Literature DB >> 23212501

Association between a medical school admission process using the multiple mini-interview and national licensing examination scores.

Kevin W Eva1, Harold I Reiter, Jack Rosenfeld, Kien Trinh, Timothy J Wood, Geoffrey R Norman.   

Abstract

CONTEXT: There has been difficulty designing medical school admissions processes that provide valid measurement of candidates' nonacademic qualities.
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether students deemed acceptable through a revised admissions protocol using a 12-station multiple mini-interview (MMI) outperform others on the 2 parts of the Canadian national licensing examinations (Medical Council of Canada Qualifying Examination [MCCQE]). The MMI process requires candidates to rotate through brief sequential interviews with structured tasks and independent assessment within each interview. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Cohort study comparing potential medical students who were interviewed at McMaster University using an MMI in 2004 or 2005 and accepted (whether or not they matriculated at McMaster) with those who were interviewed and rejected but gained entry elsewhere. The computer-based MCCQE part I (aimed at assessing medical knowledge and clinical decision making) can be taken on graduation from medical school; MCCQE part II (involving simulated patient interactions testing various aspects of practice) is based on the objective structured clinical examination and typically completed 16 months into postgraduate training. Interviews were granted to 1071 candidates, and those who gained entry could feasibly complete both parts of their licensure examination between May 2007 and March 2011. Scores could be matched on the examinations for 751 (part I) and 623 (part II) interviewees. INTERVENTION: Admissions decisions were made by combining z score transformations of scores assigned to autobiographical essays, grade point average, and MMI performance. Academic and nonacademic measures contributed equally to the final ranking. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Scores on MCCQE part I (standardized cut-score, 390 [SD, 100]) and part II (standardized mean, 500 [SD, 100]).
RESULTS: Candidates accepted by the admissions process had higher scores than those who were rejected for part I (mean total score, 531 [95% CI, 524-537] vs 515 [95% CI, 507-522]; P = .003) and for part II (mean total score, 563 [95% CI, 556-570] vs 544 [95% CI, 534-554]; P = .007). Among the accepted group, those who matriculated at McMaster did not outperform those who matriculated elsewhere for part I (mean total score, 524 [95% CI, 515-533] vs 546 [95% CI, 535-557]; P = .004) and for part II (mean total score, 557 [95% CI, 548-566] vs 582 [95% CI, 569-594]; P = .003).
CONCLUSION: Compared with students who were rejected by an admission process that used MMI assessment, students who were accepted scored higher on Canadian national licensing examinations.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23212501     DOI: 10.1001/jama.2012.36914

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA        ISSN: 0098-7484            Impact factor:   56.272


  22 in total

1.  Perceptions and Cost-Analysis of a Multiple Mini-Interview in a Pharmacy School Admissions Process.

Authors:  Robin L Corelli; Michael A Muchnik; Ryan J Beechinor; Gary Fong; Eleanor M Vogt; Jennifer M Cocohoba; Candy Tsourounis; Karen Suchanek Hudmon
Journal:  Am J Pharm Educ       Date:  2015-11-25       Impact factor: 2.047

2.  What does the multiple mini interview have to offer over the panel interview?

Authors:  Allan Pau; Yu Sui Chen; Verna Kar Mun Lee; Chew Fei Sow; Ranjit De Alwis
Journal:  Med Educ Online       Date:  2016-02-11

3.  Multiple mini-interviews as a predictor of academic achievements during the first 2 years of medical school.

Authors:  Hee Jae Lee; Sung Bae Park; Sung Chul Park; Won Sun Park; Sook-Won Ryu; Jeong Hee Yang; SungHun Na; Jun Yeon Won; Gi Bong Chae
Journal:  BMC Res Notes       Date:  2016-02-13

4.  The effect of personality traits on undergraduate dental students' performance in multiple mini interviews.

Authors:  Lana Ahmed Shinawi; Sumer Madani Alaki; Ibrahim Yamany; Mona Hassan Ahmed Hassan
Journal:  Electron Physician       Date:  2017-05-25

5.  The utility of multiple mini-interviews: experience of a medical school.

Authors:  Kyong-Jee Kim; Kyung-Soo Nam; Bum Sun Kwon
Journal:  Korean J Med Educ       Date:  2017-02-28

6.  A measurement perspective on affirmative action in U.S. medical education.

Authors:  Clarence D Kreiter
Journal:  Med Educ Online       Date:  2013-04-10

7.  Evaluating the validity of an integrity-based situational judgement test for medical school admissions.

Authors:  Adrian Husbands; Mark J Rodgerson; Jon Dowell; Fiona Patterson
Journal:  BMC Med Educ       Date:  2015-09-02       Impact factor: 2.463

8.  Comparing the traditional and Multiple Mini Interviews in the selection of post-graduate medical trainees.

Authors:  Michael C Sklar; Antoine Eskander; Kelly Dore; Ian J Witterick
Journal:  Can Med Educ J       Date:  2015-12-11

9.  Lessons learned from 15 years of non-grades-based selection for medical school.

Authors:  Karen M Stegers-Jager
Journal:  Med Educ       Date:  2017-10-06       Impact factor: 6.251

10.  Reliability of Multiple Mini-Interviews and traditional interviews within and between institutions: a study of five California medical schools.

Authors:  Anthony Jerant; Mark C Henderson; Erin Griffin; Julie A Rainwater; Theodore R Hall; Carolyn J Kelly; Ellena M Peterson; David Wofsy; Peter Franks
Journal:  BMC Med Educ       Date:  2017-11-06       Impact factor: 2.463

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.