Rosenfeld Jack M, Reiter Harold I, Trinh Kien, Eva Kevin W
Department of Pathology and Molecular Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.
Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2008 Mar;13(1):43-58. doi: 10.1007/s10459-006-9029-z. Epub 2006 Sep 29.
A major expense for most professional training programs, both financially and in terms of human resources, is the interview process used to make admissions decisions. Still, most programs view this as a necessary cost given that the personal interview provides an opportunity to recruit potential candidates, showing them what the program has to offer, and to try and gather more information about the candidates to ensure that those selected live up to the espoused values of the institution. We now have five years worth of experience with a Multiple Mini-Interview (MMI) process that, unlike traditional panel interviews, uses the OSCE model to have candidates interact with a larger number of interviewers. We have found that the MMI is more reliable and has better predictive power than our traditional panel interviews. Still, the extent to which any measurement is valuable depends also on the feasibility of use. In this paper we report on an exploration of the cost effectiveness of the MMI as compared to standard panel-based interviews by considering the generation of interview material, human resource (i.e., interviewer and support staff) use, infrastructure requirements, and other miscellaneous expenses. Our conclusion is that the MMI requires greater preparatory efforts and a larger number of rooms to carry out the interviews relative to panel-based interviews, but that these cost disadvantages are offset by the MMI requiring fewer person-hours of effort. The absolute costs will vary dependent on institution, but the framework presented in this paper will hopefully provide greater guidance regarding logistical requirements and anticipated budget.
对于大多数专业培训项目而言，无论是在财务方面还是人力资源方面，一项主要开支就是用于做出录取决定的面试过程。尽管如此，大多数项目认为这是一项必要成本，因为个人面试提供了一个招募潜在候选人的机会，向他们展示项目所提供的内容，并试图收集更多关于候选人的信息，以确保所选人员符合机构所倡导的价值观。我们现在已经有了五年使用多重迷你面试（MMI）流程的经验，与传统的小组面试不同，MMI采用客观结构化临床考试（OSCE）模式，让候选人与更多面试官互动。我们发现，MMI比我们传统的小组面试更可靠，预测能力更强。然而，任何测评的价值程度还取决于使用的可行性。在本文中，我们通过考虑面试材料的生成、人力资源（即面试官和支持人员）的使用、基础设施要求以及其他杂项费用，报告了对MMI与基于标准小组的面试相比的成本效益的探索。我们的结论是，与基于小组的面试相比，MMI进行面试需要更大的准备工作和更多的房间，但这些成本劣势被MMI所需的更少工时所抵消。绝对成本会因机构而异，但本文提出的框架有望为后勤要求和预期预算提供更多指导。
