Multiple Mini-Interviews in the Age of the Internet: Does Preparation Help Applicants to Medical School?

Moshinsky, Avital; Ziegler, David A.; Gafni, Naomi

doi:10.1080/15305058.2016.1263638

Cited by 7 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Candidates who are not admitted have the chance to apply again, with no limit to the number of applications. While two studies found a tendency for repeat MMI participation to lead to improved performance [36, 37], the impact of previous MMI participation on later attempts has not been fully explored. Therefore, we decided to only analyse MMI performance at the first attempt.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Exploring sociodemographic subgroup differences in multiple mini-interview (MMI) performance based on MMI station type and the implications for the predictive fairness of the Hamburg MMI

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Sociodemographic subgroup differences in multiple mini-interview (MMI) performance have been extensively studied within the MMI research literature, but heterogeneous findings demand a closer look at how specific aspects of MMI design (such as station type) affect these differences. So far, it has not been investigated whether sociodemographic subgroup differences imply that an MMI is biased , particularly in terms of its predictive validity. Methods Between 2010 and 2017, the University Medical Centre Hamburg-Eppendorf (UKE) tested 1438 candidates in an MMI who also provided sociodemographic data and agreed to participate in this study. Out of these, 400 candidates were admitted and underwent a first objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) after one and a half years, including one station assessing communication skills. First, we analyzed the relationship between gender, age, native language and medical family background and MMI station performance including interaction terms with MMI station type (simulation, interview, and group) in a hierarchical linear model. Second, we tested whether the prediction of OSCE overall and communication station performance in particular differed depending on sociodemographic background by adding interaction terms between MMI performance and gender, age and medical family background in a linear regression model. Results Young female candidates performed better than young male candidates both at interview and simulation stations. The gender difference was smaller (simulation) or non-significant (interview) in older candidates. There were no gender or age effects in MMI group station performance. All effects were very small, with the overall model explaining only 0.6% of the variance. MMI performance was not related to OSCE overall performance but significantly predicted OSCE communication station performance with no differences in the prediction for sociodemographic subgroups. Conclusions The Hamburg MMI is fair in its prediction of OSCE communication scores. Differences in MMI station performance for gender and age and their interaction with MMI station type can be related to the dimensions assessed at different station types and thus support the validity of the MMI. Rather than being threats to fairness, these differences could be useful for decisions relating to the design and use of an MMI.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Exploring sociodemographic subgroup differences in multiple mini-interview (MMI) performance based on MMI station type and the implications for the predictive fairness of the Hamburg MMI

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This finding held for recent (within the previous month) experience as well as for experience gained during the prior year. These results support a recent study that found no difference in scores between a first and second MMI, although that study did not compare second‐time interviewees with those who were interviewed for the first time. Together, these studies suggest that candidates do not learn better interview skills that transfer across contexts.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Retest effects in medical selection interviews

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Context Repetition of a cognitive ability test is known to increase scores, but almost no research has examined whether similar improvement occurs with repetition of interviews. Retest effects can change the rank order of candidates and reduce the test's criterion validity. Because interviews are widely used to select medical students and postgraduate trainees, and because applicants apply to multiple programmes and often reapply if unsuccessful, the potential for retest effects needs to be understood. Objectives This study was designed to identify if retest improvements occur when candidates undertake multiple interviews and, if so, whether the effect is attributable to general interview experience or specific experience and whether repeat testing affects criterion validity. Methods We compared interview scores of applicants who were interviewed for one or more of three independent undergraduate medical programmes in two consecutive years and those who were interviewed in both years for the same programme. Correlations between initial and repeat interview scores and a written test of social understanding were compared. Results General experience (being interviewed by multiple programmes) did not produce improvement in subsequent interview performance. There was no evidence of method effect (having prior experience of the multiple mini‐interview process). Specific experience (being interviewed by the same programme across 2 years) resulted in a significant improvement in scores for which regression to the mean did not fully account. Criterion validity did not appear to be affected. Conclusions Unsuccessful candidates for medical school who reapply and are re‐interviewed on a subsequent occasion at the same institution are likely to increase their scores. The results of this study suggest the increase is probably not attributable to improved ability.

show abstract

Issues and Challenges in Selection

Kim

Klassen

2021

Teacher Selection: Evidence-Based Practices

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Multiple Mini-Interviews in the Age of the Internet: Does Preparation Help Applicants to Medical School?

Cited by 7 publications

References 24 publications

Exploring sociodemographic subgroup differences in multiple mini-interview (MMI) performance based on MMI station type and the implications for the predictive fairness of the Hamburg MMI

Exploring sociodemographic subgroup differences in multiple mini-interview (MMI) performance based on MMI station type and the implications for the predictive fairness of the Hamburg MMI

Retest effects in medical selection interviews

Issues and Challenges in Selection

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About