Robin L Corelli1, Michael A Muchnik2, Ryan J Beechinor1, Gary Fong1, Eleanor M Vogt1, Jennifer M Cocohoba1, Candy Tsourounis1, Karen Suchanek Hudmon3. 1. Department of Clinical Pharmacy, School of Pharmacy, University of California, San Francisco. 2. Department of Pharmacy Practice, Purdue University College of Pharmacy, West Lafayette, Indiana. 3. Department of Clinical Pharmacy, School of Pharmacy, University of California, San Francisco,; Department of Pharmacy Practice, Purdue University College of Pharmacy, West Lafayette, Indiana.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To improve the quality of admissions interviews for a doctor of pharmacy program, using a multiple mini-interview (MMI) in place of the standard interview. METHODS: Stakeholders completed an anonymous web-based survey. This study characterized perceptions of the MMI format across 3 major stakeholders (candidates, interviewers, admissions committee members) and included comparative cost estimates.Costs were estimated using human and facility resources from the 2012 cycle (standard format) and the 2013 cycle (MMI format). RESULTS: Most candidates (65%), interviewers (86%), and admissions committee members (79%) perceived the MMI format as effective for evaluating applicants, and most (59% of candidates, 84% of interviewers, 77% of committee members) agreed that the MMI format should be continued. Cost per candidate interviewed was $136.34 (standard interview) vs $75.30 (MMI). CONCLUSION: Perceptions of the MMI process were favorable across stakeholder groups, and this format was less costly per candidate interviewed.
OBJECTIVE: To improve the quality of admissions interviews for a doctor of pharmacy program, using a multiple mini-interview (MMI) in place of the standard interview. METHODS: Stakeholders completed an anonymous web-based survey. This study characterized perceptions of the MMI format across 3 major stakeholders (candidates, interviewers, admissions committee members) and included comparative cost estimates.Costs were estimated using human and facility resources from the 2012 cycle (standard format) and the 2013 cycle (MMI format). RESULTS: Most candidates (65%), interviewers (86%), and admissions committee members (79%) perceived the MMI format as effective for evaluating applicants, and most (59% of candidates, 84% of interviewers, 77% of committee members) agreed that the MMI format should be continued. Cost per candidate interviewed was $136.34 (standard interview) vs $75.30 (MMI). CONCLUSION: Perceptions of the MMI process were favorable across stakeholder groups, and this format was less costly per candidate interviewed.
Entities:
Keywords:
admission interview; multiple mini interviews; pharmacy students
Authors: Melissa S Medina; Cecilia M Plaza; Cindy D Stowe; Evan T Robinson; Gary DeLander; Diane E Beck; Russell B Melchert; Robert B Supernaw; Victoria F Roche; Brenda L Gleason; Mark N Strong; Amanda Bain; Gerald E Meyer; Betty J Dong; Jeffrey Rochon; Patty Johnston Journal: Am J Pharm Educ Date: 2013-10-14 Impact factor: 2.047
Authors: Douglas R Oyler; Kelly M Smith; E Claire Elson; Heather Bush; Aaron M Cook Journal: Am J Health Syst Pharm Date: 2014-02-15 Impact factor: 2.637
Authors: Kevin W Eva; Harold I Reiter; Jack Rosenfeld; Kien Trinh; Timothy J Wood; Geoffrey R Norman Journal: JAMA Date: 2012-12-05 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Seth D Heldenbrand; Lindsey E Dayer; Bradley C Martin; Catherine O'Brien; Angie N Choi; Paul O Gubbins; Janna Hawthorne; Morgan Ramey; Kelsey Willis; Schwanda K Flowers Journal: Am J Pharm Educ Date: 2018-09 Impact factor: 2.047