Significant demographic, legal, and educational developments during the last ten years have led medical schools to review critically their selection procedures. A critical component of this review is the selection interview, since it is an integral part of most admission processes; however, some question its value. Interviews serve four purposes: information gathering, decision making, verification of application data, and recruitment. The first and last of these merit special attention. The interview enables an admission committee to gather information about a candidate that would be difficult or impossible to obtain by any other means yet is readily evaluated in an interview. Given the recent decline in numbers of applicants to and interest in medical school, many schools are paying closer attention to the interview as a powerful recruiting tool. Interviews can be unstructured, semistructured, or structured. Structuring involves analyzing what makes a medical student successful, standardizing the questions for all applicants, providing sample answers for evaluating responses, and using panel interviews (several interviewers simultaneously with one applicant). Reliability and validity of results increase with the degree of structuring. Studies of interviewers show that they are often biased in terms of the rating tendencies (for instance, leniency or severity) and in terms of an applicant's sex, race, appearance, similarity to the interviewer, and contrast to other applicants). Training interviewers may reduce such bias. Admission committees should weigh the purposes of interviewing differently for various types of candidates, develop structured or semistructured interviews focusing on nonacademic criteria, and train the interviewers.

A medical cognitive preference inventory was developed and tested with two samples, one in Israel and the other in the United States. Acceptable levels of internal consistency of the whole test and of its three subtests were demonstrated. Direct and indirect evidence for the validity of the test was provided. The potential uses of the test for student selection and evaluation as well as for programme evaluation were discussed. Two forms, E and F, each consisting of eighteen items, are recommended for use with medical students. A combination of these two forms is designed as form G. Administration of one form to half of a sample and the other form to the other half, followed by pooling the individual scores, thereby obtaining results comparable to those of form G, is recommended when time to administer the inventory is limited.

The Association of American Medical Colleges is examining the desirability and feasibility of including an essay on the Medical College Admission Test (MCAT). This endeavor calls for administration of a trial essay with the 1985 through 1987 MCAT examinations. Research reported in this paper considered the construct validity of the essay and its effect on the measurement domain tapped by the operational MCAT. The objective was to examine the factor structure of the MCAT and pilot essay and compare it to structures observed for previous MCAT versions and examinee groups. Factor analyses of data for 2,876 Spring 1985 examinees yielded two factors: 1. a science/quantitative factor defined by the science tests and Skills Analysis: Quantitative, and 2. an analysis/communication factor including the two Skills Analysis exams and pilot essay. The addition of the essay caused the non-science factor observed in previous MCAT research to be more strongly defined. Factor analyses of data for male, female, black, white, Hispanic, and Asian examinees supported the invariance of factor content across samples.

Admission to medical school is the goal of many students in many countries. The admission process varies from country to country. In some countries, students compete in an open market to gain a position in medical school. In other countries, "intake" is a more routine, planned beaureaucratic process. Where competition reigns, the interview is an important part of the selection process. The interview has been defined by Bingham and Moore [1] as:A serious conversation directed to a definite purpose other than satisfaction in the conversation itself ... We must recognize that not only spoken words, but other means of face-to-face communication also are used. Inflection, qualities of voice, facial expression, glint of the eye, posture, gestures, and general behavior supplement what is said. They all contribute to the purposeful exchange of meanings which is the interview.Faculty members in medical schools interview patients all the time. This type of interview, however, is different from the admission interview conducted for applicants to medical school. Patient interviews are highly patterned and structured to obtain specific information. Interviews of applicants, on the other hand, usually are more open-ended. The psychology of the two types of interviews differ also. Applicants to medical school, if accepted, will in time become colleagues with their interviewers and will have increasing levels of responsibility and respect. Patients, however, will always be dependent upon the physicians who treat them.In this article, we present basic facts, conclusions, and recommendations from a review of literature about the interview [2]. Results of a survey of admission interviews at Canadian and United Kingdom medical schools are presented for the first time, and comparisons with United States interview practices are drawn. Finally, descriptions of the selection process at several medical schools with problem based learning curricula are provided and comparisons are noted.