R McAndrew1, J Ellis. 1. University of Cardiff, Applied Dental Research and Public Health, Dental Hospital, Heath Park, Cardiff, CF14 4XY. mcandrew@cf.ac.uk
Abstract
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. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Following screening an MMI was arranged for 190 candidates applying to study dentistry with written feedback obtained from candidates and interviewers. RESULTS: A 100% response rate to the paper-based questionnaire was achieved for candidates and a 90% response rate was obtained from interviewers. With specific reference to how candidates perceived their performance, 127 (67.9%) felt they had performed well with 24 (19.3%) unsure and 36 (12.8%) saying their performance was not ideal. Candidates generally thought that they had prepared as well as they could have done for the MMIs and 146 (77.2%) thought that they had done enough at interview to merit being offered a place to study dentistry. The MMI experience was considered favourable and from 137 written comments received by candidates 39 were most positive with reference to the MMIs. A thematic analysis of the comments identified a number of emergent themes including lack of control, anxiety and nervousness, preparedness and comparisons with conventional interviews. CONCLUSION: The MMI appears to be useful in the selection of dental students.
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. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Following screening an MMI was arranged for 190 candidates applying to study dentistry with written feedback obtained from candidates and interviewers. RESULTS: A 100% response rate to the paper-based questionnaire was achieved for candidates and a 90% response rate was obtained from interviewers. With specific reference to how candidates perceived their performance, 127 (67.9%) felt they had performed well with 24 (19.3%) unsure and 36 (12.8%) saying their performance was not ideal. Candidates generally thought that they had prepared as well as they could have done for the MMIs and 146 (77.2%) thought that they had done enough at interview to merit being offered a place to study dentistry. The MMI experience was considered favourable and from 137 written comments received by candidates 39 were most positive with reference to the MMIs. A thematic analysis of the comments identified a number of emergent themes including lack of control, anxiety and nervousness, preparedness and comparisons with conventional interviews. CONCLUSION: The MMI appears to be useful in the selection of dental students.