Does the sequence of rotations in Multiple Mini Interview stations influence the candidates' performance?

Best practices for interviewing applicants for medical school admissions: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Interviews are commonly used to select applicants for medical school, residency, and fellowship. However, interview techniques vary in acceptability, feasibility, reliability, and validity. This systematic review investigated the effectiveness of different interview methods in selecting the best qualified applicants for admission to medical school and developed a logic model to implement best practices for interviewing.

METHODS

Five electronic literature databases were searched for comparative studies related to interviewing in medical schools from inception through February 1, 2021. Inclusion criteria included publications in English that compared different methods of conducting a selection interview in medical schools with a controlled trial design. General study characteristics, measurement methodologies, and outcomes were reviewed. Quality appraisal was performed using the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument (MERSQI) and the Oxford Risk of Bias Scale. Based on these findings, a logic model was constructed using content analysis.

RESULTS

Thirteen studies were included. The multiple mini-interview (MMI) was reliable, unbiased, and predicted clinical and academic performance; the virtual MMI increased reliability and lowered costs. For unstructured interviews, blinding interviewers to academic scores reduced bias towards higher scorers; student and faculty interviewers rated applicants similarly. Applicants preferred structured over unstructured interviews. Study quality was above average per the MERSQI, risk of bias was high per the Oxford scale, and between-study heterogeneity was substantial.

DISCUSSION

There were few high-quality studies on interviewing applicants for admission to medical school; the MMI appears to offer a reliable method of interviewing. A logic model can provide a conceptual framework for conducting evidence-based admissions interviews.

Benefits and Feasibility of Using Videos to Assess Medical School Applicants' Empathetic Abilities in Multiple Mini Interviews

PURPOSE

We sought to evaluate the feasibility and benefits of using video-based scenarios in Multiple Mini Interviews (MMIs) to assess candidate's empathic abilities by investigating candidate perceptions and the acceptability, fairness, reliability, and validity of the test.

METHODS

The study sample was candidates for admission interviews held in the MMI format at a medical school in South Korea. In this six-station MMI, one station included a 2-min video clip of a patient-doctor communication scenario to assess candidate emphatic abilities, whereas paper-based scenarios were used in the other stations. Candidate's perceptions and acceptability of using the video-based scenario in the empathy station were examined using a 41-item post-MMI questionnaire. Fairness of the test was assessed by means of differences in candidate perceptions and performance across different demographics or backgrounds. Construct validity was assessed by examining the relationship of candidate performances in the empathy station with those in other stations. The G-coefficient was analyzed to estimate the reliability of the test.

RESULTS

Eighty-two questionnaires were returned, a 97.6% response rate. Candidates showed overall positive perceptions of the video-based scenario and they found it authentic and interesting. The test was fair as there were no differences in candidates' perceptions of the patient-doctor relationship presented in the video clip and neither in their performance nor in their perceived difficulty of the station across demographics or backgrounds. Construct validity was established as candidate performance in the empathy station was not associated with that of any other stations. The G-coefficient was 0.74.

CONCLUSIONS

The present study demonstrates that the video-based scenario is a feasible tool to assess candidate's empathy in the MMI.

Employing Multiple Mini Interviews in Selection Processes for Psychology Professional Training Programs: Ten Tips for Effective Implementation

This article was migrated. The article was marked as recommended. In Australia and internationally, entry into many professional psychology training programs is highly competitive, and as a duty of care to the public, training institutions must seek to offer places to those best-suited to training to become a psychologist. Typically, part of this selection process involves an interview. While panel interviews have been widely utilised, recently, in a range of health disciplines, these have been substituted for multiple mini interviews (MMIs) with evidence for their acceptability, validity and reliability. There is limited research on the use of MMIs in psychology professional training selection processes. We have used this approach for three years to select approximately 100 trainees for Clinical, Health and Organisational and Human Factors postgraduate psychology training programs. Based on our experience and feedback from applicants, we provide information that suggests this selection method is well-received by applicants. We also provide ten tips on how to effectively implement this approach to determine those most suitable for further training.

Reliability and acceptability of the multiple mini-interview for selection of residents in cardiology

INTRODUCTION

The multiple mini-interview (MMI) model can be useful to evaluate non-cognitive domains and guide the selection process in medical residency programs. The aim of this study was to evaluate the reliability and acceptability of the MMI model for the selection of residents in a cardiology residency program.

METHODS

We conducted an observational and prospective study. It was performed in a tertiary-care center specialized in cardiology and included candidates for the cardiology residency program in March 2018. Ten stations were developed to evaluate different non-cognitive domains. Reliability was evaluated by the generalizability G coefficient. Candidates and interviewers were surveyed to evaluate the acceptability of the MMI model.

RESULTS

Nine faculty members were trained and 22 candidates were evaluated. The G study showed a relative G coefficient between 0.56 and 0.73, according to the design. 91% of the candidates stated that they preferred MMI over other types of interviews as a selection method for admission to the residency program, and all the interviewers considered they had enough time to evaluate the candidates and their strengths as future residents.

CONCLUSION

The MMI is a reliable model to evaluate candidates for a residency program in cardiology with high acceptability among residents and observers.