Multiple mini-interviews: opinions of candidates and interviewers.
ABSTRACT To assess candidates' and interviewers' perceptions of the use of a multiple mini-interview (MMI) for selection of senior house officers (SHOs) to a UK regional paediatric training programme.
Both candidates and interviewers completed anonymous questionnaires (comprising 16 and 25 questions, respectively). Demographic data were recorded for both groups. Data were analysed by frequencies; using Mann-Whitney and Kruskall-Wallis tests for comparisons; and Cronbach's alpha for internal consistency within the data.
Both candidates and interviewers were positive about the fairness of the MMI (mean scores of 4.0 and 4.4, respectively). The majority of candidates (83%) had not been to this type of interview before. Gender, age and previous experience of MMIs did not account for differences in candidate responses (P > 0.05). A total of 86% of candidates were international medical graduates who preferred the format more than UK graduates did (P = 0.01). Interviewers were mainly experienced consultants who agreed that the multi-station format was better than the traditional interview (mean score 4.8) and represented a reliable process (mean score 4.4). Interviewers were concerned about the range of competencies covered and the subsequent performance of candidates in post (mean scores 3.6 and 3.2, respectively).
Both candidates and interviewers agreed that the MMI format was reliable, fair and asked appropriate, easy-to-understand questions. In high-stakes interviews such as for specialty training in Modernising Medical Careers programmes, it is vital that all concerned have confidence in the selection process.
- [show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: To describe the development and pilot testing of a set of admissions instruments based on the McMaster University multiple mini-interview (MMI) and designed to assess desirable, non-cognitive characteristics in order to inform final decisions on candidate selection for entry to medical school. Community and faculty consultation on desirable, non-cognitive characteristics of medical students informed the development of a 10-station interview. Two stations occurred as part of a group problem-based learning scenario and 8 occurred as individual observations. All interviewers were trained. Interviews were offered to 115 candidates on an academic merit list. Interview performance was used to exclude candidates considered unsuitable, but not to re-order the academic merit list. Admissions decisions were examined in terms of individual interview station performance. This method proved to be an efficient process by which to interview candidates and to determine suitability. Retained and rejected candidates had significantly different total scores and mean scores for each station. Ten independent observations contributed to each decision, without significant interviewer or logistic burden. Candidates reported high levels of satisfaction with the interview process. Admissions interviews can be streamlined and efficient, yet remain informative. A longitudinal study is in progress to evaluate the value of the admissions processes in predicting successful graduation to medical practice.Medical Education 04/2007; 41(3):234-41. · 3.55 Impact Factor
- [show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: To assess the consistency of ratings assigned by health sciences faculty members relative to community members during an innovative admissions protocol called the Multiple Mini-Interview (MMI). A nine-station MMI was created and 54 candidates to an undergraduate MD program participated in the exercise in Spring 2003. Three stations were staffed with a pair of faculty members, three with a pair of community members, and three with one member of each group. Raters completed a four-item evaluation form. All participants completed post-MMI questionnaires. Generalizability Theory was used to examine the consistency of the ratings provided within each of these three subgroups. The overall test reliability was found to be .78 and a Decision Study suggested that admissions committees should distribute their resources by increasing the number of interviews to which candidates are exposed rather than increasing the number of interviewers within each interview. Divergence of ratings was greater within the pairing of community member to faculty member and least for pairings of community members. Participants responded positively to the MMI. The MMI provides a reliable protocol for assessing the personal qualities of candidates by accounting for context specificity with a multiple sampling approach. Increasing the heterogeneity of interviewers may increase the heterogeneity of the accepted group of candidates. Further work will determine the extent to which different groups of raters provide equally valid (albeit different) judgments.Academic Medicine 07/2004; 79(6):602-9. · 3.29 Impact Factor
- Academic Medicine 11/1997; 72(10 Suppl 1):S72-5. · 3.29 Impact Factor