Patrick L E, Altmaier E M, Kuperman S, Ugolini K
Division of Psychological and Quantitative Foundations, College of Education, University of Iowa, Iowa City, USA.
Acad Med. 2001 Jan;76(1):66-71. doi: 10.1097/00001888-200101000-00018.
Despite their widespread use, medical school admission interviews often are unstructured and lack reliability. This report describes the development of a structured admission interview designed to eliminate bias and provide valid information for selecting medical students, with preliminary information about the interview's reliability and validity.
After screening applications, 490 applicants to a public medical school residency program were interviewed by two faculty members using a structured interview format. Interview scores were compiled and correlated with undergraduate grade-point averages (GPAs); Medical College Admission Test (MCAT) scores; Iowa Evaluation Form (IEF) scores, an in-house evaluation of applicants' noncognitive abilities; and eventual admissions status.
Interrater agreement was good; the percentages of rater pairs whose scores differed by one point or less ranged from 87% to 98%. Scores on the structured interview revealed low to moderate correlations with other admission criteria: 10 (p < 0.05) for cumulative GPA, 0.18 (p < 0.01) for MCAT Biological Science, 0.08 (p > 0.05) MCAT Physical Science, and 0.10 (p < 0.05) MCAT Verbal Reasoning. None of the correlations between the overall interview scores and the IEF scores reached statistical significance (p = 0.05). Higher overall scores on the structured interview did predict a greater likelihood of being accepted into the medical school and the interview score accounted for 20% of the incremental variance in admission status beyond GPA, MCAT, and IEF scores.
The moderate-to-low correlations with other admission criteria suggest that the interview provided information about candidate credentials not obtained from other sources and accounted for a substantial proportion of the variance in admission status. This finding supports the considerable time and resources required to develop a structured interview for medical student admissions. Final judgment on the validity and utility of this interview should be made after follow-up performance data have been obtained and analyzed.
尽管医学院入学面试被广泛应用，但往往缺乏结构化且可靠性不足。本报告描述了一种结构化入学面试的开发过程，该面试旨在消除偏见并为选拔医学生提供有效信息，同时给出了关于该面试可靠性和有效性的初步信息。
在筛选申请后，一所公立医学院住院医师项目的490名申请人由两名教员采用结构化面试形式进行面试。整理面试分数，并将其与本科平均绩点（GPA）、医学院入学考试（MCAT）分数、爱荷华评估表（IEF）分数（对申请人非认知能力的内部评估）以及最终录取状态进行关联。
评分者间一致性良好；分数相差1分或更少的评分者对的百分比在87%至98%之间。结构化面试的分数与其他录取标准呈现出低到中等程度的相关性：与累积GPA的相关性为0.10（p < 0.05），与MCAT生物科学的相关性为0.18（p < 0.01），与MCAT物理科学的相关性为0.08（p > 0.05），与MCAT言语推理的相关性为0.10（p < 0.05）。总体面试分数与IEF分数之间的相关性均未达到统计学显著性（p = 0.05）。结构化面试中更高的总体分数确实预示着被医学院录取的可能性更大，并且面试分数在GPA、MCAT和IEF分数之外，占录取状态增量方差的20%。
与其他录取标准的中低相关性表明，该面试提供了从其他来源未获得的关于候选人资质的信息，并在录取状态方差中占相当大的比例。这一发现支持了为医学生招生开发结构化面试所需的大量时间和资源投入。在获得并分析后续表现数据后，应对该面试的有效性和实用性做出最终判断。
