To examine the personal domains multiple mini interviews (MMIs) are being designed to assess, explore how they were determined and contextualise such domains in current and future healthcare student selection processes DESIGN: A systematic review of empirical research reporting on MMI model design was conducted from database inception to November 2017.
Twelve electronic bibliographic databases.
Evidence was extracted from original studies, and integrated in a narrative synthesis guided by the PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews. Personal domains were clustered into themes using a modified Delphi technique.
A total of 584 articles were screened. 65 unique studies (80 articles) matched our inclusion criteria of which seven were conducted within nursing/midwifery faculties. Six in 10 studies featured applicants to medical school. Across selection processes, we identified 32 personal domains assessed by MMIs, the most frequent being: communication skills (84%), teamwork/collaboration (70%), and ethical/moral judgement (65%). Domains capturing ability to cope with stressful situations (14%), make decisions (14%), and resolve conflict in the workplace (13%) featured in fewer than ten studies overall. Intra- and inter-disciplinary inconsistencies in domain profiles were noted, as well as differences by entry level. MMIs deployed in nursing and midwifery assessed compassion and decision-making more frequently than in all other disciplines. Own programme philosophy and professional body guidance were most frequently cited (~50%) as sources for personal domains; a blueprinting process was reported in only 8% of studies.
Nursing, midwifery and allied healthcare professionals should develop their theoretical frameworks for MMIs to ensure they are evidence-based and fit-for-purpose. We suggest a re-evaluation of domain priorities to ensure that students who are selected, not only have the capacity to offer the highest standards of care provision, but are able to maintain these standards when facing clinical practice and organisational pressures.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 22 February 2018.
All research outputs
#19,028,127
of 30,068,821 outputs
Outputs from Nurse Education Today
#1,790
of 2,774 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#261,221
of 456,813 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nurse Education Today
#52
of 66 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 30,068,821 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,774 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.1. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 456,813 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 66 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
