The interview in the admission process

Abstract

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.

An evaluation of the multiple mini-interview as a selection tool for dental students

“…3,4 While structured interviews have been used by some in order to assess medical students, they too have suffered from problems with regard to reliability and predictability. [5][6][7][8] Objective This research evaluated the mutliple mini-interview (MMI) process as part of the admissions procedure for a dental school. Design The thematic analysis of a paper-based questionnaire.…”

A Content Analysis of Interviewee Reports of Medical School Admissions Interviews

“…1,3,5,8 Categories of ethical questions, illegal questions, and conversational questions were added in order to fully explicate the purposes of the interview. The final categories were as follows: Verification and clarification of application-related information, Assessment of personal, interpersonal, and other non-cognitive characteristics, Assessment of academic and general knowledge and cognitive ability, Ethical viewpoints and decision-making, Illegal/inappropriate questions, Conversational and non-medical questions/comments, and Recruitment.…”

“…[1][2][3] In fact, a survey reported that 99% of U.S. medical schools use an interview in their admissions process. 4 The medical school interview appears to serve four major purposes: information gathering, decision making, verification of information in the application, and recruitment.…”

“…4 The medical school interview appears to serve four major purposes: information gathering, decision making, verification of information in the application, and recruitment. 3 Admissions personnel from 127 medical schools reported the most common characteristics assessed during the interview were motivation and interest in medical school (68%), interpersonal skills and character (61%), maturity (58%), evidence of extracurricular activities (56%), communication skills (46%), and empathy and concern for others (38%). 5 Admissions personnel in medical schools thus appear to agree that the interview is most appropriately used to assess important non-cognitive characteristics, while cognitive abilities may be better evaluated through traditional predictors such as grade point average and scores on standardized, objective examinations of knowledge in the scientific areas relevant to medicine (i.e., Medical College Admissions Test [MCAT]).…”

Becoming a Doctor in Europe: Objective Selection Systems

“…This preference is quite surprising in light of the susceptibility of unstructured interviews to a variety of biases" [11]. In 1990, Edwards et al noted that "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" [12]. The few existent data on the value of personal statements and letters of recommendation reveal that they have no predictive value in subsequent achievement [13].…”