Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31297445›Full record

ArticleCanadian journal of respiratory therapy : CJRT = Revue canadienne de la therapie respiratoire : RCTR2019

Assessing noncognitive domains of respiratory therapy applicants: Messick's framework appraisal of the multiple mini-interview.

Marco Zaccagnini

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Canadian journal of respiratory therapy : CJRT = Revue canadienne de la therapie respiratoire : RCTR, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Marco ZaccagniniDepartment of Anesthesia & Critical Care, McGill University Health Centre, Montréal, QC, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Educators who assess incoming applicants into a health professional training program are looking for a wide array of cognitive and noncognitive skills that best predict success in the program and as a future practicing professional. While aptitude tests generally measure cognitive skills, noncognitive constructs are more difficult to measure appropriately. The traditional method of measuring noncognitive constructs has been the panel interview. Panel interviews have been described as inconsistent in measuring noncognitive domains and consistently reported as unreliable and susceptible to bias. An alternate interview method used in many health professions schools is the multiple mini-interview (MMI) that was specifically designed to assess noncognitive domains in health professions education. This paper discusses the purpose of using the MMI, how the MMI is conducted, specific domains of focus for the MMI, and the feasibility of creating an MMI. Finally, the paper uses Messick's framework on validity to guide the consideration of the MMI.

Indexed as

admissioneducationeducational measurementinterviewmultiple-mini interview

Identifiers

PMID31297445
PMCPMC6591782

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.