Assessment of non-cognitive traits through the admissions multiple mini-interview

Objective. To describe the development, implementation, and evaluation of the multiple mini-interview (MMI) within a doctor of pharmacy (PharmD) admissions model. Methods. Demographic data and academic indicators were collected for all candidates who participated in Candidates' Day (n5253), along with the score for each MMI station criteria (7 stations). A survey was administered to all candidates who completed the MMI, and another survey was administered to all interviewers to examine perceptions of the MMI. Results. Analyses suggest that MMI stations assessed different attributes as designed, with Cronbach alpha for each station ranging from 0.90 to 0.95. All correlations between MMI station scores and academic indicators were negligible. No significant differences in average station scores were found based on age, gender, or race. Conclusion. This study provides additional support for the use of the MMI as an admissions tool in pharmacy education.

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Multiple-mini Interview Implementationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Development and Assessment of the Multiple Mini-Interview in a School of Pharmacy Admissions Model

Cox

McLaughlin

Singer

et al. 2015

“…One instrument that may be helpful in identifying noncognitive traits, including critical thinking and problem solving, is the multiple-mini interview. 20 This tool enables schools to evaluate multiple skills at the point of admissions. Additionally, institutions may want to admit students who demonstrate strong critical-thinking skills upon admission as changes in critical-thinking skills over the course of study have been variable in previous studies and often do not improve dramatically.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Association of Health Sciences Reasoning Test Scores With Academic and Experiential Performance

Cox

McLaughlin

2014

Objectives. To assess the association of scores on the Health Sciences Reasoning Test (HSRT) with academic and experiential performance in a doctor of pharmacy (PharmD) curriculum. Methods. The HSRT was administered to 329 first-year (P1) PharmD students. Performance on the HSRT and its subscales was compared with academic performance in 29 courses throughout the curriculum and with performance in advanced pharmacy practice experiences (APPEs). Results. Significant positive correlations were found between course grades in 8 courses and HSRT overall scores. All significant correlations were accounted for by pharmaceutical care laboratory courses, therapeutics courses, and a law and ethics course.Conclusion. There was a lack of moderate to strong correlation between HSRT scores and academic and experiential performance. The usefulness of the HSRT as a tool for predicting student success may be limited.

“…There have been studies published in the medical school literature that show that multiple station mini-interviews increase reliability and validity of interview scoring compared to a single station with 1 interviewer. 10 Multiple mini-interview stations are beneficial because they allow every interviewer to evaluate all interviewees. A limitation of this form of interviewing is the time required to complete the process.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of an Interview Process for Admission Into a School of Pharmacy

Kelsch

Friesner

2012

Objective. To evaluate the doctor of pharmacy (PharmD) admissions interview process at North Dakota State University (NDSU). Methods. Faculty pairs interviewed candidates using a standardized grading rubric to evaluate qualitative parameters or attributes such as ethics, relevant life and work experience, emotional maturity, commitment to patient care, leadership, and understanding of the pharmacy profession. Total interview scores, individual attribute domain scores, and the consistency and reliability of the interviewers were assessed. Results. The total mean interview score for the candidate pool was 17.4 of 25 points. Mean scores for individual domains ranged from 2.3 to 3.0 on a Likert-scale of 0-4. Nine of the 11 faculty pairs showed no mean differences from their interview partner in total interview scores given. Evaluations by 8 of the 11 faculty pairs produced high interrater reliability. Conclusions. The current interview process is generally consistent and reliable; however, future improvements such as additional interviewer training and adoption of a multiple mini-interview format could be made.