ArticleJournal of advances in medical education & professionalism2020
Reliability and acceptability of the multiple mini-interview for selection of residents in cardiology.
Article in Journal of advances in medical education & professionalism, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Evidence-Based Practices for Interviewing Graduate Medical Education Applicants: A Systematic Review.Journal of graduate medical education · 2024Pooled it
- AAIM Recommendations to Promote Equity and Inclusion in the Internal Medicine Residency Interview Process.The American journal of medicine · 2022Article
- Reliability and acceptability of the multiple mini-interviews for selection of residents in cardiology: Student response.Journal of advances in medical education & professionalism · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe multiple mini-interview (MMI) model can be useful to evaluate non-cognitive domains and guide the selection process in medical residency programs. The aim of this study was to evaluate the reliability and acceptability of the MMI model for the selection of residents in a cardiology residency program.
methodsWe conducted an observational and prospective study. It was performed in a tertiary-care center specialized in cardiology and included candidates for the cardiology residency program in March 2018. Ten stations were developed to evaluate different non-cognitive domains. Reliability was evaluated by the generalizability G coefficient. Candidates and interviewers were surveyed to evaluate the acceptability of the MMI model.
resultsNine faculty members were trained and 22 candidates were evaluated. The G study showed a relative G coefficient between 0.56 and 0.73, according to the design. 91% of the candidates stated that they preferred MMI over other types of interviews as a selection method for admission to the residency program, and all the interviewers considered they had enough time to evaluate the candidates and their strengths as future residents.
conclusionThe MMI is a reliable model to evaluate candidates for a residency program in cardiology with high acceptability among residents and observers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.