Validity evidence for a virtual multiple mini interview at a pharmacy program

BMC Medical Education

Research

Wendy C. Cox¹  Jacqueline E. McLaughlin²  Sarah Hammond³ 

[1] Division of Practice Advancement and Clinical Education, Associate Dean for Admissions and Accreditation, UNC Eshelman School of Pharmacy, UNC Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA;UNC Eshelman School of Pharmacy, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 27599, Chapel Hill, NC, USA;Division of Practice Advancement and Clinical Education, Director, Center for Innovative Pharmacy Education and Research, UNC Eshelman School of Pharmacy, UNC Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA;School of Social Work, UNC Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA;

关键词: Multiple mini interview;    Virtual;    Validity;    Remote;    Assessment;    Pharmacy;   

DOI  :  10.1186/s12909-023-04521-9

 received in 2023-03-16, accepted in 2023-07-18,  发布年份 2023

来源: Springer

【 摘 要 】

BackgroundNumerous health professions schools have transitioned to virtual admissions interviews in recent years. While some research suggests that virtual multiple mini-interviews (vMMIs) are feasible, acceptable, and more affordable, there is a paucity of research concerning the validity of this approach. The purpose of this study was to examine the validity and reliability of vMMIs and explore differences in performance between vMMI and in-person MMIs.MethodsData were collected for two years of in-person MMIs and two years of vMMIs at a pharmacy program/school in the United States. An exploratory factor analysis (principal components analysis) with varimax rotation and Kaiser rule (i.e. retaining factors with eigenvalue > 1.0) was used to explore the construct validity of the vMMI data. Pearson correlation was used to examine correlations between vMMI stations and Cronbach alpha was used to determine the internal consistency of each station. Independent t-tests were used to examine differences between in-person MMI and vMMI scores. Cohen’s d was used to determine effect sizes.ResultsFour hundred and thirty-eight (42.69%) candidates completed an in-person MMI and 588 (57.31%) completed a vMMI. Factor analysis indicated that each vMMI station formed a single factor with loads ranging from 0.86 to 0.96. The vMMI stations accounted for most of the total variance, demonstrated weak to negligible intercorrelations, and high internal consistency. Significant differences between in-person and vMMI scores were found for the teamwork-giving, teamwork-receiving, and integrity stations. Medium effect sizes were found for teamwork-giving and teamwork-receiving and a small effect size was found for integrity.ConclusionsInitial evidence suggests that the vMMI is a valid and reliable alternative to in-person MMIs. Additional research is needed to examine sources of differences in rating patterns between the two approaches and identify strategies that align with institutional priorities for recruitment and admissions.

【 授权许可】

CC BY   
© BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2023