Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Perspectives on Medical Education
Published in: Perspectives on Medical Education 5/2022

Open Access 22-09-2022 | Review Article

Best practices for interviewing applicants for medical school admissions: a systematic review

Authors: John C. Lin, Anagha Lokhande, Curtis E. Margo, Paul B. Greenberg

Published in: Perspectives on Medical Education | Issue 5/2022

Login to get access

Abstract

Introduction

Interviews are commonly used to select applicants for medical school, residency, and fellowship. However, interview techniques vary in acceptability, feasibility, reliability, and validity. This systematic review investigated the effectiveness of different interview methods in selecting the best qualified applicants for admission to medical school and developed a logic model to implement best practices for interviewing.

Methods

Five electronic literature databases were searched for comparative studies related to interviewing in medical schools from inception through February 1, 2021. Inclusion criteria included publications in English that compared different methods of conducting a selection interview in medical schools with a controlled trial design. General study characteristics, measurement methodologies, and outcomes were reviewed. Quality appraisal was performed using the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument (MERSQI) and the Oxford Risk of Bias Scale. Based on these findings, a logic model was constructed using content analysis.

Results

Thirteen studies were included. The multiple mini-interview (MMI) was reliable, unbiased, and predicted clinical and academic performance; the virtual MMI increased reliability and lowered costs. For unstructured interviews, blinding interviewers to academic scores reduced bias towards higher scorers; student and faculty interviewers rated applicants similarly. Applicants preferred structured over unstructured interviews. Study quality was above average per the MERSQI, risk of bias was high per the Oxford scale, and between-study heterogeneity was substantial.

Discussion

There were few high-quality studies on interviewing applicants for admission to medical school; the MMI appears to offer a reliable method of interviewing. A logic model can provide a conceptual framework for conducting evidence-based admissions interviews.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Monroe A, Quinn E, Samuelson W, Dunleavy DM, Dowd KW. An overview of the medical school admission process and use of applicant data in decision making: What has changed since the 1980s? Acad Med. 2013;88:672–81.CrossRef
2.
3.
Kreiter CD, Yin P, Solow C, Brennan RL. Investigating the reliability of the medical school admissions interview. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2004;9:147–59.CrossRef
4.
Salvatori P. Reliability and validity of admissions tools used to select students for the health professions. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2001;6:159–75.CrossRef
5.
Eva KW, Reiter HI. Where judgement fails: Pitfalls in the selection process for medical personnel. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2004;9:161–74.CrossRef
6.
Burkhardt JC, Stansfield RB, Vohra T, Losman E, Turner-Lawrence D, Hopson LR. Prognostic value of the multiple mini-interview for emergency medicine residency performance. J Emerg Med. 2015;49:196–202.CrossRef
7.
DeVaul RA, Jervey F, Chappell JA, Caver P, Short B, O’Keefe S. Medical school performance of initially rejected students. JAMA. 1987;257:47–51.CrossRef
8.
Kelly ME, Dowell J, Husbands A, et al. The fairness, predictive validity and acceptability of multiple mini interview in an internationally diverse student population – a mixed methods study. BMC Med Educ. 2014;14:267.CrossRef
9.
Shaw DL, Martz DM, Lancaster CJ, Sade RM. Influence of medical school applicants’ demographic and cognitive characteristics on interviewers’ ratings of noncognitive traits. Acad Med. 1995;70:532–6.CrossRef
10.
Pau A, Jeevaratnam K, Chen YS, Fall AA, Khoo C, Nadarajah VD. The multiple mini-interview (MMI) for student selection in health professions training—A systematic review. Med Teach. 2013;35:1027–41.CrossRef
11.
Rees EL, Hawarden AW, Dent G, Hays R, Bates J, Hassell AB. Evidence regarding the utility of multiple mini-interview (MMI) for selection to undergraduate health programs: A BEME systematic review: BEME Guide No. 37. Med Teach. 2016;38:443–55.CrossRef
12.
Kneale D, Thomas J, Harris K. Developing and optimising the use of logic models in systematic reviews: Exploring practice and good practice in the use of programme theory in reviews. PLoS ONE. 2015;10:e142187.CrossRef
13.
Baxter SK, Blank L, Woods HB, Payne N, Rimmer M, Goyder E. Using logic model methods in systematic review synthesis: Describing complex pathways in referral management interventions. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014;14:62.CrossRef
14.
Patterson F, Knight A, Dowell J, Nicholson S, Cousans F, Cleland J. How effective are selection methods in medical education? A systematic review. Med Educ. 2016;50:36–60.CrossRef
15.
Knorr M, Hissbach J. Multiple mini-interviews: Same concept, different approaches. Med Educ. 2014;48:1157–75.CrossRef
16.
Albanese MA, Snow MH, Skochelak SE, Huggett KN, Farrell PM. Assessing personal qualities in medical school admissions. Acad Med. 2003;78:313–21.CrossRef
17.
Callwood A, Jeevaratnam K, Kotronoulas G, Schneider A, Lewis L, Nadarajah VD. Personal domains assessed in multiple mini interviews (MMIs) for healthcare student selection: A narrative synthesis systematic review. Nurse Educ Today. 2018;64:56–64.CrossRef
18.
Cook DA, Beckman TJ. Reflections on experimental research in medical education. Adv Health Sci Educ. 2010;15:455–64.CrossRef
19.
Maclure M, Mittleman MA. Should we use a case-crossover design? Annu Rev Public Health. 2000;21:193–221.CrossRef
20.
Redelmeier DA, Tibshirani RJ. Interpretation and bias in case-crossover studies. J Clin Epidemiol. 1997;50:1281–7.CrossRef
21.
Cook DA, Reed DA. Appraising the quality of medical education research methods: the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument and the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale-Education. Acad Med. 2015;90:1067–76.CrossRef
22.
Detweiler BN, Kollmorgen LE, Umberham BA, Hedin RJ, Vassar BM. Risk of bias and methodological appraisal practices in systematic reviews published in anaesthetic journals: A meta-epidemiological study. Anaesthesia. 2016;71:955–68.CrossRef
23.
Albanese MA, Snow M, Skochelak S, Huggett K, Farrell PM. Matriculating student perceptions of changes to the admissions interview process at the University of Wisconsin Medical School: A prospective, controlled comparison. WMJ. 2003;102:30–3.
24.
Reiter HI, Salvatori P, Rosenfeld J, Trinh K, Eva KW. The effect of defined violations of test security on admissions outcomes using multiple mini-interviews. Med Educ. 2006;40:36–42.CrossRef
25.
Uijtdehaage S, Doyle L, Parker N. Enhancing the reliability of the multiple mini-interview for selecting prospective health care leaders. Acad Med. 2011;86:1032–9.CrossRef
26.
Eddins-Folensbee F, Harris T, Miller-Wasik M, Thompson B. Students versus faculty members as admissions interviewers comparisons of ratings data and admissions decisions. Acad Med. 2012;87:458–62.CrossRef
27.
Husbands A, Dowell J. Predictive validity of the Dundee multiple mini-interview. Med Educ. 2013;47:717–25.CrossRef
28.
Tiller D, O’Mara D, Rothnie I, Dunn S, Lee L, Roberts C. Internet-based multiple mini-interviews for candidate selection for graduate entry programmes. Med Educ. 2013;47:801–10.CrossRef
29.
Hissbach J, Sehner S, Harendza S, Hampe W. Cutting costs of multiple mini-interviews—Changes in reliability and efficiency of the Hamburg medical school admission test between two applications. BMC Med Educ. 2014;14:54.CrossRef
30.
Gay S, Santen S, Mangrulkar R, Sission T, Ross P, Zaidi N. The influence of MCAT and GPA preadmission academic metrics on interview scores. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2018;23:151–8.CrossRef
31.
Kim K‑J, Kwon BS. Does the sequence of rotations in Multiple Mini Interview stations influence the candidates’ performance? Med Educ. 2018;23:1485433.
32.
Yusoff MSB. Comparison between personality, emotional, and educational outcomes of multiple mini interviews and personal interview. Oman Med J. 2020;35:e199.CrossRef
33.
Yusoff MSB. A comparative study on the psychological health status of pre-clinical medical students enrolled through different admission tests. J Taibah Univ Med Sci. 2020;15:439–46.
34.
Simon SD. Statistical evidence in medical trials: What do the data really tell us? Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2006.
35.
Chung H‑O, Oczkowski SJW, Hanvey L, Mbuagbaw L, You JJ. Educational interventions to train healthcare professionals in end-of-life communication: A systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Med Educ. 2016;16:131.CrossRef
36.
Taksøe-Vester C, Dyre L, Schroll J, Tabor A, Tolsgaard M. Simulation-based ultrasound training in obstetrics and gynecology: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultraschall Med. 2021;42:e42–e54.CrossRef
37.
O’Brien A, Harvey J, Shannon M, Lewis K, Valencia O. A comparison of multiple mini-interviews and structured interviews in a UK setting. Med Teach. 2011;33:397–402.CrossRef
38.
Balshem H, Helfand M, Schünemann HJ, et al. GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64:401–6.CrossRef
39.
Guyatt G, Oxman AD, Akl EA, et al. GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction—GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings table. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64:383–94.CrossRef
40.
Moncher FJ, Prinz RJ. Treatment fidelity in outcome studies. Clin Psychol Rev. 1991;11:247–66.CrossRef
41.
Hadinger MA. Underrepresented minorities in medical school admissions: A qualitative study. Teach Learn Med. 2017;29:31–41.CrossRef
42.
Jones RE, Abdelfattah KR. Virtual interviews in the era of Covid-19: A primer for applicants. J Surg Educ. 2020;77:733–4.CrossRef
43.
Novick MR. The axioms and principal results of classical test theory. J Math Psychol. 1966;3:1–18.CrossRef
44.
Allen MJ, Yen WM. Introduction to measurement theory. Long Grove: Waveland; 2001.
45.
Eva KW, Macala C. Multiple mini-interview test characteristics: Tis better to ask candidates to recall than to imagine. Med Educ. 2014;48:604–13.CrossRef
46.
Roberts C, Walton M, Rothnie I, et al. Factors affecting the utility of the multiple mini-interview in selecting candidates for graduate-entry medical school. Med Educ. 2008;42:396–404.CrossRef
47.
Jerant A, Griffin E, Rainwater J, et al. Does applicant personality influence multiple mini-interview performance and medical school acceptance offers? Acad Med. 2012;87:1250–9.CrossRef
48.
Straus SG, Miles JA, Levesque LL. The effects of videoconference, telephone, and face-to-face media on interviewer and applicant judgments in employment interviews. J Manage. 2001;27:363–81.
49.
Chapman DS, Rowe PM. The influence of videoconference technology and interview structure on the recruiting function of the employment interview: A field experiment. Int J Sel Assess. 2002;10:185–97.CrossRef
50.
Seijts G, Kyei-Poku I. The role of situational interviews in fostering positive reactions to selection decisions. Appl Psychol. 2010;59:431–53.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Best practices for interviewing applicants for medical school admissions: a systematic review
Authors
John C. Lin
Anagha Lokhande
Curtis E. Margo
Paul B. Greenberg
Publication date
22-09-2022
Publisher
Bohn Stafleu van Loghum
Published in
Perspectives on Medical Education / Issue 5/2022
Print ISSN: 2212-2761
Electronic ISSN: 2212-277X
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40037-022-00726-8

Other articles of this Issue 5/2022

Perspectives on Medical Education 5/2022 Go to the issue

Review Article

How does portfolio use affect self-regulated learning in clinical workplace learning: What works, for whom, and in what contexts?

Health Care and the Arts

‘Things we are expected to just do and deal with’: Using the medical humanities to encourage reflection on vulnerability and nurture clinical skills, collegiality, compassion, and self-care

Show and Tell

The system, the resident, and the preceptor: a curricular approach to continuity of care training

Original Article

Assessment of final-year medical students’ entrustable professional activities after education on an interprofessional training ward: A case-control study

Original Article

Early career experiences of international medical program graduates: An international, longitudinal, mixed-methods study

Original Article

Continuing professional development challenges in a rural setting: A mixed-methods study