My Love for the Multiple Mini Interview
For those of us who have complained about the seemingly poor predictive validity of school grades to actual career-related knowledge (I am guilty), the MMI (Multiple Mini Interview) has been a solution sent from heaven. The Multiple Mini Interview is an interviewing technique utilized by various medical schools across Canada, consisting of short question/scenario stations in which potential medical school candidates have approximately two minutes to prepare an answer to the proposed scenario, and about eight minutes to engage in an interaction with the interviewer, or are evaluated on their problem-solving skills by an assessor.
The reason why I believe that this interviewing strategy has revolutionized the selection process of potential medical school candidates is because it deviates from the traditional mindless memorization of facts needed for multiple-choice school exams. This test is not utilized to evaluate medical-specific knowledge. Also, it has the ability to assess non-cognitive qualities that I believe are fundamental in choosing a candidate to work in the healthcare industry. This includes communication skills, empathy, patience, and sensitivity towards others.
Through evaluation data, it has been shown that reliability coefficients lie around the 0.73 mark with 12 10-minute stations and the test has positive predictive correlations with performance as a healthcare professional (Eva, 2009). In comparison to the MCAT (Medical College Admissions Test) and GPA scores, there is a stronger level of incremental validity with the MMI (Siu, 2009). Generally, the interview stations pose situations involving ethical decision making surrounding current issues regarding healthcare and societal issues. There is no right or wrong answer, but the ability to answer in an efficient and patient-sensitive manner is desired. In my opinion, this is a crucial ability that every health care professional should have as they are often placed in highly stressful situations in which on-the-spot thinking is required.
I also believe that this is a valuable interviewing strategy because applicants often find this instrument to be a fairer and more effective tool in evaluating potential medical school applicants, as discussed in a paper by Fraga et. Al., which shows that the MMI possesses strong face validity (2013).
Overall, I think that the implementation of this evaluation method would work as a great predictor of future performance as a health care professional when used in combination with the MCAT and GPA scores, which is what a few medical schools across Canada have already done. This post has focused on the benefits of the interview processes, but one of the main issues that can be found in the MMI is the subjectivity of the interviewer. To tackle this issue, I believe that rigorous training modules for assessors would be the first step.
With less of an academic based testing approach and more of a situational-dependent approach, we can now expect more patient-friendly doctors graduating in the future. And as a future medical-school applicant, I could not be happier about this form of evaluation. I mean, who would’ve thought that binge watching those emotion-laden, worst-case scenario dramatics in Grey’s Anatomy would help me in my academic career?
References:
Eva, K. W., Reiter, H. I., Trinh, K., Wasi, P., Rosenfeld, J., & Norman, G. R. (2009). Predictive validity of the multiple mini-interview for selecting medical trainees. Medical Education, 43(8), 767–775. Retrieved March 15, 2016.
Fraga, J. D., Oluwasanjo, A., Wasser, T., Donato, A., & Alweis, R. (2013). Reliability and acceptability of a five-station multiple mini-interview model for residency program recruitment. Journal of Community Hospital Internal Medicine Perspectives, 3(3–4). Retrieved March 17, 2016.
NYU School of Medicine. (n.d.). Multiple Mini-Interview (MMI) FAQ. Retrieved March 17, 2016, from http://www.med.nyu.edu/school/md-admissions/mmi-faqs
Siu, E., & Reiter, H. I. (2009). Overview: What’s worked and what hasn’t as a guide towards predictive admissions tool development. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 14(5), 759–775. Retrieved March 17, 2016.
