School of Health Sciences, University of Surrey, Guildford, UK.
Centre for Critical Research in Nursing and Midwifery, School of Health and Education, Middlesex University, UK.
Nurse Educ Today. 2020 May;88:104320. doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2019.104320. Epub 2019 Dec 26.
Education literature worldwide is replete with studies evaluating the effectiveness of Multiple Mini Interviews (MMIs) in admissions to medicine but <1% of published studies have been conducted in selection to nursing and midwifery programmes.
To examine the predictive validity of MMIs using end of programme clinical and academic performance indicators of pre-registration adult, child, and mental health nursing and midwifery students.
A cross-sectional cohort study at one university in the United Kingdom.
A non-probability consecutive sampling strategy whereby all applicants to the September 2015 pre-registration adult, child, mental health nursing and midwifery programmes were invited to participate. Of the 354 students who commenced year one, 225 (64%) completed their three-year programme and agreed to take part (adult 120, child 32, mental health nursing 30 and midwifery 43).
All applicants were interviewed using MMIs with six and seven station, four-minute models deployed in nursing and midwifery student selection respectively. Associations between MMI scores and the cross-discipline programme performance indicators available for each student at this university at the end of year three: clinical practice (assessed by mentors) and academic attainment (dissertation mark) were explored using multiple linear regression adjusting for applicant age, academic entry level, discipline and number of MMI stations.
In the adjusted models, students with higher admissions MMI score (at six and seven stations) performed better in clinical practice (p < 0.001) but not in academic attainment (p = 0.122) at the end of their three-year programme.
These findings provide the first report of the predictive validity of MMIs for performance in clinical practice using six and seven station models in nursing and midwifery programmes. Further evidence is required from both clinical and academic perspectives from larger, multi-site evaluations.
全球医学教育文献中充斥着大量评估多站式迷你面试（MMI）在医学入学中的有效性的研究，但在已发表的研究中，仅有不到 1%是针对护理和助产课程进行的选择研究。
使用注册前成人、儿童和精神健康护理及助产学学生的课程结束时的临床和学术表现指标，来检验 MMIs 的预测效度。
在英国一所大学进行的横断面队列研究。
采用非概率连续抽样策略，邀请所有 2015 年 9 月注册前成人、儿童、精神健康护理和助产学课程的申请人参加。在开始第一年学习的 354 名学生中，有 225 名（64%）完成了为期三年的课程并同意参加（成人 120 名、儿童 32 名、精神健康护理 30 名和助产学 43 名）。
所有申请人均使用 MMIs 进行面试，护理和助产学生选拔中分别使用了 6 站和 7 站、4 分钟的模式。使用多元线性回归，在调整了申请人年龄、学术入学水平、学科和 MMI 站数量后，探索了 MMI 分数与该大学在第三年结束时每个学生可用的跨学科课程表现指标（由导师评估的临床实践和学术成绩（论文成绩）之间的相关性。
在调整后的模型中，招生 MMI 得分较高（在 6 站和 7 站）的学生在临床实践中的表现更好（p<0.001），但在学术成绩方面则不然（p=0.122）。
这些发现首次报告了在护理和助产课程中使用 6 站和 7 站模型的 MMIs 对临床实践表现的预测效度。需要从更大、多站点评估中获得来自临床和学术两个方面的进一步证据。
