The multiple mini-interview for selecting medical residents: first experience in the Middle East region
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Numerous studies have shown that multiple mini-interviews (MMI) provides a standard, fair, and more reliable method for assessing applicants. This article presents the first MMI experience for selection of medical residents in the Middle East culture and an Arab country. METHODS: In 2012, we started using the MMI in interviewing applicants to the residency program of Dubai Health Authority. This interview process consisted of eight, eight-minute structured interview scenarios. Applicants rotated through the stations, each with its own interviewer and scenario. They read the scenario and were requested to discuss the issues with the interviewers. Sociodemographic and station assessment data provided for each applicant were analyzed to determine whether the MMI was a reliable assessment of the non-clinical attributes in the present setting of an Arab country. RESULTS: One hundred and eighty-seven candidates from 27 different countries were interviewed for Dubai Residency Training Program using MMI. They were graduates of 5 medical universities within United Arab Emirates (UAE) and 60 different universities outside UAE. With this applicant's pool, a MMI with eight stations, produced absolute and relative reliability of 0.8 and 0.81, respectively. The person × station interaction contributed 63% of the variance components, the person contributed 34% of the variance components, and the station contributed 2% of the variance components. DISCUSSION: The MMI has been used in numerous universities in English speaking countries. The MMI evaluates non-clinical attributes and this study provides further evidence for its reliability but in a different country and culture. The MMI offers a fair and more reliable assessment of applicants to medical residency programs. The present data show that this assessment technique applied in a non-western country and Arab culture still produced reliable results.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
In Ahmed et al. (2014), an MMI with 8 stations produced absolute reliability of 0.8 and relative reliability of 0.81.
“A MMI with 8 stations, produced absolute and relative reliability of 0.8 and 0.81, respectively”
From Multiple Mini Interview as an admission tool in higher education: Insights from a systematic review (2019) · cites this paper as Ahmed A. et al., (47) 2014
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 12 · Cited by 19
- Authors
- Ahmed, A., Qayed, K. I., Abdulrahman, M., Tavares, W., & Rosenfeld, J.
- Affiliations
- Dubai Health Authority (AE)
- University of Toronto (CA)
- McMaster University (CA)
- Corresponding author
- Ahmed, Ashraf
- Venue
- Medical Teacher
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2014-05-07
- Volume
- 36
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 703-709
- ISSN
- 0142-159X (ISSN-L)
- 1466-187X
- OpenAlex
- W2098922794
- Cited by
- 19
- References
- 12
- Citations by year
- 2023: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 5
- FWCI
- 3.98
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Medical Teacher (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- 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 › Gender Studies › Diversity and Career in Medicine
- Keywords
- multiple mini-interviews, residency selection, residency recruitment, interview reliability, Arab culture, Middle East, variance components, international medical graduates
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Clinical Competence, Educational Measurement, Female, Foreign Medical Graduates, Humans, Internship and Residency, Interviews as Topic, Male, Medical Staff, Hospital, Middle East, Personnel Selection, Prospective Studies, Young Adult
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