalefrom
half of the respondents and to estimate interrelationships
between each scale. Since much of the missing data on these
constructs were purposely random, the estimates obtained
from the data available are unbiased (Graham Taylor, &
Cumsille, 2001).
dundant information or had weak factor loadings and by
allowing items to load on a different factor when this made
sense theoretically. The refined model was then fit to the
data of the second subsample to establish the stability of the
solutionacrossindependentsamples. Finally, inordertoob-
tain the most precise parameter estimates, the model was fit
to the data from the two samples combined. Factor loadings
and correlations among subscales shown in the following
figures are based on results from the combined sample.
RHI-P. The original formulation of this index contained
3 items: 6 items each for the engagement, empower-
2
ment/zest, and authenticity subscales and 5 items for the
differencessubscale. Afterrefinement, sofewitemsdefined
the differences subscale that it was decided to drop this fac-
tor entirely. The resulting model contained four items for
each of the engagement, empowerment/zest and authentic-
ity factors. This model fit the data in both the first and the
cross-validation samples (see Table 1), and the factor load-
ings were roughly the same in the two solutions. Parameter
estimates based on this final model are shown in Figure 1.
The high correlation between the engagement and em-
powerment/zest subscales begs the question of specifying
two separate factors. One could combine these two factors
into a single factor with a high reliability level (alpha = .85).
However, we chose to retain the factors as separate con-
structs for two reasons. First, the individual items loaded
strongly on the factor they were meant to indicate and not
on the other factors. Second, the correlation reported in the
figure reflects parameters from the standardized solution.
Given that the peer-related items are negatively skewed
Data Preparation
Participants having responded to at least 25% of the items
within an index were retained for analyses. Of the 450 re-
spondents, 448 were retained for the peer-related analyses
and 445 for the community-related analyses. However, only
3
03 participants were able to identify a mentor. None of
these had fewer than 25% completion rates for the RHI-M
items, so all were retained for analysis. This subsample was
representative of the overall sample in terms of class stand-
ing and ethnic composition.
Prior to analysis, spot missingness in the RHI items was
addressed by imputation using a program based on data
augmentation, which represents the state of the art in data
imputation (Schafer, 1999). This method was used to avoid
bias due to the deletion of participants with incomplete data
(
i.e., subjects tended to rate their best friendships in the
high end of the scale), a standardized solution would tend
to be upwardly biased. In fact, when composite scores are
created, using the factor loadings to weight the items in the
construction of the composite score, the correlations be-
tween the resulting variables are substantially lower (corre-
lations of 1.00, .78, and .59 become .74, .55, and .40, respec-
tively). This suggests that the factors are strongly related but
do reflect different factors conceptually.
(
Graham et al., 2001). Then, the sample was randomly split
into two roughly equal subsamples. The factor models were
fit and refined using data from the first subsample; and the
data from the second subsample were used to cross-validate
the final model.
ANALYSES
The analyses were conducted in two steps. First, a series
of confirmatory factor analysis models were fit using LIS-
REL 8 (Joreskog & Sorbom, 1996) to confirm and refine
the factor structure of the RHI scales. Then, composite and
subscale scores were constructed for each of the three in-
dices of the RHI and the relationships examined between
these and measures selected for construct validation.
Confirmatory Factor Analyses
The initial models were fit to the first subsample. Next,
guided by modification indices and residual analysis, the
model was refined until an acceptable fit was achieved. A
model was refined by removing items that contained re-
Fig. 1. Standardized solution for the peer index based on the data
from the cominded sample.

3
0
LIANG ET AL.
Table 1
Goodness-of-Fit Indices for Each Model
GFI
CFI
IFI
RMR
RHP
RHM
RHC
First Subsample
n = 229)
Second Subsample
n = 219)
Combined Sample
n = 448)
First Subsample
n = 155)
Second Subsample
n = 148)
Combined Sample
n = 303)
First Subsample
n = 228)
Second Subsample
n = 217)
Combined Sample
n = 445)
Original Model
Refined Model
Cross Validation
.77
.89
.87
.76
.93
.85
.77
.93
.85
.056
.040
.047
(
(
Final Model
.90
.90
.90
.039
(
Original Model
Refined Model
Cross Validation
.60
.86
.84
.42
.88
.87
.43
.88
.87
.079
.044
.053
(
(
Final Model
.89
.91
.91
.038
(
Original Model
Refined Model
Cross Validation
.67
.88
.88
.71
.92
.92
.72
.92
.92
.120
.059
.049
(
(
Final Model
.91
.93
.93
.042
(
GFI: Goodness-of-fit index. The ratio of the fit function after the model has been fitted to the fit function
before the model has been fitted (i.e., assuming no covariances between items). Ranges between 0 and 1 with
a high score indicating better fit.
CFI: Comparitive fit index. Similar to the GFI but compares fit function of current model to fit function of less
restrictive but more realistic baseline model (i.e., no factors are assumed).
IFI: Incremental fit index. Fit index that has been adjusted for small sample bias (small sample: n ∼ 200).
RMR: Root mean square residual. The average of the fitted residuals. Can only be interpreted in relation to
the sizes of the observed variances and covariances but is useful for comparing across similar models. Lower
values signify better fit.
RHI-M. This index originally had 25 items: 7 for the en-
RHI-C. This index originally had 28 items: 9 for the en-
gagement subscale, 7 for the empowerment subscale, and
6 each for the authenticity and differences subscales. The
differences subscale fared better in the community context
than it did in the dyadic peer and mentor relationships.
However, modification indices showed that items measur-
ing authenticity and those measuring the perception of how
differenceswerereceivedinthiscommunitytendedtocross
load, so these two subscales were modeled as a single factor.
This model fit both the first and cross-validation subsamples
gagement subscale and 6 each for the empowerment/zest,
authenticity and differences subscales. Again, it was found
that the differences subscale was not well identified and so
this factor was dropped. Refinement resulted in a substan-
tially better fit (see Table 1), which was maintained in cross-
validation. The final model contained three items defining
the engagement subscale and four items each defining the
empowerment and authenticity subscales (see Figure 2).
(
see Table 1). The final model had five items for both the
engagement and empowerment subscales and four items
for the authenticity/differences subscale (see Figure 3).
Each of the composite indices and their associated sub-
scales demonstrated a level of internal consistency accepted
by most social science researchers (see Table 2). These
estimates are probably conservative, since they are based
on ratings for a best friend, a particularly important men-
tor, and a particularly cohesive community. The implica-
tion of this is that respondents often chose the high end of
the scale in rating these relationships, thereby truncating
the true score variability. Because reliability estimates are
based on the proportion of true score variability to the total
variability, decreases in true score variability will necessar-
ily mean decreases in reliability coefficients, all else being
equal. Estimates based on the full range of peer, mentor,
Fig. 2. Standardized solution for the mentor index based on the
data from the cominded sample.

Relational Health Indices
Table 2
31
Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficients for Each of the Subscales
and Composites for the Peer, Mentor
and Community Indices
Peer
Mentor
Community
n = 448
n = 303
n = 445
Engagement
Zest
Authenticity
Composite
.74
.73
.69
.85
.72
.72
.77
.86
.86
.87
.75
.90
Fig. 3. Standardized solution for the community index based on
the data from the cominded sample.
and community relationships may very well show higher
reliabilities.
atic coping with conflict is moderately negatively related to
other dimensions of a relationship thought to be positive.
Moderately high positive correlations were also obtained
between aspects of the RHI-P and assessments of peer
supportiveness.
Construct Validation
Once the final models for the factor structure were es-
tablished, composite and subscale scores were constructed
for the peer, mentor, and community relationships. These
scores were used to examine the relationships between
the RHI scales and validation measures. Correlations were
moderately high and in the direction hypothesized for
the composite and each of the subscale scores for peer
relationships (see Table 3). The RHI was most similar to the
MPDQ measure, which was expected since the MPDQ is
also based on the Relational Model. The RHI was also very
similar to the QRI-Depth measure and the QRI-Support
measure, but less similar to the QRI-Conflict measure. It
was expected that the Conflict subscale would be highly re-
lated to the difference subscale of the RHI-P assessing the
way in which differences and conflict are typically handled
in a friendship. Still, it was not surprising that problem-
The same patterns held for the RHI-M and its subscales:
MPDQ seemed to be most strongly related to the RHI-M
and its subscales, and QRI-Conflict the least (see Table 3).
Support seemed to be a stronger component than did depth
for defining relational aspects of a mentoring relationship,
except in the case of empowerment. It may be that depth
in a mentoring relationship creates strong feelings of in-
spiration (empowerment/zest), more so than does support.
However, support may engender more of a sense of com-
mitment (engagement) and comfort with expressing oneself
(authenticity) within the mentoring relationship. It appears
that depth may be less related to relational health in men-
toring relationships than in peer relationships.
Table 3
First-Order Correlations Between the Peer Relational Health Index Composite/
Subscale Scores and Convergent Validation Measures
QRI-P
Depth
(n = 227)
QRI-P
Conflict
(n = 228)
QRI-P
Support
(n = 229)
Peer
MPDQ-P
n = 219)
Support
(n = 446)
(
∗
∗
∗
∗
∗
∗
∗
∗
∗∗
∗∗
∗∗
∗∗
RHP-composite
RHP E
RHP Z
.69
.61
.55
.56
.64
.62
.54
.47
−.32
.61
.56
.44
.56
.50
.46
.41
.38
∗∗
∗∗
∗∗
∗∗
−.30
∗∗
∗∗
∗∗
∗∗
∗∗
∗∗
∗∗
−.26
∗∗
RHP A
−.24
QRI-M
Depth
(n = 150)
QRI-M
Conflict
(n = 150)
QRI-M
Support
(n = 150)
MPDQ-M
n = 153)
(
∗
∗
∗
∗
∗
∗
∗
∗
∗∗
∗∗
RHM-composite
RHM E
RHM Z
.68
.53
.58
.63
.51
.49
.40
.44
NS
NS
NS
NS
.58
.59
.31
.60
∗∗
∗∗
∗∗
∗∗
∗∗
∗∗
RHM A
∗
p < .05.
∗
∗
p < .01.

3
2
LIANG ET AL.
Table 4
with mental health and adjustment in college-aged women.
However, separate indices for different types and aspects
of relationships are justified in that not only do authen-
ticity, engagement, and empowerment/zest appear to have
differential impacts on various adjustment outcomes, but
different patterns of interrelationships among the factors
are evident across relationship types.
First-Order Correlations Between the Relational Health
Index Composite/Subscale Scores and Concurrent
Validation Measures
Self
Perceived
Stress
Esteem Loneliness Depression
∗
∗
−.35∗∗
These findings elucidate the nature of these relation-
ships. Growth-fostering peer and mentor relationships
are indicative of perceived support adequacy, as well as
perceived mutuality within those relationships. On the
other hand, it is interesting to note that growth-fostering
community relationships compared to dyadic relationships
(peer and mentor) are more likely to be associated with
decreased stress and depression. This suggests that the dy-
namics of dyadic relationships may be subjectively distinct
from group dynamics. For instance, a sense of belonging
in a larger community may do more to reduce stress and
feelings of loss during school transition than connections
with one close friend or mentor. An alternative explanation
may be that individuals who are less stressed or depressed
are better able to engage in a community, whereas intimate
one-to-one relationships may form irrespective of an indi-
vidual’s distress levels.
RHP-composite
.18
NS
NS
(
n = 448)
∗
∗
∗
∗
∗
∗
∗∗
∗
RHP E
RHP Z
RHP A
.12
.13
.19
−.32
NS
NS
NS
−.09
∗∗
−.27
NS
NS
∗∗
−.31
∗
RHM-composite
NS
−.14
NS
NS
(
n = 303)
RHM E
RHM Z
RHM A
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
−.39∗∗
NS
NS
NS
−.32∗∗
NS
∗
∗∗
.12
−.18
∗∗
∗∗
RHC-composite
.28
−.47
(
n = 445)
∗
∗
∗
∗
∗
∗
∗∗
∗∗
∗∗
RHC E
RHC Z
RHC A
.28
.26
.15
−.49
−.38
−.23
∗∗
∗∗
∗∗
−.38
−.31
−.23
∗∗
∗∗
∗∗
−.27
−.28
−.30
∗
p < .05.
∗
∗
p < .01.
Although we did not find the expected correlation be-
tween adjustment outcomes and relational health in mentor
relationships, it is possible that outcome constructs other
than those assessed in the current study are more related
withmentorscales(i.e., academicachievement, confidence,
leadership, and direction).
The pattern of relationships between the RHI scales and
the psychological outcome scales were generally as hypoth-
esized, particularly for the RHI-C scales (see Table 4). As
expected, loneliness was most strongly related to each of
the RHI scales, although much less so in the context of a
mentor relationship. Self-esteem was somewhat weakly re-
lated to the relational health of friendship relationships and
college community relationships. In mentor relationships,
only authenticity or the respondent’s sense of freedom to
be herself was related to self-esteem, and then only weakly.
Depression was not at all related to the relational health
of peer or mentor relationships, but it was moderately re-
lated to relational health in the college community. Simi-
larly, perceived stress was related only to relational health
in the college community.
It is also interesting to note that the difference/conflict
subscales did not seem to hold together well as separate
from the other subscales. Inspection of the subscale items
revealed that the difference/conflict subscale items in the
peer and community domains reflect two facets of differ-
ence rather than a unitary construct—difference as a foun-
dational quality (e.g., different ethnic background) and as
a dynamic/affectional quality (e.g., active conflict/discord).
The mentor items reflect only the latter, that is, the conflict
or affectional quality of difference. The mentor differences
scale may be problematic for other reasons as well. For one,
it may be unlikely that respondents can tolerate much active
conflict in mentor relationships due to the power differen-
tial; thus the range of responses for these items may be
restricted. On the other hand, by definition, the mentor re-
lationship is predicated on foundational differences in such
areas as skill-level, age, expertise, and education. Therefore,
perhaps the notion of differences/conflict is much more
threatening and complex in mentor relationships than in
peer or community relationships; the mentor differences
subscale may require separate consideration.
DISCUSSION
The current study provides evidence of the reliability and
validity of the Relational Health Indices. The confirmatory
factor analysis supports the theory-based proposition that
individuals make distinctions based on three types of re-
lational qualities: authenticity, engagement, and empower-
ment/zest. The internal consistency investigation suggests
good reliability for each of the three composite indices
andtheirauthenticity, engagement, andempowerment/zest
subscales. The correlational analyses of the RHI with re-
lated measures provide further evidence of the RHI’s
validity.
Limitations
Althoughtheoverallresultsareexpectedtobegeneralizable
to college-aged women, they should be interpreted within
the limitations of this study. Two potential sampling biases
These data indicate that relational health, as defined and
operationalized in the current study, is generally associated

Relational Health Indices
33
should be taken into account. First, the sample of college
students for this study included only first- and fourth-year
students;therefore, thissamplemaynotbefullyrepresenta-
tive of students in their middle years of college, who are not
subject to the same transitional stresses of students start-
ing or leaving college. Second, because the response rate
was only 53%, there may be a self-selection bias related
to respondents’ level of connection in relationships. How-
ever, such a bias would serve to underestimate the reliabil-
ity of the measures by decreasing the variance of the true
scores.
REFERENCES
Amaro, H. (1995). Love, sex, and power: Considering women’s re-
alities in HIV prevention. American Psychologist, 50, 437–
4
47.
Beck, L. (1989). Mentorships: Benefits and effects on career de-
velopment. Gifted Child Quarterly, 33(1), 22–28.
Beeber, L. S. (1998). Social support, self-esteem, and depressive
symptoms in young American women. Journal of Nursing
Scholarship, 30, 91–92.
Belle, D. (1987). Gender differences in the social moderators of
stress. In R. Barnett, L. Banner, & G. Barich (Eds.), Gender
and stress (pp. 257–277). New York: Free Press.
Blyth, D. A., & Foster-Clark, F. S. (1987). Gender differences in
perceived intimacy with different members of adolescent’s
social networks. Sex Roles, 17, 689–718.
Blyth, D. A., Hill, J. P., & Smith, T. K. O. K. (1982). Early adoles-
cents’ significant others: Grade and gender differences in
perceived relationships with familial and nonfamilial adults
and young people. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 11,
425–450.
Finally, it is important to keep in mind that these cor-
relational data do not imply causation in the relationships
between relational health and depression, perceived stress,
loneliness, and self-esteem.
Future Directions
In sum, this study provides evidence of the reliability, valid-
ity, and utility of the new Relational Health Indices. The in-
strument is now available for use by researchers interested
in continuing the scale and theory development. Future
work may be conducted to further improve several of the
subscales. In particular, the conceptualization of the Dif-
ferences subscales in each type of relationship may need
to be revisited. Furthermore, adding reliable items to the
subscales might improve their internal consistency.
The Relational Health Indices have great potential for
enriching our understanding of important subtle qualities
and complex dynamics of both dyadic and group relation-
ships. In order to assure generalizability and to expand our
understanding of the complexity of relational health and
its impact on successful adjustment, it will be important
to replicate these findings and to validate the RHI across
gender, ethnic groups, and other diverse populations.
Mechanisms by which concepts measured by the RHI af-
fect health and adjustment should be explored. By examin-
ing changes in relational health over time, researchers could
identify factors that appear to improve growth-fostering
relations or factors that tend to inhibit these relation-
ships. Once mechanisms have been identified, researchers
could design interventions that may enhance the probability
that these relationships will develop, especially for at-risk
populations.
Booth, A., & Hess, E. (1974). Cross-sex friendship. Journal of
Marriage and the Family, 36, 38–47.
Boyce, P., Harris, M., Silove, D., Morgan, A., Wilhelm, K., &
Hadzi-Pavlovic, D. (1998). Psychosocial factors associated
with depression: A study of socially disadvantaged women
with young children. Journal of Nervous and Mental Dis-
ease, 186, 3–11.
Bryant, B. K. (1985). The neighborhood walk: Sources of sup-
port in middle childhood. Monographs of the Society for
Research in Child Development, 50(3), Serial No. 210.
Buhrmester, D., & Furman, W. (1987). The development of com-
panionship and intimacy. Child Development, 58, 1101–
1113.
Burnett, P. C., & Demnar, W. J. (1996). The relationship between
closeness to significant others and self-esteem. Journal of
Family Studies, 2, 121–129.
Candy, S. G., Troll, L. W., & Levy, S. G. (1981). A developmental
exploration of friendship functions in women. Psychology
of Women Quarterly, 5, 456–572.
Carden, A. D. (1990). Mentoring and adult career development:
The evolution of a theory. Counseling Psychologist, 18, 275–
2
99.
Cohen, S., Kamarck, T., & Mermelstein, R. (1983). A global mea-
sure of perceived stress. Journal of Health and Social Be-
havior, 24, 385–396.
Collins, N. L., & Miller, L. C. (1994). Self-disclosure and lik-
ing: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 116,
4
57–475.
The study of relational health or growth-fostering re-
lationships represents an exciting direction for future re-
search as it elaborates our understanding of the beneficial
qualities of relationships. Whereas existing social support
measures have tended to focus on structure, quantity, and
tangibleandgeneralfunctionsofsupport, RelationalHealth
represents more nuanced aspects of interpersonal connec-
tions that are thought to be fundamental to psychological
development.
Covington, S. (1998). Women in prison: Approaches in the treat-
mentofourmostinvisiblepopulation. WomenandTherapy,
2
1, 141–155.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Larson, R. (1984). Being adolescent.
New York: Basic Books.
Finkelstein, N. (1996). Using the relational model as a context
for treating pregnant and parenting chemically dependent
women. In B. Underhill & D. Finnegan (Eds.), Chemi-
cal dependency: Women at risk (pp. 23–44). New York:
Harrington Park Press/Haworth Press.
Fiore, J., Becker, J., & Coppell, D. B. (1983). Social network in-
teractions: A buffer or a stress? American Journal of Com-
munity Psychology, 11, 423–439.
Initial submission: October 1, 1999
Initial acceptance: August 11, 2000
Final acceptance: April 25, 2001

3
4
LIANG ET AL.
Fox, E., Waldron, J., Bohnert, P., Hishinuma, E., & Nordquist, C.
1998). Mentoring new faculty in a department of psychia-
Causes and consequences (pp. 21–41). New York: Aldine de
Gruyter.
(
try. Academic Psychiatry, 22, 98–106.
Levinson, D. (1978). The seasons of a man’s life. New York: Knopf.
Miller, J. B., & Stiver, I. P. (1997). The healing connection. Beacon
Press: Boston.
Nelson, M. (1996). Separation versus connection, the gender con-
troversy: Implications for counseling women. Journal of
Counseling and Development, 74, 339–344.
Pierce, G. R., Sarason, I. G., Sarason, B. R., Solky-Butzel, J. A.,
& Nagle, L. C. (1997). Assessing the quality of personal
relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,
14, 337–353.
Radloff, L. S. (1977). The CES-D Scale: A self-report depres-
sion scale for research in the general population. Applied
Psychological Measurement, 1, 385–401.
Garbarino, J. J., Burston, N., Raber, S., Russell, R., & Crouter,
A. (1978). The social maps of children approaching adoles-
cence: Studying the ecology of youth development. Journal
of Youth and Adolescence, 7, 417–428.
Gawronski, I., & Privette, G. (1997). Empathy and reactive de-
pression. Psychological Reports, 80, 1043–1049.
Genero, N. P., Miller, J. B., Surrey, J., & Baldwin, L. M. (1992).
Measuring perceived mutuality in close relationships: Val-
idation of the Mutual Psychological Development Ques-
tionnaire. Journal of Family Psychology, 6, 36–48.
Gottlieb, B. H. (1992). Social support strategies: Guidelines for
mental heath practice. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Graham, J. W., Taylor, B. J., & Cumsille, P. E. (in press). Planned
missingness data designs in psychological research. Psycho-
logical Methods.
Hagerty, B. M. K., Lynch-Sauer, J., Patusky, K., Bouwsema, M., &
Collier, P. (1992). Sense of belonging: A vital mental health
concept. Archives of Psychiatric Nursing, 6, 172–177.
Hagerty, B. M., Williams, R. A., Coyne, J. C., & Early, M. R.
Riggs, S., & Bright, M. (1997). Dissociative identity disorder: A
feminist approach to inpatient treatment using Jean Baker
Miller’s relational model. Archives of Psychiatric Nursing,
11, 218–224.
Riley, D., & Cochran, M. (1987). Children’s relationships with
non-parental adults: Sex specific connections to early school
success. Sex Roles, 17, 637–655.
(
1996). Sense of belonging and indicators of social and psy-
chological functioning. Archives of Psychiatric Nursing, 10,
35–244.
Russell, D., Peplau, L. A., & Cutrona, C. E. (1980). The revised
UCLA Loneliness Scale: Concurrent and discriminant va-
lidity evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy, 39, 472–480.
Schafer, J. L. (1999). Multiple imputation: A primer. Statistical
Methods in Medical Research, 8, 3–15.
Schreurs, K. M. G., & Buunk, B. P. (1996). Closeness, autonomy,
equity, and relationship satisfaction in lesbian couples. Psy-
chology of Women Quarterly, 20, 577–592.
Shulman, S., & Knafo, D. (1997). Balancing closeness and in-
dividuality in adolescent close relationships. International
Journal of Behavioral Development, 21, 687–702.
Spreitzer, G. (1995). An empirical test of a comprehensive model
of intrapersonal empowerment in the workplace. American
Journal of Community Psychology, 23, 601–629.
Sullivan, A. (1996). From mentor to muse: Recasting the role
of women in relationship with urban adolescent girls. In
B. Leadbeater & N. Way (Eds.), Urban girls: Resisting
stereotypes, creating identities (pp. 226–249). New York:
New York University Press.
2
Hall, C. B., & Nelson, G. (1996). Social networks, social support,
personal empowerment, and the adaptation of psychiatric
consumers/survivors: Path analytic models. Social Science
and Medicine, 43, 1743–1754.
Hubbard, S., & Robinson, J. (1998). Mentoring: a catalyst for ad-
vancement in administration. Journal of Career Develop-
ment, 24, 289–299.
Jordan, J. V. (1986). The meaning of mutuality. Works in Progress
2
3. Wellesley, MA: Stone Center Working Paper Series.
Jordan, J. V. (1992). Relational resilience. Works in Progress 57.
Wellesley, MA: Stone Center Working Paper Series.
Jordan, J. V. (1997). The Relational Model is a source of empow-
erment for women. In M. R. Walsh (Ed.), Women, men,
and gender: Ongoing debates (pp. 373–382). New Haven:
Yale.
Jordan, J. V., Kaplan, A. G., Miller, J. B., Stiver, I. P., & Surrey, J. L.
(
1991). Women’s growth in connection. New York: Guilford
Press.
Surrey, J. (1985). The “self-in-relation”: A theory of women’s de-
velopment. Works in Progress 84:02. Wellesley, MA: Stone
Center Working Paper Series.
Waldrop, M., & Halverson, C. (1975). Intensive and extensive
peer-behavior: Longitudinal and cross-sectional analysis.
Child Development, 46, 19–26.
Warren, B. J. (1997). Depression, stressful life events, social sup-
port, and self-esteem in middle class African American
women. Archives of Psychiatric Nursing, 11, 107–117.
Westkott, M. C. (1997). On the new psychology of women: A
cautionary view. In M.R. Walsh (Ed.), Women, men, and
gender: Ongoing debates. New Haven: Yale.
Zhang, Q. (1994). An intervention model of constructive conflict
resolution and cooperative learning. Journal of Social Is-
sues, 50, 99–116.
Joreskog, K., & Sorbom, D. (1996). LISREL 8: User’s Reference
Guide. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International.
Kashani, J. H., Burbach, D. J., & Rosenberg, T. K. O. (1988).
Perception of family conflict resolution and depressive
symptomatology in adolescents. Journal of the American
Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 27, 42–48.
Kay, B., & Christophel, D. M. (1995). The relationships among
manager communication openness, nonverbal immediacy,
and subordinate motivation. Communication Research Re-
ports, 12, 200–205.
Komproe, I. H., Rijken, M., Ros, W. J. G., & Winnubst, J. (1997).
Available support and received support: Different effects
under stressful circumstances. Journal of Social and Per-
sonal Relationships, 14, 59–77.
Larson, R., & Asmussen, L. (1991). Anger, worry, and hurt in
early adolescence: An enlarging world of negative emo-
tions. In M. E. Colten & S. Gore (Eds.), Adolescent stress:
Zimet, G. D., Dahlem, N. W., Zimet, S. G., & Farley, G. K. (1988).
The multidimensional scale of perceived social support.
Journal of Personality Assessment, 52, 30–41.

Relational Health Indices
APPENDIX
35
9. My mentor tries hard to understand my feelings and
goals (academic, personal, or whatever is relevant).
0. My relationship with my mentor inspires me to seek
other relationships like this one.
Relational Health Indices (RHI)
1
(
R) indicates that the item should be reverse scored prior
to calculation of a mean score.
11. I feel comfortable expressing my deepest concerns to
my mentor.
PEER (RHI-P)
Next to each statement below, please indicate the number
that best applies to your relationship with a close friend.
COMMUNITY (RHI-C)
Next to each statement below, please indicate the number
that best applies to your relationship with or involvement
in this community.
1
5
= Never; 2 = Seldom; 3 = Sometimes; 4 = Often;
= Always
1
. Even when I have difficult things to share, I can be
honest and real with my friend.
. After a conversation with my friend, I feel uplifted.
. The more time I spend with my friend, the closer I
feel to him/her.
1 = Never; 2 = Seldom; 3 = Sometimes; 4 = Often;
5 = Always
2
3
1
2
. I feel a sense of belonging to this community.
. I feel better about myself after my interactions with
this community.
4
5
6
. I feel understood by my friend.
3
4
. If members of this community know something is
bothering me, they ask me about it.
. Members of this community are not free to just be
themselves. (R)
. It is important to us to make our friendship grow.
. I can talk to my friend about our disagreements with-
out feeling judged.
. My friendship inspires me to seek other friendships
like this one.
. I am uncomfortable sharing my deepest feelings and
thoughts with my friend. (R)
. I have a greater sense of self-worth through my rela-
tionship with my friend.
7
8
9
5
6
. I feel understood by members of this community.
. I feel mobilized to personal action after meetings
within this community.
7
8
9
. There are parts of myself I feel I must hide from this
community. (R)
. It seems as if people in this community really like me
as a person.
. There is a lot of backbiting and gossiping in this com-
munity. (R)
1
1
1
0. I feel positively changed by my friend.
1. I can tell my friend when he/she has hurt my feelings.
2. My friendship causes me to grow in important ways.
1
1
1
0. Membersofthiscommunityareverycompetitivewith
each other. (R)
1. I have a greater sense of self-worth through my con-
nection with this community.
2. My connections with this community are so inspiring
that they motivate me to pursue relationships with
other people outside this community.
MENTOR (RHI-M)
Next to each statement below, please indicate the number
that best applies to your relationship with your most impor-
tant mentor.
1
5
= Never; 2 = Seldom; 3 = Sometimes; 4 = Often;
= Always
13. This community has shaped my identity in many ways.
4. This community provides me with emotional support.
1
1
2
. I can be genuinely myself with my mentor.
. I believe my mentor values me as a whole person (e.g.,
professionally/academically and personally).
. My mentor’s commitment to and involvement in our
relationship exceeds that required by his/her social/
professional role.
Note: Empowerment/Zest subscales
3
RHI-P items: 2, 7, 9, 10
RHI-M items: 5, 7, 8, 10
RHI-C items: 2, 6, 11, 12, 13
4
5
6
7
8
. My mentor shares stories about his/her own experi-
ences with me in a way that enhances my life.
. I feel as though I know myself better because of my
mentor.
. My mentor gives me emotional support and encour-
agement.
. I try to emulate the values of my mentor (such as
social, academic, religious, physical/athletic).
. I feel uplifted and energized by interactions with my
mentor.
Engagement subscales
RHI-P items: 3, 4, 5, 12
RHI-M items: 3, 6, 9
HI-C items: 1, 3, 5, 8, 14
Authenticity subscales
RHI-P items: 1, 6, 8, 11
RHI-M items: 1, 2, 4, 11
RHI-C items: 4, 7, 9, 10