Using the Multiple Mini Interview for selection into vocational general practice training
Steven Lillis 1 2 , Liza Lack 1 , Allan Mbita 1 , Melissa Ashford 11 Royal New Zealand College of General Practitioners, Level 4, 50 Customhouse Quay, Wellington 6143, New Zealand.
2 Corresponding author. Email: steven.lillis@outlook.co.nz
Journal of Primary Health Care 11(1) 75-79 https://doi.org/10.1071/HC18085
Published: 3 April 2019
Journal Compilation © Royal New Zealand College of General Practitioners 2019.
This is an open access article licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Interviews for selection into post graduate training courses are an accepted method of selection. There is the presumption that such interview processes are fair to both candidates and the training scheme.
AIM: Due to concerns over unconscious bias and a desire to move to best practice, the Royal New Zealand College of General Practitioners introduced the Mini Multiple Interview (MMI) process as the selection process for doctors wishing to enter vocational training in general practice.
METHODS: Aspects assessed during the interviews were developed through wide consultation and included: reason for wanting to undertake training, managing poor compliance, addressing issues of equity, managing complaints, insight and understanding the role of general practitioners in chronic care. There were 218 applicants who took the MMI. Demographic data as well as scores were collected.
RESULTS: The MMI process has good reliability and performs well in several aspects of validity. All three interview venues had similar results. There was no gender difference in overall result or scores. New Zealand graduates scored higher than overseas graduates. Of the 218 candidates, 12 were considered not yet ready to enter training.
DISCUSSION: The MMI process appears to have acceptable reliability and good validity. The structure of the MMI is likely to have reduced unconscious bias. Further research will study the predictive validity of the MMI for this cohort of candidates.
KEYWORDS: General practice; vocational training; interview.
References
[1] Eva KW, Rosenfeld J, Reiter HI, Norman GR. An admissions OSCE: the multiple mini-interview. Med Educ. 2004; 38 314–26.| An admissions OSCE: the multiple mini-interview.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 14996341PubMed |
[2] Morris JG. The value and role of the interview in the student admissions process: a review. Med Teach. 1999; 21 473–81.
| The value and role of the interview in the student admissions process: a review.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[3] Goho J, Blackman A. The effectiveness of academic admission interviews: an exploratory meta-analysis. Med Teach. 2006; 28 335–40.
| The effectiveness of academic admission interviews: an exploratory meta-analysis.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 16807172PubMed |
[4] Griffin B, Wilson I. Associations between the big five personality factors and multiple mini-interviews. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2012; 17 377–88.
| Associations between the big five personality factors and multiple mini-interviews.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 21751103PubMed |
[5] Griffin B, Auton J, Duvivier R, et al. Multiple mini interviews: revealing similarities across institutions. BMC Med Educ. 2018; 18 190
| Multiple mini interviews: revealing similarities across institutions.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 30081893PubMed |
[6] Yoshimura H, Kitazono H, Fujitani S, et al. Past-behavioural versus situational questions in a postgraduate admissions multiple mini-interview: a reliability and acceptability comparison. BMC Med Educ. 2015; 15 75
| Past-behavioural versus situational questions in a postgraduate admissions multiple mini-interview: a reliability and acceptability comparison.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 25890189PubMed |
[7] Rees EL, Hawarden AW, Dent G, et al. Evidence regarding the utility of multiple mini-interview (MMI) for selection to undergraduate health programs: A BEME systematic review: BEME Guide No. 37. Med Teach. 2016; 38 443–55.
| Evidence regarding the utility of multiple mini-interview (MMI) for selection to undergraduate health programs: A BEME systematic review: BEME Guide No. 37.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 27050026PubMed |
[8] Yamada T, Sato J, Yoshimura H, et al. Reliability and acceptability of six station multiple mini-interviews: past-behavioural versus situational questions in postgraduate medical admission. BMC Med Educ. 2017; 17 57
| Reliability and acceptability of six station multiple mini-interviews: past-behavioural versus situational questions in postgraduate medical admission.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 28302124PubMed |
[9] Reiter H, Eva K. Vive la Différence: the freedom and inherent responsibilities when designing and implementing multiple mini-interviews. Acad Med. 2018; 93 969–71.
| Vive la Différence: the freedom and inherent responsibilities when designing and implementing multiple mini-interviews.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 29095171PubMed |
[10] Pau A, Chen YS, Lee VK, et al. What does the multiple mini interview have to offer over the panel interview? Med Educ Online. 2016; 21 29874
| 26873337PubMed |
[11] Eva KW, Macala C, Fleming B. Twelve tips for constructing a multiple mini-interview. Med Teach. 2018;
| Twelve tips for constructing a multiple mini-interview.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 30299204PubMed |
[12] Taylor CA, Green KE, Spruce A. Evaluation of the effect of socio-economic status on performance in a Multiple Mini Interview for admission to medical school. Med Teach. 2015; 37 59–63.
| Evaluation of the effect of socio-economic status on performance in a Multiple Mini Interview for admission to medical school.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 24986755PubMed |
[13] Roberts C, Clark T, Burgess A, et al. The validity of a behavioural multiple-mini-interview within an assessment centre for selection into specialty training. BMC Med Educ. 2014; 14 169
| The validity of a behavioural multiple-mini-interview within an assessment centre for selection into specialty training.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 25123968PubMed |
[14] Terregino CA, Copeland HL, Laumbach SG, et al. How good are we at selecting students that meet our mission? Outcomes of the 2011 and 2012 entering classes selected by a locally developed multiple mini interview. Med Teach. 2018; 40 1300–5.
[15] Jerant A, Henderson MC, Griffin E, et al. Do admissions multiple mini-interview and traditional interview scores predict subsequent academic performance? A study of five California medical schools. Acad Med. 2019; 94 388–95.
| Do admissions multiple mini-interview and traditional interview scores predict subsequent academic performance? A study of five California medical schools.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 30188370PubMed |
[16] Patterson F, Rowett E, Hale R, et al. The predictive validity of a situational judgement test and multiple-mini interview for entry into postgraduate training in Australia. BMC Med Educ. 2016; 16 87
| The predictive validity of a situational judgement test and multiple-mini interview for entry into postgraduate training in Australia.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 26957002PubMed |
[17] Van Der Vleuten CPM. The assessment of professional competence: developments, research and practical implications. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 1996; 1 41–67.
| The assessment of professional competence: developments, research and practical implications.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[18] Tavakol M, Dennick R. Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. Int J Med Educ. 2011; 2 53–5.
| Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 28029643PubMed |
