All full-time programs will have Multiple Mini Interviews (MMI) as part of their admission process.
WHAT IS MULTIPLE MINI INTERVIEWS (MMI)?
In an MMI, applicants will complete a 1.5 hour circuit of eight, 7-10-minute mini-interview stations, rotating from station to station. The Multiple Mini Interviews (MMI) is similar to an Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) used by medical schools and certifying bodies except that it is not ‘clinical’. At each station, candidates will be presented with a ‘scenario’ or question. They will then respond to a series of questions before proceeding to the next station.
WHAT MIGHT I SEE IN AN MMI SCENARIO?
As in any examination process, the actual scenarios will remain confidential. However, examples of scenarios can be found in Eva KW, et al. (2004)
Here is one example.
The parking garage at your place of work has assigned parking spots. On leaving your spot, you are observed by the garage attendant as you back into a neighboring car, a BMW, knocking out its left front headlight and denting the left front fender. The garage attendant gives you the name and office number of the owner of the neighboring car, telling you that he is calling ahead to the car owner, Tim. The garage attendant tells you that Tim is expecting your visit. Enter Tim’s office.
WHAT WILL AN MMI STATION ASSESS?
Considerable time and attention has been paid to determining the non-cognitive characteristics of the students we believe will make good health care practitioners. The stations will assess characteristics like responsibility, teamwork, ethics, communication, self-reflection etc. that we have established are important.
WHAT IS THE EVIDENCE FOR THE MMI?
McMaster University has been using the MMI instead of the traditional interview for student candidate selection since 2004. In 2003, they ran a parallel process in which volunteers participated in both the MMI and a traditional interview. This has given them a cohort of 45 students who were admitted to medical school and have completed the Medical Council of Canada, Part I examination. They have studied the MMI systematically and carefully during this period and found the MMI process to be reliable and valid.
WHAT ARE THE PROBLEMS WITH THE TRADITIONAL INTERVIEW?
We know from educational research conducted that the ‘score’ received by applicants on the traditional interview can be influenced by the biases, expectations and perspectives of the interviewers. For example, Harasym et al. (1996) demonstrated that interviewer variability accounted for 56% of the total variance in interview ratings. Similarly, we know from examination data, that our most reliable data on student performance is achieved through multiple assessments by multiple assessors. In part, this is due to the fact that ‘good’ performance in one domain (e.g., communication skills) does not predict ‘good’ performance in another domain (e.g., knowledge of the human body). It is also due to the fact that more examiners cause fewer idiosyncrasies in the assessment process than are caused by the use of only one or two assessors. These types of studies have led to the OSCE being adopted as the examination of choice when measuring clinical competence.
ACCEPTABILITY OF MMI
Candidate and examiner feedback are generally positive. The new Northern Ontario school of Medicine used the MMI in its selection process for its inaugural class(2005). MMI has been used in Jerusalem, Brunei, Michigan (Ann Arbor), Australia, Northern Ontario, Calgary, and McMaster. It was used in parallel with the traditional interview at the University of Manitoba in 2006.
CAN I READ MORE ABOUT THE MULTIPLE MINI INTERVIEWS (MMI) AND INTERVIEWING?Eva KW, Reiter HI, Rosenfeld J, Norman GR. The ability of the multiple mini-interview to predict pre-clerkship performance in medical school, Acad Med. 2004, Oct; 79(10 Suppl):S40-2 Eva KW, Reiter HI, Rosenfeld J, Norman GR, The relationship between interviewers’ characteristics and ratings assigned during a multiple mini-interview, Acad Med 2004, 79(6): 602 – 9 Eva KW, Reiter HI, Where judgment fails: pitfalls in the selection process for medical personnel, Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract 2004; 9(2): 161-174 Eva KW, Rosenfeld J, Reiter HI, Norman Gr, An admissions OSCE: The multiple mini interview, Med Educ 2004; 38(3): 314 – 326 Harasym PH, Woloschuk W, Mandin H, Brundin-Mather R, Reliability and validity of interviewers’ judgments of medical school candidates, Acad Med 1996 71: 40S-42S. Reiter HI, Eva KW, Reflecting the relative values of community, faculty, and students in the admissions tools of medical school. Teach Learn Med. 2005 Winter; 17(1):4-8.
Being a healthcare practitioner is a moral undertaking, our admission process aims to admit students:
Who will in their behaviors reflect the following attributes
Who will in their professional relationships
- Take responsibility for their actions
- Act ethically
- Act in a collegial and collaborative manner
- Be reflective
- Be reliable
- Be trustworthy and honest
- Demonstrate respect for others
- Maintain confidences
We aim to admit students who will
- Be self-directed learners
- Be an integral part of an interprofessional healthcare team
- Be willing to self-assess
- Be willing to work hard
- Communicate effectively
- Demonstrate the ability to manage time
- Demonstrate ability to tolerate stress
- Demonstrate good judgement
- Recognize and respect the roles of other healthcare disciplines