The Multiple Mini-Interview as an Admission Tool for a PharmD Program Satellite Campus

Abstract

Objective. To assess the multiple mini-interview (MMI) as an admission tool for a satellite campus. Methods. In 2013, the MMI was implemented as part of a new admissions model at the UNC Eshelman School of Pharmacy. From fall 2013 to spring 2015, 73 candidates were interviewed by 15 raters on the satellite campus in Asheville, North Carolina. A many-facet Rasch measurement (MFRM) with three facets was used to determine the variance in candidate ratings attributable to rater severity, candidate ability, and station difficulty. Candidates were surveyed to explore their perceptions of the MMI. Results. Rasch measures accounted for 48.3% of total variance in candidate scores. Rater severity accounted for 9.1% of the variance, and candidate ability accounted for 36.2% of the variance. Eighty percent of survey respondents (strongly) agreed that interviewers got to know them based on questions they answered. Conclusion. This study suggests that the MMI is a useful and valid tool for candidate selection at a satellite campus.

Using the multiple mini interview as an assessment strategy within the first year of a health professions curriculum

“…The findings of this study are congruent with research demonstrating the validity and reliability of the MMI when used in selection contexts [ 11 , 12 , 23 – 25 ]. Our MFRM accounted for approximately 59% of the total variance in MMI scores, which is similar to previous studies using MFRM that account for 30–62% of total variance in performance data [ 11 , 12 , 23 – 25 ]. Similarly, variance attributed to candidate ability (30%) was within the range reported by other studies (16% to 45%) [ 11 , 12 , 23 – 25 ].…”

“…Our MFRM accounted for approximately 59% of the total variance in MMI scores, which is similar to previous studies using MFRM that account for 30–62% of total variance in performance data [ 11 , 12 , 23 – 25 ]. Similarly, variance attributed to candidate ability (30%) was within the range reported by other studies (16% to 45%) [ 11 , 12 , 23 – 25 ]. The C-MMI, therefore, appears to be a reasonable strategy to evaluate students reliably and provides valuable data in settings outside of admission.…”

“…The amount of variance associated with station difficulty was higher than other MFRM MMI studies, which report station difficulty representing 2–5% of the total variance [ 12 , 23 , 25 ]. The inclusion of the MMI into the curriculum presents a unique challenge to formulate questions and tasks that are relevant and more advanced compared to those used in admission contexts.…”

The validity and reliability of the multiple mini-interview in assessing the capabilities of nursing education PhD candidates: A methodological study

“…As a result, more efficient and modern approaches were introduced into the field of education, including the effective method called the Multiple Mini-Interview (MMI). The MMI was designed in 2001 at McMaster University Medical School in Canada 5 and was then evolved in other institutions, including the University of Calgary 6 .…”

“…Over time, the MMI became a common, valid and reliable tool in universities across the US, Canada, Australia, the UK 2,12 and other areas of the world in fields of medicine, dentistry, nursing, pharmacy 8 , occupational therapy and herbal medicine 3,5 . In the US, the MMI has increasingly become an alternative method of admitting postgraduate medical students 13,14 .…”