Virtual and In-Person Multiple Mini-interviews: A Comparison of Two Modalities in Regard to Bias.

Purpose: To examine the characteristics between virtual multiple mini-interview (vMMI) and in-person interviews (ipMMI) in regard to difference in performance between applicant-reported gender identity and racial groups. Methods: Retrospective multiple mini-interview (MMI) data from two vMMI interview cycles (2021 and 2022) consisting of 627 applicants and four ipMMI cycles (2017-2020) consisting of 2248 applicants. Comparisons were made between applicant subgroups including reported gender (male and female) and minority status (URiM and non-URiM). A three-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to examine the effects of gender, URiM status, and interview modality (in-person vs. virtual) on MMI scores. Results: There were no overall significant differences between annual ipMMI and vMMI scores. A significant main effect of gender was observed, with females scoring higher than males overall. An interaction between gender and URiM status was also found. Although not statistically significant, when the MMI was virtual, URiM applicants on average scored higher than non-URiM applicants. In both the ipMMI and vMMI, URiM males tended to score lower than their non-URiM counterparts, though this difference was not statistically significant. URiM females tended to score higher than non-URiM females during the vMMI, and this difference was statistically significant. Conclusions: The switch to vMMI shows that there are no overall significant differences between the in-person and virtual formats; however, the finding that female URiM's better performance in the virtual setting is novel. The cause of this finding is unknown but most likely reflects the complex interaction between race and gender. This insight requires future study and builds on the evidence that the MMI is an admissions tool to mitigate bias.