Pau Allan, Chen Yu Sui, Lee Verna Kar Mun, Sow Chew Fei, De Alwis Ranjit
Division of Community and Child Oral Health, School of Dentistry, International Medical University, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia;
Division of Human Biology, School of Medicine, International Medical University, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Med Educ Online. 2016 Feb 11;21:29874. doi: 10.3402/meo.v21.29874. eCollection 2016.
This paper compares the panel interview (PI) performance with the multiple mini interview (MMI) performance and indication of behavioural concerns of a sample of medical school applicants. The acceptability of the MMI was also assessed.
All applicants shortlisted for a PI were invited to an MMI. Applicants attended a 30-min PI with two faculty interviewers followed by an MMI consisting of ten 8-min stations. Applicants were assessed on their performance at each MMI station by one faculty. The interviewer also indicated if they perceived the applicant to be a concern. Finally, applicants completed an acceptability questionnaire.
From the analysis of 133 (75.1%) completed MMI scoresheets, the MMI scores correlated statistically significantly with the PI scores (r=0.438, p=0.001). Both were not statistically associated with sex, age, race, or pre-university academic ability to any significance. Applicants assessed as a concern at two or more stations performed statistically significantly less well at the MMI when compared with those who were assessed as a concern at one station or none at all. However, there was no association with PI performance. Acceptability scores were generally high, and comparison of mean scores for each of the acceptability questionnaire items did not show statistically significant differences between sex and race categories.
Although PI and MMI performances are correlated, the MMI may have the added advantage of more objectively generating multiple impressions of the applicant's interpersonal skill, thoughtfulness, and general demeanour. Results of the present study indicated that the MMI is acceptable in a multicultural context.
本文比较了小组面试(PI)和多重迷你面试(MMI)的表现,以及医学院申请者样本中行为问题的迹象。还评估了MMI的可接受性。
所有入围PI的申请者都被邀请参加MMI。申请者先与两位教员面试官进行30分钟的PI面试,随后参加由十个8分钟站点组成的MMI。每个MMI站点的表现由一位教员进行评估。面试官还需指出他们是否认为该申请者存在问题。最后,申请者完成一份可接受性调查问卷。
通过对133份(75.1%)完整的MMI评分表进行分析,MMI分数与PI分数在统计学上显著相关(r = 0.438,p = 0.001)。两者在性别、年龄、种族或大学预科学习能力方面均无统计学上的显著关联。与在一个站点或完全未被评估为存在问题的申请者相比,在两个或更多站点被评估为存在问题的申请者在MMI中的表现明显较差。然而,这与PI表现无关。可接受性分数总体较高,对可接受性调查问卷各项的平均分数进行比较,未发现性别和种族类别之间存在统计学上的显著差异。
虽然PI和MMI的表现相关,但MMI可能具有额外的优势,即能更客观地对申请者人际关系技巧、体贴程度和总体举止形成多种印象。本研究结果表明MMI在多元文化背景下是可接受的。