TY - JOUR
T1 - Exploring the usefulness of interviewers’ training before and after Multiple Mini Interviews (MMI) for undergraduate medical students’ selection
T2 - Was it really helpful?
AU - Ali, Sobia
AU - Shoaib, Hasan
AU - Rehman, Rehana
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2016, Professional Medical Publications. All rights reserved.
PY - 2016/11/1
Y1 - 2016/11/1
N2 - Objective: To compare the change in interviewers’ perception of Multiple Mini Interviews (MMI) after MMI training and after actual MMI experience. Methods: Six sessions were conducted during two weeks (October 26, 2015- to November 6, 2015) to a total of 87 faculty members. The evaluation dealt with 13 items questionnaire for representation of assessors’ perception on 5 point rating scale. Assessors rated their perceptions to complete an anonymised questionnaire about rationale behind MMI, the process of MMI, and the use of scoring criteria (rubrics). In addition, assessors were also asked to rate their level of satisfaction on MMI process after training and after interviews. Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test (two-tailed) was used to compare participant’s pre- and postinterview ratings. Results: With 81.6% response rate, the positive views of assessors about the MMI selection process and the use of scoring criteria (Rubric) to assess the candidate are not altered after experiencing a MMI selection day (p> 0.001). Assessors (87%) would prefer to be involved in the process of MMI in future. Conclusion: The outstanding consistency of assessors’ ratings before and after interview concluded that MMI training sessions were helpful in improving knowledge and skills about MMI process and candidates’ assessment criteria (rubrics).
AB - Objective: To compare the change in interviewers’ perception of Multiple Mini Interviews (MMI) after MMI training and after actual MMI experience. Methods: Six sessions were conducted during two weeks (October 26, 2015- to November 6, 2015) to a total of 87 faculty members. The evaluation dealt with 13 items questionnaire for representation of assessors’ perception on 5 point rating scale. Assessors rated their perceptions to complete an anonymised questionnaire about rationale behind MMI, the process of MMI, and the use of scoring criteria (rubrics). In addition, assessors were also asked to rate their level of satisfaction on MMI process after training and after interviews. Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test (two-tailed) was used to compare participant’s pre- and postinterview ratings. Results: With 81.6% response rate, the positive views of assessors about the MMI selection process and the use of scoring criteria (Rubric) to assess the candidate are not altered after experiencing a MMI selection day (p> 0.001). Assessors (87%) would prefer to be involved in the process of MMI in future. Conclusion: The outstanding consistency of assessors’ ratings before and after interview concluded that MMI training sessions were helpful in improving knowledge and skills about MMI process and candidates’ assessment criteria (rubrics).
KW - Faculty training evaluation
KW - MMI assessors’ training
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85007494489&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.12669/pjms.326.11175
DO - 10.12669/pjms.326.11175
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85007494489
SN - 1682-024X
VL - 32
SP - 1459
EP - 1463
JO - Pakistan Journal of Medical Sciences
JF - Pakistan Journal of Medical Sciences
IS - 6
ER -