Feasibility and Acceptability of a Multiple Mini-interview Format for Evaluation of Small Animal Internal Medicine Residency and Internship Candidates

Abstract

The multiple mini-interview (MMI) format assesses candidates’ performance in various competencies and is becoming commonplace in medical school and residency programs. This interview format compares to and surpasses the traditional interview in validity, reliability, feasibility, and acceptability. We developed a MMI to assess resident and specialty intern candidates for Small Animal Internal Medicine over a 3-year period. Our aims were to assess acceptability by obtaining impressions from interviewers and candidates of the MMI process and to evaluate feasibility by quantifying time required. In total, 61 resident candidates completed the survey, a response rate of 70% of total interviewees. Respondents reported the MMI as more stressful (82%, 95% CI: 70%, 91%) and less enjoyable (62%, 95% CI: 49%, 74%). While 54% (95% CI: 41%, 67%) of respondents preferred a traditional interview process, 70% (95% CI: 57%, 81%) perceived that the MMI was fairer and 51% (95% CI: 38%, 64%) felt it allowed them to better demonstrate their strengths. Most (63%, 95% CI: 49%, 75%) reported that their experience with the MMI would lead them to rank the program more highly. Interviewers preferred the MMI process due to improved perceived fairness and time efficiency. MMI required less total time, 29.5 hours versus 112 hours for the traditional interview over 3-years ( p = .002) and lower per applicant time investment (.34 hours/applicant vs. 1.2 hours/applicant, p = .0001). In conclusion, the MMI process was acceptable to interviewees, preferred by interviewers, and was feasible in terms of time savings compared to traditional interviews.