ArticlePloS one2024
Multiple mini-interviews as admission process: A study on perception of health science students in Universiti Brunei Darussalam.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAs multiple mini-interviews (MMI) have grown in popularity in selecting applicants to health science programmes, it is essential to comprehend students' views towards MMI and its usefulness in the admissions process. The study aims to explore students' perceptions on the usefulness and satisfaction of the MMI as an admission process into the health science programmes offered in Universiti Brunei Darussalam (UBD).
methodsA cross-sectional study using a self-administered questionnaire was distributed to all Year 1 and 2 health sciences students in the university. For qualitative data, the responses obtained from the answers to the open-ended questions were analyzed manually using thematic analysis. Open coding was performed initially to identify words with similar meanings, recurring patterns and ideas. Focus coding was performed to group codes which sounded and felt similar. Themes were formulated and then reviewed. Descriptive statistics and univariate analysis were applied.
results127 students participated in this study (53.4% response rate). 38.6% underwent the online MMI and 61.4% had the face-to-face MMI. 81% of participants agreed that the MMI was a fair assessment tool (81%), with adequate time allocated (91%), provided opportunity to demonstrate understanding of the profession (81%), and to express themselves (81%) but only 27% agreed that MMI was an enjoyable experience. No statistically significant differences were detected by gender. Those who did online MMI (89%) reported higher opportunity to express themselves, where 80% agreed it was an effective tool to assess selection of students in the health science profession. Univariate analysis revealed that male participants (42%) and those who did the online MMI (40%) were slightly more satisfied than those who did it onsite.
conclusionStudent perception is important for MMIs because it provides valuable insights into the effectiveness and fairness of the interview process. Study participants' perceptions of the MMI were positive, with objective reports on its fairness, timing, and feasibility but felt unprepared for the interview process and less enjoyable. Online MMI is favoured more by participants who rated it higher effectiveness and adequate timing with a better understanding of stations.
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.