Cited by 46Medical Education and AdmissionsInnovations in Medical EducationEmployer Branding and e-HRM

Evaluation of a multiple-mini-interview protocol used as a selection tool for entry to an undergraduate nursing programme

Perkins, Andrew, Burton, Louise, Dray, Beattie, Elcock, Karen·2013·Nurse Education Today

Abstract

Whilst an individual's cognitive skills are essential for academic progress, the possession of non-cognitive skills, such as empathy and ethical judgement are attributes required and valued in those applying to join healthcare programmes and by the profession itself. Doubts have been expressed, however, whether final selection using traditional interviewing methods serve adequately to reveal these key competencies. Kingston University and St George's University of London, therefore, have employed the Multiple-Mini-Interview (MMI) system for those applying to their BSc Nursing Programme. The MMI comprises a series of interview 'stations' where candidates respond to scenarios and are assessed on their display of required skills/competences. 890 candidates and 82 interviewers completed a short questionnaire to gauge their reaction to the concept. There were positive responses from candidates with 65% replying that it was "a better experience" compared with traditional interviews. Unsolicited comment was generally found to refer to restrictions on opportunities to express enthusiasm for nursing. Interviewers likewise responded positively with 71% noting "a better experience." Unsolicited feedback indicated that some would have preferred to have had greater opportunity to discuss nursing issues, with their interviewees. It has been agreed that the MMI system of interviewing will be retained and further work will include the tracking of students through and into the workplace.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.nedt.2012.04.023

Cites

18 of 18 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Perkins, A., Burton, L., Dray, B., & Elcock, K.
Affiliations
St George's, University of London (GB)
Corresponding author
Perkins, Andrew
Venue
Nurse Education Today
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2013-05
Volume
33
Issue
5
Pages
465-469
ISSN
0260-6917 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2035699114
Cited by
46
References
18
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 4
FWCI
2.17
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Nurse Education Today (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Repository (Kingston University London) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Medical Education and Admissions
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Employer Branding and e-HRM
Keywords
multiple mini-interviews, non-cognitive skills, empathy, moral judgment, interview assessment, candidate experience, interviewer perceptions, scenario-based assessment, nurse recruitment
MeSH terms
Attitude, Education, Nursing, Baccalaureate, Humans, Interviews as Topic, London, School Admission Criteria, Reproducibility of Results

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review