Multiple mini interviews: revealing similarities across institutions

Barbara Griffin,Wendy Hu,Jaime Auton,Robbert Duvivier,Boaz Shulruf

doi:10.1186/s12909-018-1298-8

Barbara Griffin, Wendy Hu + Show 3 more

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-018-1298-8

Copy DOI

Abstract

BackgroundAcross the globe multiple mini interviews (MMIs) have rapidly replaced the use of panel interviews in the selection of medical students and other health professionals. MMIs typically demonstrate better reliability and validity than panel interviews but there is limited research on whether these different types of interview process measure the same or different constructs. Our research aims to ascertain if MMIs are multidimensional or unidimensional, and whether MMIs conducted at different institutions assess the same or different constructs to each other or to panel interviews.MethodsParticipants were applicants to medical degrees who were shortlisted for interviews at three different institutions in 2013 (n = 165) and 2014 (n = 128). Two institutions used a bespoke MMI developed independently from each other and the third used a panel interview. Stations scores and overall (mean) interview scores were examined.ResultsExploratory principal components analysis and confirmatory factor analysis showed similar results in both years’ data, supporting a unidimensional model. The two overall MMI scores were more strongly correlated to each other (r = .56 and .64 in 2013 and 2014 respectively) than either were to the panel interview scores (r = .07 and .15 in 2013; .39 and .48 in 2014).ConclusionsIt appears that both MMIs panel interviews tap a single latent construct, but not the same construct. We suggest that the MMI methodology might allow the measurement of an emergent construct such as adaptability.

Highlights

Across the globe multiple mini interviews (MMIs) have rapidly replaced the use of panel interviews in the selection of medical students and other health professionals
Using a dataset of interview scores from three different medical programs in Australia, we examine whether MMIs assess multiple or single constructs and whether these are related to panel interviews; or if MMIs are unrelated to panel interviews or even to each other
Because the aim of this research is to examine relationships between constructs, we present correlations corrected for unreliability, using the same reliability (r = .70) for both the panel interview and the MMIs based on a meta-analysis of employment interviews [30] and the average of the reported reliabilities (r = .71) in the recent Best Evidence Medical Education review of MMIs [20]

Summary

Introduction

Across the globe multiple mini interviews (MMIs) have rapidly replaced the use of panel interviews in the selection of medical students and other health professionals. Even though panel interviews show acceptable psychometric qualities for selection in corporate settings [1], evidence indicates that in the context of high stakes medical student selection they demonstrate low reliability and uncertain predictive validity [2,3,4]. To overcome these limitations, a team at McMaster University [5] developed the Multiple Mini Interview (MMI), an Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE)-like process whereby candidates progress through a series of multiple, short-lasting stations. Are they a multidimensional or a unidimensional measure? Second, are MMIs equivalent or is there no relationship between MMIs conducted at different institutions? And third, if MMIs are equivalent, do they measure the same or a different construct to what the traditional panel interview does?

Objectives

Results

Conclusion