Development and Pilot Testing of a Multiple Mini-Interview for Admission to a Pharmacy Degree Program
Open accessAbstract
Objectives To develop and pilot test a multiple mini-interview (MMI) to select students for admission to a pharmacy degree program. Methods A nominal group process was used to identify 8 important nonacademic attributes of pharmacists, with relative importance determined by means of a paired-comparison survey of pharmacy stakeholders (ie, university-affiliated individuals with a vested interest in the quality of student admitted to the pharmacy program, such as faculty members, students, admissions staff members, and practitioners). A 10-station MMI based on the weighted-attribute blueprint was pilot tested with 30 incoming pharmacy students. MMI score reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC]) and correlation with other admissions tool scores were determined. Results Station scores provided by student interviewers were slightly higher than those of faculty member or practitioner interviewers. While most interviewers judged a 6-minute interview as "just right" and an 8-minute interview "a bit long," candidates had the opposite opinion. Station scenarios had face validity for candidates and interviewers. The ICC for the MMI was 0.77 and correlations with prepharmacy average (PPA) and Pharmacy College Admission Test (PCAT) composite were negligible. Conclusions MMI feasibility was confirmed, based on the finding that interview scores were reliable and that this admissions tool measures different attributes than do the PCAT and PPA.
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 Cameron & MacKeigan (2012), station scores provided by student interviewers were slightly higher than those of faculty member or practitioner interviewers.
“Station scores provided by student interviewers were slightly higher than those of faculty member or practitioner interviewers”
From Multiple Mini Interview as an admission tool in higher education: Insights from a systematic review (2019) · cites this paper as Cameron A. J. and MacKeigan L. D., (32) 2012
In Cameron & MacKeigan (2012), the correlation between MMI and PCAT composite score was 0.042.
“MMI and PCAT composite score was 0.042”
From Multiple Mini Interview as an admission tool in higher education: Insights from a systematic review (2019) · cites this paper as Cameron A. J. and MacKeigan L. D., (32) 2012
In Cameron & MacKeigan (2012), the ICC for the overall 10-station MMI score was 0.77 (95% CI 0.63-0.88); for five 6-min stations it was 0.66 (95% CI 0.42-0.82).
“The ICC for the overall 10-station score was 0.77 (95% CI, 0.63–0.88); for five 6-min stations was 0.66 (95% CI, 0.42–0.82)”
From Multiple Mini Interview as an admission tool in higher education: Insights from a systematic review (2019) · cites this paper as Cameron A. J. and MacKeigan L. D., (32) 2012
In Cameron & MacKeigan (2012), the Pearson r coefficient for MMI and PPA was −0.025.
“The Pearson r coefficient for MMI and PPA was −0.025”
From Multiple Mini Interview as an admission tool in higher education: Insights from a systematic review (2019) · cites this paper as Cameron A. J. and MacKeigan L. D., (32) 2012
In Cameron & MacKeigan (2012), the coefficient for PPA and PCAT composite was 0.370 (p=0.048).
“Coefficient for PPA and PCAT composite was 0.370 (p = 0.048)”
From Multiple Mini Interview as an admission tool in higher education: Insights from a systematic review (2019) · cites this paper as Cameron A. J. and MacKeigan L. D., (32) 2012
Cites
An admissions OSCE: the multiple mini-interview
Eva, K. W., Rosenfeld, J., Reiter, H. I., & Norman, G. R. (2004) · Medical Education · doi:10.1046/j.1365-2923.2004.01776.x · Cited by 617 · see citing works
Multiple mini-interviews predict clerkship and licensing examination performance
Reiter, H. I., Eva, K. W., Rosenfeld, J., & Norman, G. R. (2007) · Medical Education · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2929.2007.02709.x · Cited by 235 · see citing works
Brownell, K., Lockyer, J., Collin, T., & Lemay, J.-F. (2007) · Medical Teacher · doi:10.1080/01421590701311713 · Cited by 72 · see citing works
Reiter, H. I., Salvatori, P., Rosenfeld, J., Trinh, K., & Eva, K. W. (2006) · Medical Education · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2929.2005.02348.x · Cited by 47 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Pau, A., Jeevaratnam, K., Chen, Y. S., Fall, A. A., Khoo, C., & Nadarajah, V. D. (2013) · Medical Teacher · doi:10.3109/0142159x.2013.829912 · Cited by 195 · see citing works
Rees, E. L., Hawarden, A. W., Dent, G., Hays, R., Bates, J., & Hassell, A. B. (2016) · Medical Teacher · doi:10.3109/0142159x.2016.1158799 · Cited by 139 · see citing works
Multiple mini-interviews: same concept, different approaches
Knorr, M., & Hissbach, J. (2014) · Medical Education · doi:10.1111/medu.12535 · Cited by 110 · see citing works
Multiple Mini Interview as an admission tool in higher education: Insights from a systematic review
Yusoff, M. S. B. (2019) · Journal of Taibah University Medical Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.jtumed.2019.03.006 · Cited by 57 · see citing works
“, (25) 2010 Observational Study design* McMaster University: obstetrics-gynecology and pediatrics University of Alberta (internal medicine) N 1⁄4 484 candidates (across 2 years) Investigates the reliability and acceptability of the MMI at the postgraduate level, given the differences in the applicant pool and process…”
BackgroundDevelopment and Assessment of the Multiple Mini-Interview in a School of Pharmacy Admissions Model
Cox, W. C., McLaughlin, J. E., Singer, D., Lewis, M., & Dinkins, M. M. (2015) · American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education · doi:10.5688/ajpe79453 · Cited by 42 · see citing works
<p>Multiple Mini-Interviews: Current Perspectives on Utility and Limitations</p>
Ali, S., Sadiq Hashmi, M. S., Umair, M., Beg, M. A., & Huda, N. (2019) · Advances in Medical Education and Practice · doi:10.2147/amep.s181332 · Cited by 32 · see citing works
Oyler, D. R., Smith, K. M., Elson, E. C., Bush, H., & Cook, A. M. (2014) · American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy · doi:10.2146/ajhp130315 · Cited by 28 · see citing works
Abdul Rahim, A. F., & Yusoff, M. S. B. (2016) · Education in Medicine Journal · doi:10.5959/eimj.v8i2.437 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
- Authors
- Cameron, A. J., & MacKeigan, L. D.
- Affiliations
- University of Toronto (CA)
- Venue
- American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2012-02
- Volume
- 76
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 10
- ISSN
- 0002-9459 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC3298392
- OpenAlex
- W2014180024
- Cited by
- 63
- References
- 4
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 2
- FWCI
- 5.25
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- McMaster University
- University of Toronto
- 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
- Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Pharmacology › Pharmacy and Medical Practices
- Keywords
- multiple mini-interviews, pharmacy school admissions, student selection, nominal group technique, interview reliability, interview duration, face validity
- MeSH terms
- Female, Humans, Male, Pilot Projects, Surveys and Questionnaires, School Admission Criteria, Schools, Pharmacy, Students, Pharmacy, Program Development
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