Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2017 Nov 6;17(1):190.
doi: 10.1186/s12909-017-1030-0.

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

Anthony Jerant  1 , Mark C Henderson  2 , Erin Griffin  3 , Julie A Rainwater  4 , Theodore R Hall  5 , Carolyn J Kelly  6 , Ellena M Peterson  7 , David Wofsy  8 , Peter Franks  9
Affiliations

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

Anthony Jerant et al. BMC Med Educ. .

Abstract

Background: Many medical schools use admissions Multiple Mini-Interviews (MMIs) rather than traditional interviews (TIs), partly because MMIs are thought to be more reliable. Yet prior studies examined single-school samples of candidates completing either an MMI or TI (not both). Using data from five California public medical schools, the authors examined the within- and between-school reliabilities of TIs and MMIs.

Methods: The analyses included applicants interviewing at ≥1 of the five schools during 2011-2013. Three schools employed TIs (TI1, TI2, TI3) and two employed MMIs (MMI1, MMI2). Mixed linear models accounting for nesting of observations within applicants examined standardized TI and MMI scores (mean = 0, SD = 1), adjusting for applicant socio-demographics, academic metrics, year, number of interviews, and interview date.

Results: A total of 4993 individuals (completing 7516 interviews [TI = 4137, MMI = 3379]) interviewed at ≥1 school; 428 (14.5%) interviewed at both MMI schools and 687 (20.2%) at more than one TI school. Within schools, inter-interviewer consistency was generally qualitatively lower for TI1, TI2, and TI3 (Pearson's r 0.07, 0.13, and 0.29, and Cronbach's α, 0.40, 0.44, and 0.61, respectively) than for MMI1 and MMI 2 (Cronbach's α 0.68 and 0.60, respectively). Between schools, the adjusted intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.27 (95% CI 0.20-0.35) for TIs and 0.47 (95% CI 0.41-0.54) for MMIs.

Conclusions: Within and between-school reliability was qualitatively higher for MMIs than for TIs. Nonetheless, TI reliabilities were higher than anticipated from prior literature, suggesting TIs may not need to be abandoned on reliability grounds if other factors favor their use.

Keywords: Interview as topic; Multiple mini-interview; Reproducibility of results; School admission criteria; Schools, medical.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Ethics approval and consent to participate

On May 19, 2014, the authors obtained ethical approval to conduct the study from the institutional review boards of the participating schools, via the University of California Reliance Registry (protocol #683). Because of the nature of the study, neither interviewer nor interviewee consent to participate was required.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

    1. Edwards JC, Johnson EK, Molidor JB. The interview in the admission process. Acad Med. 1990;65:167–177. doi: 10.1097/00001888-199003000-00008. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Kreiter CD, Yin P, Solow C, Brennan RL. Investigating the reliability of the medical school admissions interview. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2004;9:147–159. doi: 10.1023/B:AHSE.0000027464.22411.0f. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Eva KW, Rosenfeld J, Reiter HI, Norman GR. An admissions OSCE: the multiple mini-interview. Med Educ. 2004;38:314–326. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2923.2004.01776.x. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Albanese MA, Snow MH, Skochelak SE, Huggett KN, Farrell PM. Assessing personal qualities in medical school admissions. Acad Med. 2003;78:313–321. doi: 10.1097/00001888-200303000-00016. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Siu E, Reiter HI. Overview. what's worked and what hasn’t as a guide towards predictive admissions tool development. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2009;14:759–775. doi: 10.1007/s10459-009-9160-8. - DOI - PubMed