The Multiple Mini-Interview as an Admission Tool for a PharmD Program Satellite Campus

Validity evidence for a virtual multiple mini interview at a pharmacy program

BACKGROUND

Numerous health professions schools have transitioned to virtual admissions interviews in recent years. While some research suggests that virtual multiple mini-interviews (vMMIs) are feasible, acceptable, and more affordable, there is a paucity of research concerning the validity of this approach. The purpose of this study was to examine the validity and reliability of vMMIs and explore differences in performance between vMMI and in-person MMIs.

METHODS

Data were collected for two years of in-person MMIs and two years of vMMIs at a pharmacy program/school in the United States. An exploratory factor analysis (principal components analysis) with varimax rotation and Kaiser rule (i.e. retaining factors with eigenvalue > 1.0) was used to explore the construct validity of the vMMI data. Pearson correlation was used to examine correlations between vMMI stations and Cronbach alpha was used to determine the internal consistency of each station. Independent t-tests were used to examine differences between in-person MMI and vMMI scores. Cohen's d was used to determine effect sizes.

RESULTS

Four hundred and thirty-eight (42.69%) candidates completed an in-person MMI and 588 (57.31%) completed a vMMI. Factor analysis indicated that each vMMI station formed a single factor with loads ranging from 0.86 to 0.96. The vMMI stations accounted for most of the total variance, demonstrated weak to negligible intercorrelations, and high internal consistency. Significant differences between in-person and vMMI scores were found for the teamwork-giving, teamwork-receiving, and integrity stations. Medium effect sizes were found for teamwork-giving and teamwork-receiving and a small effect size was found for integrity.

CONCLUSIONS

Initial evidence suggests that the vMMI is a valid and reliable alternative to in-person MMIs. Additional research is needed to examine sources of differences in rating patterns between the two approaches and identify strategies that align with institutional priorities for recruitment and admissions.

The Relationship Between a Multiple Mini-interview and Situational Judgment Test for Admissions

Objective. To explore the relationship between a multiple mini-interview (MMI) and situational judgment test (SJT) designed to evaluate nonacademic constructs.Methods. A 30-question ranked-item SJT was developed to test three constructs also measured by MMIs during a pharmacy school's admissions process. First-year pharmacy students were invited to complete the SJT in fall 2020. One hundred four students took the SJT (82.5% response rate), with 97 (77% of possible participants) having MMI scores from the admissions process. Descriptive statistics and other statistical analyses were used to explore the psychometric properties of the SJT and its relationship to MMI scores.Results. Seventy-four percent of students identified as female (n=72), and 11.3% identified with an underrepresented racial identity (n=11). The average age, in mean (SD), was 21.8 (2.1) years. Students' mean (SD) scores were 85.5 (3.1) (out of 100 points) on the SJT and 6.1 (1.0) (out of 10 points) on the MMI. Principal components analysis indicated that the SJT lacked construct validity and internal reliability. However, reliability of the entire SJT instrument provided support for using the total SJT score for analysis (α=.63). Correlations between total SJT and MMI scores were weak (r p<0.29).Conclusion. Results of this study suggest that an SJT may not be a good replacement for the MMI to measure distinct constructs during the admissions process. However, the SJT may provide useful supplemental information during admissions or as part of formative feedback once students are enrolled in a program.

Using the multiple mini interview as an assessment strategy within the first year of a health professions curriculum

BACKGROUND

The multiple mini-interview (MMI) is a common assessment strategy used in student selection. The MMI as an assessment strategy within a health professions curriculum, however, has not been previously studied. This study describes the integration of a 5-station MMI as part of an end-of-year capstone following the first year of a health professions curriculum. The goal of the capstone MMI was to assess professional competencies of students and to offer formative feedback to prepare students for their upcoming clinical practice experiences. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the psychometric properties of an MMI integrated into a health professions curriculum.

METHODS

Five capstone MMI stations were designed to each evaluate a single construct assessed by one rater. A principal component analysis (PCA) was used to evaluate the structure of the model and its ability to distinguish 5 separate constructs. A Multifaceted Rasch Measurement (MFRM) model assessed student performance and estimated the sources of measurement error attributed to 3 facets: student ability, rater stringency, and station difficulty. At the conclusion, students were surveyed about the capstone MMI experience.

RESULTS

The PCA confirmed the MMI reliably assessed 5 unique constructs and performance on each station was not strongly correlated with one another. The 3-facet MFRM analysis explained 58.79% of the total variance in student scores. Specifically, 29.98% of the variance reflected student ability, 20.25% reflected rater stringency, and 8.56% reflected station difficulty. Overall, the data demonstrated an acceptable fit to the MFRM model. The majority of students agreed the MMI allowed them to effectively demonstrate their communication (80.82%), critical thinking (78.77%), and collaboration skills (70.55%).

CONCLUSIONS

The MMI can be a valuable assessment strategy of professional competence within a health professions curriculum. These findings suggest the MMI is well-received by students and can produce reliable results. Future research should explore the impact of using the MMI as a strategy to monitor longitudinal competency development and inform feedback approaches.

Personal domains assessed in multiple mini interviews (MMIs) for healthcare student selection: A narrative synthesis systematic review

OBJECTIVES

To examine the personal domains multiple mini interviews (MMIs) are being designed to assess, explore how they were determined and contextualise such domains in current and future healthcare student selection processes DESIGN: A systematic review of empirical research reporting on MMI model design was conducted from database inception to November 2017.

DATA SOURCES

Twelve electronic bibliographic databases.

REVIEW METHODS

Evidence was extracted from original studies, and integrated in a narrative synthesis guided by the PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews. Personal domains were clustered into themes using a modified Delphi technique.

RESULTS

A total of 584 articles were screened. 65 unique studies (80 articles) matched our inclusion criteria of which seven were conducted within nursing/midwifery faculties. Six in 10 studies featured applicants to medical school. Across selection processes, we identified 32 personal domains assessed by MMIs, the most frequent being: communication skills (84%), teamwork/collaboration (70%), and ethical/moral judgement (65%). Domains capturing ability to cope with stressful situations (14%), make decisions (14%), and resolve conflict in the workplace (13%) featured in fewer than ten studies overall. Intra- and inter-disciplinary inconsistencies in domain profiles were noted, as well as differences by entry level. MMIs deployed in nursing and midwifery assessed compassion and decision-making more frequently than in all other disciplines. Own programme philosophy and professional body guidance were most frequently cited (~50%) as sources for personal domains; a blueprinting process was reported in only 8% of studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Nursing, midwifery and allied healthcare professionals should develop their theoretical frameworks for MMIs to ensure they are evidence-based and fit-for-purpose. We suggest a re-evaluation of domain priorities to ensure that students who are selected, not only have the capacity to offer the highest standards of care provision, but are able to maintain these standards when facing clinical practice and organisational pressures.