Multiple mini-interviews: opinions of candidates and interviewers.

OBJECTIVES

To assess candidates' and interviewers' perceptions of the use of a multiple mini-interview (MMI) for selection of senior house officers (SHOs) to a UK regional paediatric training programme.

METHODS

Both candidates and interviewers completed anonymous questionnaires (comprising 16 and 25 questions, respectively). Demographic data were recorded for both groups. Data were analysed by frequencies; using Mann-Whitney and Kruskall-Wallis tests for comparisons; and Cronbach's alpha for internal consistency within the data.

RESULTS

Both candidates and interviewers were positive about the fairness of the MMI (mean scores of 4.0 and 4.4, respectively). The majority of candidates (83%) had not been to this type of interview before. Gender, age and previous experience of MMIs did not account for differences in candidate responses (P > 0.05). A total of 86% of candidates were international medical graduates who preferred the format more than UK graduates did (P = 0.01). Interviewers were mainly experienced consultants who agreed that the multi-station format was better than the traditional interview (mean score 4.8) and represented a reliable process (mean score 4.4). Interviewers were concerned about the range of competencies covered and the subsequent performance of candidates in post (mean scores 3.6 and 3.2, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Both candidates and interviewers agreed that the MMI format was reliable, fair and asked appropriate, easy-to-understand questions. In high-stakes interviews such as for specialty training in Modernising Medical Careers programmes, it is vital that all concerned have confidence in the selection process.