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
. 2022 Aug 12;22(1):616.
doi: 10.1186/s12909-022-03681-4.

Are different station formats assessing different dimensions in multiple mini-interviews? Findings from the Canadian integrated French multiple mini-interviews

Jean-Michel Leduc  1   2 , Sébastien Béland  3 , Jean-Sébastien Renaud  4 , Philippe Bégin  5 , Robert Gagnon  6 , Annie Ouellet  7 , Christian Bourdy  8 , Nathalie Loye  3
Affiliations

Are different station formats assessing different dimensions in multiple mini-interviews? Findings from the Canadian integrated French multiple mini-interviews

Jean-Michel Leduc et al. BMC Med Educ. .

Abstract

Background: Multiple mini-interviews (MMI) are used to assess non-academic attributes for selection in medicine and other healthcare professions. It remains unclear if different MMI station formats (discussions, role-plays, collaboration) assess different dimensions.

Methods: Based on station formats of the 2018 and 2019 Integrated French MMI (IFMMI), which comprised five discussions, three role-plays and two collaboration stations, the authors performed confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using the lavaan 0.6-5 R package and compared a one-factor solution to a three-factor solution for scores of the 2018 (n = 1438) and 2019 (n = 1440) cohorts of the IFMMI across three medical schools in Quebec, Canada.

Results: The three-factor solution was retained, with discussions, role-plays and collaboration stations all loading adequately with their scores. Furthermore, all three factors had moderate-to-high covariance (range 0.44 to 0.64). The model fit was also excellent with a Comparative fit index (CFI) of 0.983 (good if > 0.9), a Tucker Lewis index of 0.976 (good if > 0.95), a Standardized Root Mean Square Residual of 0.021 (good if < .08) and a Root Mean Square Error of 0.023 (good if < 0.08) for 2018 and similar results for 2019. In comparison, the single factor solution presented a lower fit (CFI = 0.819, TLI = 0.767, SRMR = 0.049 and RMSEA = 0.070).

Conclusions: The IFMMI assessed three dimensions that were related to stations formats, a finding that was consistent across two cohorts. This suggests that different station formats may be assessing different skills, and has implications for the choice of appropriate reliability metrics and the interpretation of scores. Further studies should try to characterize the underlying constructs associated with each station format and look for differential predictive validity according to these formats.

Keywords: Admission; Multiple Mini-Interviews; Reliability; Selection; Undergraduate Medical Education; Validity.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Standardized factor loadings and model covariates of the confirmatory factor analysis for 2018 (A) and 2019 (B). Stations are represented as rectangles and station formats are represented as ovals. Coefficients on the arrows can be interpreted as correlations
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Rees EL, Hawarden AW, Dent G, Hays R, Bates J, Hassell AB. 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(5):443–455. doi: 10.3109/0142159X.2016.1158799. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Eva KW, Rosenfeld J, Reiter HI, Norman GR. An admissions OSCE: the multiple mini-interview. Med Educ. 2004;38(3):314–326. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2923.2004.01776.x. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Knorr M, Hissbach J. Multiple mini-interviews: same concept, different approaches. Med Educ. 2014;48(12):1157–1175. doi: 10.1111/medu.12535. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Knorr M, Hissbach CJ, Hampe W. Interviews, Multiple Mini-Interviews, and Selection Centers. In: Patterson F, Zibarras L, editors. Selection and Recruitment in the Healthcare Professions. Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan; 2018. pp. 113–138.
    1. Kane MT. Validating the interpretations and uses of test scores. J Educ Meas. 2013;50(1):1–73. doi: 10.1111/jedm.12000. - DOI

LinkOut - more resources