↓ Skip to main content

Reliability of Multiple Mini-Interviews and traditional interviews within and between institutions: a study of five California medical schools

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Education, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
36 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
Reliability of Multiple Mini-Interviews and traditional interviews within and between institutions: a study of five California medical schools
Published in
BMC Medical Education, November 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12909-017-1030-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anthony Jerant, Mark C. Henderson, Erin Griffin, Julie A. Rainwater, Theodore R. Hall, Carolyn J. Kelly, Ellena M. Peterson, David Wofsy, Peter Franks

Abstract

Many medical schools use admissions Multiple Mini-Interviews (MMIs) rather than traditional interviews (TIs), partly because MMIs are thought to be more reliable. Yet prior studies examined single-school samples of candidates completing either an MMI or TI (not both). Using data from five California public medical schools, the authors examined the within- and between-school reliabilities of TIs and MMIs. The analyses included applicants interviewing at ≥1 of the five schools during 2011-2013. Three schools employed TIs (TI1, TI2, TI3) and two employed MMIs (MMI1, MMI2). Mixed linear models accounting for nesting of observations within applicants examined standardized TI and MMI scores (mean = 0, SD = 1), adjusting for applicant socio-demographics, academic metrics, year, number of interviews, and interview date. A total of 4993 individuals (completing 7516 interviews [TI = 4137, MMI = 3379]) interviewed at ≥1 school; 428 (14.5%) interviewed at both MMI schools and 687 (20.2%) at more than one TI school. Within schools, inter-interviewer consistency was generally qualitatively lower for TI1, TI2, and TI3 (Pearson's r 0.07, 0.13, and 0.29, and Cronbach's α, 0.40, 0.44, and 0.61, respectively) than for MMI1 and MMI 2 (Cronbach's α 0.68 and 0.60, respectively). Between schools, the adjusted intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.27 (95% CI 0.20-0.35) for TIs and 0.47 (95% CI 0.41-0.54) for MMIs. Within and between-school reliability was qualitatively higher for MMIs than for TIs. Nonetheless, TI reliabilities were higher than anticipated from prior literature, suggesting TIs may not need to be abandoned on reliability grounds if other factors favor their use.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 36 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 14%
Professor 4 11%
Lecturer 4 11%
Researcher 3 8%
Student > Bachelor 3 8%
Other 10 28%
Unknown 7 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 36%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 8%
Psychology 3 8%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 6%
Other 5 14%
Unknown 8 22%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 04 December 2017.
All research outputs
#4,284,308
of 17,186,405 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#693
of 2,415 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#92,880
of 329,237 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#77
of 254 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,186,405 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,415 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% 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 329,237 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 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 254 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.