P Y Cope1, Sally Clendon, Tom Nicholson. 1. Speech and Language Therapy Programme, Institute of Education, College of Humanities & Social Sciences, Massey University, Albany Expressway, Albany, Auckland 0632, New Zealand. Tel +64 9 414 0800 x43634. y.cope@massey.ac.nz.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Concerns have been raised about the effectiveness of traditional semi-structured interviews in selected entry allied health programs in terms of whether they give applicants the best opportunity to demonstrate their personal qualities and whether the process itself is overly intimidating and impersonal. This in turn raises questions about the reliability and validity of interviews. In this study, a possible alternative process was examined, the multiple mini-interview (MMI). The study investigated the MMI's perceived acceptability for use by a speech-language pathology program. METHODS: The MMI was administered prior to the beginning of the academic year. The study involved 43 applicants and 5 faculty members. On completion of the MMI, participants were invited to complete an optional questionnaire about their perceptions of the process. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, applicants indicated that they found the MMI process to be fair, simple, and non-threatening. The faculty members who interviewed the students also indicated that the process was fairer than the traditional interview, easier for them to manage because they could focus on one specific aspect of the interview process, and gave them an opportunity to meet all of the applicants.
BACKGROUND: Concerns have been raised about the effectiveness of traditional semi-structured interviews in selected entry allied health programs in terms of whether they give applicants the best opportunity to demonstrate their personal qualities and whether the process itself is overly intimidating and impersonal. This in turn raises questions about the reliability and validity of interviews. In this study, a possible alternative process was examined, the multiple mini-interview (MMI). The study investigated the MMI's perceived acceptability for use by a speech-language pathology program. METHODS: The MMI was administered prior to the beginning of the academic year. The study involved 43 applicants and 5 faculty members. On completion of the MMI, participants were invited to complete an optional questionnaire about their perceptions of the process. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, applicants indicated that they found the MMI process to be fair, simple, and non-threatening. The faculty members who interviewed the students also indicated that the process was fairer than the traditional interview, easier for them to manage because they could focus on one specific aspect of the interview process, and gave them an opportunity to meet all of the applicants.