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

Abstract

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.

Pulmonary and Critical Care Fellowship Program Directors’ Perspective on the Virtual Interview Process

“…Our study found that 61% of PCCM PDs would like to conduct VIs in the future, even under usual circumstances. In our study, 77% of the PCCM PDs agreed that VIs allowed them to represent their programs ( 11 ), 64% would prefer VIs because they reduce financial burden ( 15 ), and 59% agreed that the number of applicants increased because of the VI format ( 16 ). This is in alignment with previous survey studies.…”

The impact of the medical school admissions interview: a systematic review

“…Fourth, researchers should consider training interviewers and using more structured interviewing—particularly the MMI—to improve interviewer reliability. 11 , 12 …”

“I’d rather see action”: Application and recruitment experiences of underrepresented in emergency medicine trainees

“…Using standardized questions may help interviewers cover similar topics with URM applicants as non‐URM applicants, rather than focusing on DEI. Standardized questions have also been proposed as a mechanism to avoid bias in nonstructured interviews 30–33 . Requiring implicit bias training for interviewers can signal a commitment to equity in the recruitment process, although the efficacy of such training is unclear 26,34 .…”

“…Standardized questions have also been proposed as a mechanism to avoid bias in nonstructured interviews. [30][31][32][33] Requiring implicit bias training for interviewers can signal a commitment to equity in the recruitment process, although the efficacy of such training is unclear. 26,34 Interviewers should also be encouraged to provide transparency around DEI goals and metrics, such as percentage of residents and faculty who identify as URM and retention of URM faculty.…”