Predictive validity of the multiple mini-interview for selecting medical trainees

Eva, Kevin W.; Reiter, Harold I.; Trinh, Kien; Wasi, Parveen; Rosenfeld, Jack; Norman, Geoffrey R.

doi:10.1111/j.1365-2923.2009.03407.x

Cited by 245 publications

(245 citation statements)

References 25 publications

(40 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

215

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…41,50,[53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65][66][67] Eleven studies showed a positive correlation between interview and subsequent performance. 8,51,52,[68][69][70][71][72][73][74][75] Performance metrics with a positive correlation included clinical evaluations, in-training examinations, licensing board examinations, and a composite score or rank of resident performance. Attrition from residency was not consistently predicted by the interview process in the 6 studies that assessed this variable.…”

Section: Performancementioning

confidence: 99%

Use of the Interview in Resident Candidate Selection: A Review of the Literature

Stephenson‐Famy

Houmard

Oberoi

et al. 2015

Journal of Graduate Medical Education

132

114

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Performancementioning

confidence: 99%

Use of the Interview in Resident Candidate Selection: A Review of the Literature

Stephenson‐Famy

Houmard

Oberoi

et al. 2015

Journal of Graduate Medical Education

132

114

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Despite their importance, it remains unclear how best to measure these characteristics, particularly in the context of high-stakes testing where applicants may be motivated to distort their responses (Albanese et al, 2003;Bore et al, 2009;Musson, 2009;Patterson et al, 2016). In recent years, a variety of selection tools have been developed that aim to assess these noncognitive characteristics, including situational judgment tests (Bore et al, 2009;De Leng et al, 2017;Lievens, 2013;Patterson et al, 2012;Patterson et al, 2009), multiple mini-interviews (Eva et al, 2014;Eva et al, 2009;Eva et al, 2004;Griffin et al, 2012a;Kulasegaram et al, 2010), emotional intelligence tests (Libbrecht et al, 2014), and personality tests (Griffin et al, 2012b;MacKenzie et al, 2017;Rothstein et al, 2006). The current study focuses on personality testing in the context of the high-stakes selection of medical interns assessing the degree to which response distortion might limit the utility of personality tests.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Response distortion on personality tests in applicants: comparing high-stakes to low-stakes medical settings

Anglim

Bozic

Little³

et al. 2017

Adv in Health Sci Educ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. The current study examined the degree to which applicants applying for medical internships distort their responses to personality tests and assessed whether this response distortion led to reduced predictive validity. The applicant sample (n = 530) completed the NEO Personality Inventory whilst applying for one of 60 positions as first-year post-graduate medical interns. Predictive validity was assessed using university grades, averaged over the entire medical degree. Applicant responses for the Big Five (i.e., neuroticism, extraversion, openness, conscientiousness, and agreeableness) and 30 facets of personality were compared to a range of normative samples where personality was measured in standard research settings including medical students, role model physicians, current interns, and standard young-adult test norms. Applicants had substantially higher scores on conscientiousness, openness, agreeableness, and extraversion and lower scores on neuroticism with an average absolute standardized difference of 1.03, when averaged over the normative samples. While current interns, medical students, and especially role model physicians do show a more socially desirable personality profile than standard test norms, applicants provided responses that were substantially more socially desirable. Of the Big Five, conscientiousness was the strongest predictor of academic performance in both applicants (r = .11) and medical students (r = .21). Findings suggest that applicants engage in substantial response distortion, and that the predictive validity of personality is modest and may be reduced in an applicant setting.

show abstract

“…Although research has shown that the MMI process is fair [15], previous studies have indicated that the reliability of MMIs may vary widely depending on the way they are administered and structured [2,5]. Moreover, research indicates that examiner subjectivity and station difficulty would have affected the fairness of the test in MMIs [11,16].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does the sequence of rotations in Multiple Mini Interview stations influence the candidates’ performance?

Kim

Kwon

2018

Medical Education Online

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In Multiple Mini Interviews (MMIs), the candidates start out with different stations depending on the sequence of rotation they are assigned; thus, their perceived difficulty level and nervousness with their first station may differ. We examined whether such differences influenced the candidates’ overall performance in the MMI. A 32-item questionnaire was developed and administered to candidates for admission interviews at a medical school regarding their perceptions of the MMI. Candidates’ interview scores were also obtained and were compared across groups who differed in the sequence of rotation of MMI stations. Candidates felt nervous when they encountered the first station, which did not differ regardless of which station was their first encounter. Candidates were neutral regarding whether their first station was more difficult than the others and about whether its difficulty level influenced their overall performance in the test. Although candidates’ perceived station difficulty differed across stations, there were no differences in their performance in each station between those it was their first station and those it was not. Candidates’ total interview scores also did not differ across groups of different sequence of rotations. The MMI is a fair process as it does not give disadvantage to those who encounter a more difficult station than others for their first station.

show abstract

Predictive validity of the multiple mini-interview for selecting medical trainees

Cited by 245 publications

References 25 publications

Use of the Interview in Resident Candidate Selection: A Review of the Literature

Use of the Interview in Resident Candidate Selection: A Review of the Literature

Response distortion on personality tests in applicants: comparing high-stakes to low-stakes medical settings

Does the sequence of rotations in Multiple Mini Interview stations influence the candidates’ performance?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About