What does the multiple mini interview have to offer over the panel interview?

Abstract

IntroductionThis paper compares the panel interview (PI) performance with the multiple mini interview (MMI) performance and indication of behavioural concerns of a sample of medical school applicants. The acceptability of the MMI was also assessed.Materials and methodsAll applicants shortlisted for a PI were invited to an MMI. Applicants attended a 30-min PI with two faculty interviewers followed by an MMI consisting of ten 8-min stations. Applicants were assessed on their performance at each MMI station by one faculty. The interviewer also indicated if they perceived the applicant to be a concern. Finally, applicants completed an acceptability questionnaire.ResultsFrom the analysis of 133 (75.1%) completed MMI scoresheets, the MMI scores correlated statistically significantly with the PI scores (r=0.438, p=0.001). Both were not statistically associated with sex, age, race, or pre-university academic ability to any significance. Applicants assessed as a concern at two or more stations performed statistically significantly less well at the MMI when compared with those who were assessed as a concern at one station or none at all. However, there was no association with PI performance. Acceptability scores were generally high, and comparison of mean scores for each of the acceptability questionnaire items did not show statistically significant differences between sex and race categories.ConclusionsAlthough PI and MMI performances are correlated, the MMI may have the added advantage of more objectively generating multiple impressions of the applicant's interpersonal skill, thoughtfulness, and general demeanour. Results of the present study indicated that the MMI is acceptable in a multicultural context.

A Signal Detection Approach in a Multiple Cohort Study: Different Admission Tools Uniquely Select Different Successful Students

“…Psychology students admitted through an admission procedure including a cognitive admission tests and Multiple Mini Interviews have been shown to outperform psychology students admitted based on their SSGPA (Makransky et al, 2016). Although it is also consistent with most other available information, most studies investigating predictors of academic success other than SSGPA focus on medical programs, and those are currently undecided on the "best practices" in the implementation of admission tools other than SSGPA (Richardson et al, 2012;Schripsema et al, 2014Schripsema et al, , 2017Shulruf and Shaw, 2015;Patterson et al, 2016;Pau et al, 2016;Sladek et al, 2016;Wouters et al, 2017). Note that NCS is quite susceptible to social desirability and that the literature does not allow firm conclusions on the validity of these and other non-cognitive factors (Patterson et al, 2016).…”

“…If the selection outcomes apparently do not sufficiently match the goals of the admission committee as students progress (or not) through their first, second and third year, the admission procedure will be adjusted. We argue that individual differences in which tool accurately predicts future academic success might be worth further investigation in the light of actual and desired levels of diversity in student populations (Stegers-Jager et al, 2015;Pau et al, 2016) in relation to both open admission and selection. It depends on the goals of the admission committee whether preventing rejection of applicants that would be successful students (preventing misses) is considered more important than preventing admission of students that will fail (preventing false alarms).…”

“…European university programs use program-specific admission procedures and tools, partly depending on how access to university programs is regulated for these programs, or in specific countries (De Witte and Cabus, 2013;Schripsema et al, 2014;Makransky et al, 2016). Research into predictors other than secondary school grade point average (SSGPA)-which is far from accurate-is still work in progress, and a "gold standard" has not yet been conceived (Richardson et al, 2012;Schripsema et al, 2014Schripsema et al, , 2017Shulruf and Shaw, 2015;Makransky et al, 2016;Patterson et al, 2016;Pau et al, 2016;Sladek et al, 2016;Yhnell et al, 2016;Wouters et al, 2017). Program-and institution specific work samples appear promising valuable predictors of academic achievement in addition to past academic achievement (Niessen et al, 2016;Stegers-Jager, 2017;van Ooijen-van der Linden et al, 2017).…”

Using the Multiple Mini Interview for selection into vocational general practice training

“…As expected, the MMI shows little correlation with indices of cognitive function such as grade point averages. 10 Although good content validity implies sampling across the entire breadth of attributes required for competent general practice, the MMI focuses on a subset of attributes that are not primarily cognitive. Further complicating the concept of content validity is that issues such as the context of general practice require some knowledge upon which to apply values and attitudes.…”

Use of video vignettes to assess medical school applicants’ empathetic abilities in Multiple Mini Interviews

“…Several research studies have shown MMIs are more valid and reliable than traditional interviews [2,[4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17]. When assessing non-cognitive attributes, a candidate's qualities in one domain cannot be generalized into another due to their context specificities, and thus, it is not feasible to predict a candidate's performance in one domain based on his/her performance in other domains [18].…”