| Title |
Multiple mini interviews: revealing similarities across institutions
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Education, August 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12909-018-1298-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Barbara Griffin, Jaime Auton, Robbert Duvivier, Boaz Shulruf, Wendy Hu |
| Abstract |
Across the globe multiple mini interviews (MMIs) have rapidly replaced the use of panel interviews in the selection of medical students and other health professionals. MMIs typically demonstrate better reliability and validity than panel interviews but there is limited research on whether these different types of interview process measure the same or different constructs. Our research aims to ascertain if MMIs are multidimensional or unidimensional, and whether MMIs conducted at different institutions assess the same or different constructs to each other or to panel interviews. Participants were applicants to medical degrees who were shortlisted for interviews at three different institutions in 2013 (n = 165) and 2014 (n = 128). Two institutions used a bespoke MMI developed independently from each other and the third used a panel interview. Stations scores and overall (mean) interview scores were examined. Exploratory principal components analysis and confirmatory factor analysis showed similar results in both years' data, supporting a unidimensional model. The two overall MMI scores were more strongly correlated to each other (r = .56 and .64 in 2013 and 2014 respectively) than either were to the panel interview scores (r = .07 and .15 in 2013; .39 and .48 in 2014). It appears that both MMIs panel interviews tap a single latent construct, but not the same construct. We suggest that the MMI methodology might allow the measurement of an emergent construct such as adaptability. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 3 | 60% |
| Spain | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 1 | 20% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 80% |
| Scientists | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 40 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 6 | 15% |
| Researcher | 5 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 10% |
| Professor | 3 | 8% |
| Lecturer | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 6 | 15% |
| Unknown | 14 | 35% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 28% |
| Psychology | 6 | 15% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 5% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 3% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 5 | 13% |
| Unknown | 14 | 35% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 10 August 2018.
All research outputs
#13,270,137
of 23,099,576 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#1,614
of 3,387 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#161,931
of 330,726 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#38
of 72 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,099,576 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,387 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 gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% 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 330,726 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 72 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.