ArticleBMJ open2022
Feasibility of an automated interview grounded in multiple mini interview (MMI) methodology for selection into the health professions: an international multimethod evaluation.
Article in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Piloting Virtual Multiple Mini Interviews (MMI) on Undergraduate Medical Students: A Multisource Feedback Analysis.Advances in medical education and practice · 2025Article
- New evidence on the validity of the selection methods for recruitment to general practice training: a cohort study.BJGP open · 2024Article
- 'Click, I Guess I'm Done': Applicants' and Assessors' Experiences Transitioning to a Virtual Multiple Mini Interview Format.Perspectives on medical education · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 7 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesGlobal, COVID-driven restrictions around face-to-face interviews for healthcare student selection have forced admission staff to rapidly adopt adapted online systems before supporting evidence is available. We have developed, what we believe is, the first automated interview grounded in multiple mini-interview (MMI) methodology. This study aimed to explore test-retest reliability, acceptability and usability of the system. DESIGN, SETTING AND
participantsMultimethod feasibility study in Physician Associate programmes from two UK and one US university during 2019-2020. PRIMARY, SECONDARY OUTCOMES: Feasibility measures (test-retest reliability, acceptability and usability) were assessed using intraclass correlation (ICC), descriptive statistics, thematic and content analysis.
methodsVolunteers took (T1), then repeated (T2), the automated MMI, with a 7-day interval (±2) then completed an evaluation questionnaire. Admission staff participated in focus group discussions.
resultsSixty-two students and seven admission staff participated; 34 students and 4 staff from UK and 28 students and 3 staff from US universities. Good-excellent test-retest reliability was observed at two sites (US and UK2) with T1 and T2 ICC between 0.65 and 0.81 (p<0.001) when assessed by individual total scores (range 80.6-119), station total scores 0.6-0.91, p<0.005 and individual site (≥0.79 p<0.001). Mean test re-test ICC across all three sites was 0.82 p<0.001 (95% CI 0.7 to 0.9). Admission staff reported potential to reduce resource costs and bias through a more objective screening tool for preselection or to replace some MMI stations in a 'hybrid model'. Maintaining human interaction through 'touch points' was considered essential. Users positively evaluated the system, stating it was intuitive with an accessible interface. Concepts chosen for dynamic probing needed to be appropriately tailored.
conclusionThese preliminary findings suggest that the system is reliable, generating consistent scores for candidates and is acceptable to end users provided human touchpoints are maintained. Thus, there is evidence for the potential of such an automated system to augment healthcare student selection.
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.