↓ Skip to main content

Multiple mini interview (MMI) for general practice training selection in Australia: interviewers’ motivation

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Education, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
11 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
35 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Multiple mini interview (MMI) for general practice training selection in Australia: interviewers’ motivation
Published in
BMC Medical Education, January 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12909-018-1128-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Annette Burgess, Chris Roberts, Premala Sureshkumar, Karyn Mossman

Abstract

Multiple Mini Interviews (MMIs) are being used by a growing number of postgraduate training programs and medical schools as their interview process for selection entry. The Australian General Practice and Training (AGPT) used a National Assessment Centre (NAC) approach to selection into General Practice (GP) Training, which include MMIs. Interviewing is a resource intensive process, and implementation of the MMI requires a large number of interviewers, with a number of candidates being interviewed simultaneously. In 2015, 308 interviewers participated in the MMI process - a decrease from 340 interviewers in 2014, and 310 in 2013. At the same time, the number of applicants has steadily increased, with 1930 applications received in 2013; 2254 in 2014; and 2360 in 2015. This has raised concerns regarding the increasing recruitment needs, and the need to retain interviewers for subsequent years of MMIs. In order to investigate interviewers' reasons for participating in MMIs, we utilised self-determination theory (SDT) to consider interviewers' motivation to take part in MMIs at national selection centres. In 2015, 308 interviewers were recruited from 17 Regional Training Providers (RTPs) to participate in the MMI process at one of 15 NACs. For this study, a convenience sample of NAC sites was used. Forty interviewers were interviewed (n = 40; 40/308 = 13%) from five NACs. Framework analysis was used to code and categorise data into themes. Interviewers' motivation to take part as interviewers were largely related to their sense of duty, their desire to contribute their expertise to the process, and their desire to have input into selection of GP Registrars; a sense of duty to their profession; and an opportunity to meet with colleagues and future trainees. Interviewers also highlighted factors hindering motivation, which sometimes included the large number of candidates seen in one day. Interviewers' motivation for contributing to the MMIs was largely related to their desire to contribute to their profession, and ultimately improve future patient care. Interviewers recognised the importance of interviewing, and felt their individual roles made a crucial contribution to the profession of general practice. Good administration and leadership at each NAC is needed. By gaining an understanding of interviewers' motivation, and enhancing this, engagement and retention of interviewers may be increased.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 35 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Lecturer 5 14%
Student > Master 3 9%
Other 3 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 9%
Researcher 3 9%
Other 7 20%
Unknown 11 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 37%
Psychology 4 11%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 6%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 9 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 April 2018.
All research outputs
#4,770,955
of 23,881,329 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#796
of 3,576 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#103,703
of 445,504 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#14
of 58 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,881,329 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,576 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 445,504 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 58 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.