Multiple Mini Interview as an admission tool in higher education: Insights from a systematic review

Abstract

Objectives Multiple Mini Interviews (MMI) have been conducted across the globe in the student selection process, particularly in health profession education. This paper reported the validity evidence of MMI in various educational settings. Methods A literature search was carried out through Scopus, Science Direct, Google Scholar, PubMed, and EBSCOhost databases based on specific search terms. Each article was appraised based on title, abstract, and full text. The selected articles were critically appraised, and relevant information to support the validity of MMI in various educational settings was synthesized. This paper followed the PRISMA guideline to ensure consistency in reporting systematic review results. Results A majority of the studies were from Canada, with 41.54%, followed by the United Kingdom (25.39%), the United States (13.85%), and Australia (9.23%). The rest (9.24%) were from Germany, Ireland, the United Arab Emirates, Japan, Pakistan, Taiwan, and Malaysia. Moreover, most MMI stations ranged from seven to 12 with a duration of 10 min per station (including a 2-min gap between stations). Conclusion The results suggest that the content, response process, and internal structure of MMI were well supported by evidence; however, the relation and consequences of MMI to important outcome variables were inconsistently supported. The evidence shows that MMI is a non-biased, practical, feasible, reliable, and content-valid admission tool. However, further research on its impact on non-cognitive outcomes is required.

A comparative study on the psychological health status of pre-clinical medical students enrolled through different admission tests

“… 2 Ensuring a valid, reliable, feasible, and evidence-based admission process is therefore important to recruit the best candidates; anything else will cause problems and defeat the end goal. 1 , 2 , 3 …”

“…The cognitive-based aspect looks at previous academic performance such as the cumulative grade point average (CGPA), while the non-cognitive-based looks at attributes such as communication skills, ethics, teamwork, and ethical reasoning skills. 3 The most common non-cognitive method is the interview, either personal interview (PI) or multiple mini interviews (MMIs). 3 According to earlier findings, an interview-based admission process had superior outcomes compared to the CGPA-based admission process in relation to clinical performance, emotional intelligence, and personality traits.…”

“… 3 The most common non-cognitive method is the interview, either personal interview (PI) or multiple mini interviews (MMIs). 3 According to earlier findings, an interview-based admission process had superior outcomes compared to the CGPA-based admission process in relation to clinical performance, emotional intelligence, and personality traits. 1 This was not the case, however, for stress, depression, and anxiety.…”

“… 1 , 16 , 17 MMI has been widely implemented in many medical schools in various countries, and is increasingly gaining creditability. 3 , 18 MMI has demonstrated its superiority concerning acceptability, reliability, content validity, and as a bias-free admission process. 3 However, MMI has not demonstrated its superiority on non-cognitive outcomes such as mental health.…”

“… 3 , 18 MMI has demonstrated its superiority concerning acceptability, reliability, content validity, and as a bias-free admission process. 3 However, MMI has not demonstrated its superiority on non-cognitive outcomes such as mental health. 3 , 18 Although several systemic review papers on the utility of MMI have been published, 3 , 18 , 19 no study has directly compared medical students' psychological health status between MMI and PI.…”