ArticleJMIR medical education2026
AI-Generated Multiple Mini Interview (MMI) Stations for Medical School Admissions: Psychometric Evaluation.
Article in JMIR medical education, 2026. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Multiple mini interviews (MMIs) are widely used in medical school admissions to assess applicants' nonacademic attributes in a structured and reliable manner. However, the development of high-quality MMI stations is resource intensive and dependent on expert input. Objective: This study explored the utility of artificial intelligence (AI) in the generation of MMI stations for the Direct and Graduate Entry Medicine Program admissions process for domestic applicants at Monash Medical School. To our knowledge, this study represents the first empirical evaluation of AI-generated MMI stations deployed in a real-world medical school admissions context. Methods: A total of 56 MMI stations from the 2025 admissions cycle were evaluated, including 17 (30.4%) AI-generated and 39 (69.6%) traditionally developed stations, administered across 824 domestic applicants for a total of 4897 applicant-station interactions. We assessed station quality through both reliability (using Cronbach α to examine internal consistency) and discrimination capability (using SD and range of scores) at the station level. Results: AI-generated stations exhibited slightly higher reliability (α=0.82) compared with traditional stations (α=0.81), though this difference was not statistically significant (P=.91). Both AI-generated and traditionally developed stations demonstrated variable discrimination capability, with some stations from each development method showing excellent combinations of high reliability and strong discriminatory power, while others exhibited ceiling effects that limited their discriminatory power. Of note, a greater proportion of AI-generated stations were classified as optimal (α>0.85), and a smaller proportion were classified in the review category (α<0.75), compared with traditional stations. These results suggest that AI-generated stations can achieve psychometric performance comparable to traditionally developed stations. Conclusions: Our findings highlight the utility of AI as a useful tool for MMI station generation, offering a scalable approach that may reduce the resource burden on faculty while maintaining or enhancing psychometric quality for applicants. Ongoing quality assurance and evaluation remain essential to ensure fairness and validity across the admissions process.
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.