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
Review
. 2019 Dec 12:10:1031-1038.
doi: 10.2147/AMEP.S181332. eCollection 2019.

Multiple Mini-Interviews: Current Perspectives on Utility and Limitations

Sobia Ali  1 , Muhammad Suleman Sadiq Hashmi  1 , Mehnaz Umair  1 , Mirza Aroosa Beg  2 , Nighat Huda  1
Affiliations
Review

Multiple Mini-Interviews: Current Perspectives on Utility and Limitations

Sobia Ali et al. Adv Med Educ Pract. .

Abstract

The growing role of healthcare professionals urged admissions committees to restructure their selection process and assess key personal attributes rather than academic achievements only. Multiple mini interviews (MMIs) were designed in 2002 to assess such domains in prospective healthcare professions. Being a high-stake assessment, the utility and limitations of MMI need to be explored. The purpose of this article is to review the available evidence to establish its utility. The claim of the reliability is verified by the studies assessing the effect of number of stations, duration of stations, format and scoring systems of stations and number of raters assessing the applicants. Similarly, by gathering evidence concerning its content validity, convergent/divergent correlation and predictive ability, validity is ensured. Finally, its acceptability and feasibility along with limitations is discussed. This article concludes by providing recommendations for further work required to deal with the limitations and enhance its utility.

Keywords: MMI; acceptability; feasibility; limitations; reliability; utility; validity.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work.

References

    1. Yates J. When did they leave, and why? A retrospective case study of attrition on the Nottingham undergraduate medical course. BMC Med Educ. 2012;12:43. doi:10.1186/1472-6920-12-43 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Fortin Y, Kealey L, Slade S, Hanson MD. Investigating Canadian medical school attrition metrics to inform socially accountable admissions planning. Med Teach. 2015. doi:10.3109/0142159X.2015.1045847 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Guiding principles for the admission of medical students, Revised March 2010. Available from: https://www.medschools.ac.uk/media/1931/guiding-principles-for-the-admis.... Accessed February9, 2019.
    1. Liason committee on medical education Available from: https://med.virginia.edu/ume-curriculum/wp-content/uploads/sites/216/201.... Accessed February9, 2019.
    1. McManus IC, Powis DA, Wakeford R, Ferguson E, James D, Richards P. Intellectual aptitude tests and A levels for selecting UK school leaver entrants for medical school. BMJ. 2005;331:555–559. doi:10.1136/bmj.331.7516.555 - DOI - PMC - PubMed