Anthony Jerant1, Mark C Henderson, Erin Griffin, Theodore R Hall, Carolyn J Kelly, Ellena M Peterson, David Wofsy, Daniel J Tancredi, Francis J Sousa, Peter Franks. 1. A. Jerant is professor, Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of California, Davis, School of Medicine, Sacramento, California. M.C. Henderson is professor, Division of General Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, and associate dean for admissions and outreach, University of California, Davis, School of Medicine, Sacramento, California. E. Griffin is evaluation specialist, Research and Evaluation Outcomes Unit, University of California, Davis, School of Medicine, Sacramento, California. T.R. Hall is professor, Department of Radiology, and associate dean for admissions, David Geffen School of Medicine at University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California. C.J. Kelly is professor, Department of Medicine, and associate dean for admissions and student affairs, University of California, San Diego, School of Medicine, San Diego, California. E.M. Peterson is professor, Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, and associate dean for admissions, University of California, Irvine, School of Medicine, Irvine, California. D. Wofsy is professor, Department of Medicine, and associate dean for admissions, University of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine, San Francisco, California. D.J. Tancredi is associate professor, Department of Pediatrics, University of California, Davis, School of Medicine, Sacramento, California. F.J. Sousa is assistant dean for admissions and student development, University of California, Davis, School of Medicine, Sacramento, California. P. Franks is professor emeritus, Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of California, Davis, School of Medicine, Sacramento, California.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the predictive validities of medical school admissions multiple mini-interviews (MMIs) and traditional interviews (TIs). METHOD: This longitudinal observational study of 2011-2013 matriculants to five California public medical schools examined the associations of MMI scores (two schools) and TI scores (three schools) with subsequent academic performance. Regression models adjusted for sociodemographics and undergraduate academic metrics examined associations of standardized mean MMI and TI scores with United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 and Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) scores and, for required clerkships, with mean National Board of Medical Examiners Clinical Science subject (shelf) exam score and number of honors grades. RESULTS: Of the 1,460 medical students, 746 (51.1%) interviewed at more than one study school; 579 (39.7%) completed at least one MMI and at least one TI. Neither interview type was associated with Step 1 scores. Higher MMI scores were associated with more clerkship honors grades (adjusted incidence rate ratio [AIRR] 1.28 more [95% CI 1.18, 1.39; P < .01] per SD increase) and higher shelf exam and Step 2 CK scores (adjusted mean 0.73 points higher [95% CI 0.28, 1.18; P < .01] and 1.25 points higher [95% CI 0.09, 2.41; P = .035], respectively, per SD increase). Higher TI scores were associated only with more honors grades (AIRR 1.11 more [95% CI 1.01, 1.20; P = .03] per SD increase). CONCLUSIONS: MMI scores were more strongly associated with subsequent academic performance measures than were TI scores.
PURPOSE: To compare the predictive validities of medical school admissions multiple mini-interviews (MMIs) and traditional interviews (TIs). METHOD: This longitudinal observational study of 2011-2013 matriculants to five California public medical schools examined the associations of MMI scores (two schools) and TI scores (three schools) with subsequent academic performance. Regression models adjusted for sociodemographics and undergraduate academic metrics examined associations of standardized mean MMI and TI scores with United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 and Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) scores and, for required clerkships, with mean National Board of Medical Examiners Clinical Science subject (shelf) exam score and number of honors grades. RESULTS: Of the 1,460 medical students, 746 (51.1%) interviewed at more than one study school; 579 (39.7%) completed at least one MMI and at least one TI. Neither interview type was associated with Step 1 scores. Higher MMI scores were associated with more clerkship honors grades (adjusted incidence rate ratio [AIRR] 1.28 more [95% CI 1.18, 1.39; P < .01] per SD increase) and higher shelf exam and Step 2 CK scores (adjusted mean 0.73 points higher [95% CI 0.28, 1.18; P < .01] and 1.25 points higher [95% CI 0.09, 2.41; P = .035], respectively, per SD increase). Higher TI scores were associated only with more honors grades (AIRR 1.11 more [95% CI 1.01, 1.20; P = .03] per SD increase). CONCLUSIONS: MMI scores were more strongly associated with subsequent academic performance measures than were TI scores.
Authors: Ann Blair Kennedy; Cindy Nessim Youssef Riyad; Ryan Ellis; Perry R Fleming; Mallorie Gainey; Kara Templeton; Anna Nourse; Virginia Hardaway; April Brown; Pam Evans; Nabil Natafgi Journal: J Particip Med Date: 2022-08-30