Cited by 63Medical Education and AdmissionsInnovations in Medical EducationPharmacy and Medical Practices

Development and Pilot Testing of a Multiple Mini-Interview for Admission to a Pharmacy Degree Program

Open access
Cameron, Andrea J., MacKeigan, Linda D.·2012·American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education

Abstract

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

Crossref · 10.5688/ajpe76110

Cites

4 of 4 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
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)
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
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