Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel
Balancing reliability and resource limitations as well as recruitment activities during admission interviews is a challenge for many medical schools. The Modified Personal Interview (MPI) has been shown to have good psychometric properties while being resource efficient for specialized admission interviews. We describe implementation of an MPI adaptation integrating psychometric rigour alongside resourcing and recruitment goals for larger-scale medical school admission interviewing at the University of Toronto.
The MPI was implemented during the 2013–2014 admission cycle. The MPI uses multiple independent sampling by having applicants interviewed in a circuit of four brief semi-structured interviews. Recruitment is reflected in a longer MPI interviewing time to foster a ‘human touch’. Psychometric evaluation includes generalizability studies to examine inter-interview reliability and other major sources of error variance. We evaluated MPI impact upon applicant recruitment yield and resourcing.
MPI reliability is 0.56. MPI implementation maintained recruitment compared with previous year. MPI implementation required 160 interviewers for 600 applicants whereas for pre-MPI implementation 290 interviewers were required to interview 587 applicants. MPI score correlated with first year OSCE performance at 0.30 (p < 0.05).
MPI reliability is measured at 0.56 alongside enhanced resource utilization and maintenance of recruitment yield. This ‘intermediate approach’ may enable broader institutional uptake of integrated multiple independent sampling-based admission interviewing within institution-specific resourcing and recruitment goals.
Koenig TW, Parrish SK, Terregino CA, Williams JP, Dunleavy DM, Volsch JM. Core personal competencies important to entering students’ success in medical school: what are they and how could they be assessed early in the admission process? Acad Med. 2013;88:603–13. CrossRef
Albanese MA, Snow MH, Skochelak SE, Huggett KN, Farrell PM. Assessing personal qualities in medical school admissions. Acad Med. 2003;78:313–21. CrossRef
Dunleavy DM, Whittaker KM. The evolving medical school admissions interview. AAMC Analysis in Brief 11(7) 2011. https://www.aamc.org/download/261110/data/aibvol11_no7.pdf. Accessed 29 July 2016.
Eva KW, Rosenfeld J, Reiter HI, Norman GR. An admissions OSCE: the multiple mini-interview. Med Educ. 2004;38:314–26. CrossRef
Zhang K, Xierali I, Castillo-Page L, Nivet M, Conrad SS. Students’ top factors in selecting medical schools. Acad Med. 2015;90:693. CrossRef
Axelson RD, Kreiter CD. Rater and occasion impacts on the reliability of pre-admission assessments. Med Educ. 2009;43:1198–202. CrossRef
McGaghie WC, Thompson JA. America’s best medical schools: a critique of the US news & world report rankings. Acad Med. 2001;76:985–92. CrossRef
Cohen JJ. Our compact with tomorrow’s doctors. Acad Med. 2002;77:475–80. CrossRef
Eskander A, Shandling M, Hanson MD. Should the MCAT exam be used for medical school admissions in Canada? Acad Med. 2013;88:572–80. CrossRef
Hanson MD, Kulasegaram KM, Woods NN, Fechtig L, Anderson G. Modified personal interviews: resurrecting reliable personal interviews for admissions? Acad Med. 2012;87:1330–4. CrossRef
Soares IIIWE, Sohoni A, Hern HG, Wills CP, Alter HJ, Simon BC. Comparison of the multiple mini-interview with the traditional interview for US emergency medicine residency applicants: A single-institution experience. Acad Med. 2015;90:76–81. CrossRef
Kulasegaram K, Fechtig L, Woods N, Rosenblum N, Hanson M. Modified personal interviews for the selection of MD/PhD candidates. Association for Medical Education in Europe (AMEE) Conference, Prag, 27. - 28. Aug 2013. 2013., pp 1045–230.
Norman GR, Steiner DL. Health measurement scales, 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford Press; 2008.
Monroe A, Quinn E, Samuelson W, Dunleavy DM, Dowd KW. An overview of the medical school admission process and use of applicant data in decision making: what has changed since the 1980s? Acad Med. 2013;88:672–81. CrossRef
Schurwith L, Vleuten CP van der. Assessing competence: extending approaches to reliability. In: Hodges B, Lindard L, editors. The Question of Competence. Ithaca: Cornell University Press; 2012.
Eva KW, Reiter HI, Trinh K, Wasi P, Rosenfeld J, Norman GR. Predictive validity of the multiple mini-interview for selecting medical trainees. Med Educ. 2009;43:767–75. CrossRef
Tiller D, O’Mara D, Rothnie I, Dunn S, Lee L, Roberts C. Internet-based multiple mini- interviews for candidate selection for graduate entry programmes. Med Educ. 2013;47:801–10. CrossRef
Rosenfeld JM, Reiter HI, Trinh K, Eva KW. A cost efficiency comparison between the multiple mini-interview and traditional admissions interviews. Adv Health Sci Educ. 2008;13(1):43–58. CrossRef
Undergraduate Medical Education, University of Toronto, Admissions Statistics. http://www.md.utoronto.ca/admissions/statistics.htm. Retrieved October 7th, 2015.
Eddins-Folensbee FF, Harris TB, Miller-Wasik M, Thompson B. Students versus faculty members as admissions interviewers: comparisons of ratings data and admissions decisions. Acad Med. 2012;87:458–62. CrossRef
Council of Health Sciences Education Subcommittee (CHSES), University of Toronto. CHSES retreat proceedings report – innovation and boundless directions: health professions education reform. vol 2012. Toronto: University of Toronto; 2012.
Knorr M, Hissbach J. Multiple mini-interviews: same concept, different approaches. Med Educ. 2014;48:1157–75. CrossRef
- Multiple independent sampling within medical school admission interviewing: an “intermediate approach”
Mark D. Hanson
Nicole N. Woods
Maria Athina Martimianakis
- Bohn Stafleu van Loghum