Exploring the usefulness of interviewers’ training before and after Multiple Mini Interviews (MMI) for undergraduate medical students’ selection: Was it really helpful?
Objective: To compare the change in interviewers’ perception of Multiple Mini Interviews (MMI) after MMI training and after actual MMI experience.
Methods: Six sessions were conducted during two weeks (October 26, 2015- to November 6, 2015) to a total of 87 faculty members. The evaluation dealt with 13 items questionnaire for representation of assessors’ perception on 5 point rating scale. Assessors rated their perceptions to complete an anonymised questionnaire about rationale behind MMI, the process of MMI, and the use of scoring criteria (rubrics). In addition, assessors were also asked to rate their level of satisfaction on MMI process after training and after interviews. Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test (two-tailed) was used to compare participant’s pre- and post-interview ratings.
Results: With 81.6% response rate, the positive views of assessors about the MMI selection process and the use of scoring criteria (Rubric) to assess the candidate are not altered after experiencing a MMI selection day (p> 0.001). Assessors (87%) would prefer to be involved in the process of MMI in future.
Conclusion: The outstanding consistency of assessors’ ratings before and after interview concluded that MMI training sessions were helpful in improving knowledge and skills about MMI process and candidates’ assessment criteria (rubrics).
How to cite this:Ali S, Shoaib H, Rehman R. Exploring the usefulness of interviewers’ training before and after Multiple Mini Interviews (MMI) for undergraduate medical students’ selection: Was it really helpful?. Pak J Med Sci. 2016;32(6):1459-1463. doi: https://doi.org/10.12669/pjms.326.11175
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
- There are currently no refbacks.