Lemay Jean-François, Lockyer Jocelyn M, Collin V Terri, Brownell A Keith W
Department of Pediatrics, Faculty of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Med Educ. 2007 Jun;41(6):573-9. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2007.02767.x.
Contemporary studies have shown that traditional medical school admissions interviews have strong face validity but provide evidence for only low reliability and validity. As a result, they do not provide a standardised, defensible and fair process for all applicants.
In 2006, applicants to the University of Calgary Medical School were interviewed using the multiple mini-interview (MMI). This interview process consisted of 9, 8-minute stations where applicants were presented with scenarios they were then asked to discuss. This was followed by a single 8-minute station that allowed the applicant to discuss why he or she should be admitted to our medical school. Sociodemographic and station assessment data provided for each applicant were analysed to determine whether the MMI was a valid and reliable assessment of the non-cognitive attributes, distinguished between the non-cognitive attributes, and discriminated between those accepted and those placed on the waitlist (waiting list). We also assessed whether applicant sociodemographic characteristics were associated with acceptance or waitlist status.
Cronbach's alpha for each station ranged from 0.97-0.98. Low correlations between stations and the factor analysis suggest each station assessed different attributes. There were significant differences in scores between those accepted and those on the waitlist. Sociodemographic differences were not associated with status on acceptance or waiting lists.
The MMI is able to assess different non-cognitive attributes and our study provides additional evidence for its reliability and validity. The MMI offers a fairer and more defensible assessment of applicants to medical school than the traditional interview.
当代研究表明，传统医学院校招生面试具有很强的表面效度，但可靠性和效度证据不足。因此，它们并未为所有申请者提供一个标准化、可辩护且公平的流程。
2006年，卡尔加里大学医学院的申请者接受了多重迷你面试（MMI）。该面试流程包括9个8分钟的环节，在这些环节中向申请者呈现情景，然后要求他们进行讨论。随后是一个8分钟的环节，让申请者讨论其应该被我校医学院录取的原因。对为每位申请者提供的社会人口统计学和环节评估数据进行分析，以确定MMI是否是对非认知属性的有效且可靠的评估，能否区分非认知属性，以及能否区分被录取者和被列入候补名单者。我们还评估了申请者的社会人口统计学特征是否与录取或候补名单状态相关。
每个环节的克朗巴哈系数在0.97至0.98之间。环节之间的低相关性以及因子分析表明，每个环节评估的是不同的属性。被录取者和候补名单者之间的分数存在显著差异。社会人口统计学差异与录取或候补名单状态无关。
MMI能够评估不同的非认知属性，我们的研究为其可靠性和效度提供了更多证据。与传统面试相比，MMI为医学院校申请者提供了更公平、更具说服力的评估。
