↓ Skip to main content

Using the multiple mini interview as an assessment strategy within the first year of a health professions curriculum

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Education, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
42 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Using the multiple mini interview as an assessment strategy within the first year of a health professions curriculum
Published in
BMC Medical Education, May 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12909-018-1203-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michael D. Wolcott, Jacqueline M. Zeeman, Wendy C. Cox, Jacqueline E. McLaughlin

Abstract

The multiple mini-interview (MMI) is a common assessment strategy used in student selection. The MMI as an assessment strategy within a health professions curriculum, however, has not been previously studied. This study describes the integration of a 5-station MMI as part of an end-of-year capstone following the first year of a health professions curriculum. The goal of the capstone MMI was to assess professional competencies of students and to offer formative feedback to prepare students for their upcoming clinical practice experiences. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the psychometric properties of an MMI integrated into a health professions curriculum. Five capstone MMI stations were designed to each evaluate a single construct assessed by one rater. A principal component analysis (PCA) was used to evaluate the structure of the model and its ability to distinguish 5 separate constructs. A Multifaceted Rasch Measurement (MFRM) model assessed student performance and estimated the sources of measurement error attributed to 3 facets: student ability, rater stringency, and station difficulty. At the conclusion, students were surveyed about the capstone MMI experience. The PCA confirmed the MMI reliably assessed 5 unique constructs and performance on each station was not strongly correlated with one another. The 3-facet MFRM analysis explained 58.79% of the total variance in student scores. Specifically, 29.98% of the variance reflected student ability, 20.25% reflected rater stringency, and 8.56% reflected station difficulty. Overall, the data demonstrated an acceptable fit to the MFRM model. The majority of students agreed the MMI allowed them to effectively demonstrate their communication (80.82%), critical thinking (78.77%), and collaboration skills (70.55%). The MMI can be a valuable assessment strategy of professional competence within a health professions curriculum. These findings suggest the MMI is well-received by students and can produce reliable results. Future research should explore the impact of using the MMI as a strategy to monitor longitudinal competency development and inform feedback approaches.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 42 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 42 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 14%
Lecturer 5 12%
Researcher 4 10%
Student > Postgraduate 3 7%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 7%
Other 10 24%
Unknown 11 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 29%
Psychology 5 12%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 7%
Mathematics 2 5%
Arts and Humanities 2 5%
Other 10 24%
Unknown 8 19%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 May 2018.
All research outputs
#9,867,830
of 12,889,535 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#1,400
of 1,829 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#186,040
of 269,063 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,889,535 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,829 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 269,063 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them