Cited by 42Medical Education and AdmissionsInnovations in Medical EducationPharmacy and Medical Practices

Development and Assessment of the Multiple Mini-Interview in a School of Pharmacy Admissions Model

Open access
Cox, Wendy C., McLaughlin, Jacqueline E., Singer, David, Lewis, Margaret, Dinkins, Melissa M.·2015·American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education

Abstract

Objective To describe the development, implementation, and evaluation of the multiple mini-interview (MMI) within a doctor of pharmacy (PharmD) admissions model. Methods Demographic data and academic indicators were collected for all candidates who participated in Candidates' Day (n=253), along with the score for each MMI station criteria (7 stations). A survey was administered to all candidates who completed the MMI, and another survey was administered to all interviewers to examine perceptions of the MMI. Results Analyses suggest that MMI stations assessed different attributes as designed, with Cronbach alpha for each station ranging from 0.90 to 0.95. All correlations between MMI station scores and academic indicators were negligible. No significant differences in average station scores were found based on age, gender, or race. Conclusion This study provides additional support for the use of the MMI as an admissions tool in pharmacy education.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.5688/ajpe79453

Cites

31 of 31 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cox, W. C., McLaughlin, J. E., Singer, D., Lewis, M., & Dinkins, M. M.
Affiliations
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
Corresponding author
Cox, Wendy C.
Venue
American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-05
Volume
79
Issue
4
Pages
53
ISSN
0002-9459 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1203242998
Cited by
42
References
31
Citations by year
2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 1
FWCI
7.15
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Carolina Digital Repository (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill) (submittedVersion)
  • UNC Libraries
Funders
  • University of Toronto
  • University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
  • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
  • University of Illinois at Chicago
  • Leslie Dan Faculty of Pharmacy, 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, academic indicators, interviewer perceptions, admissions equity
MeSH terms
Age Factors, College Admission Test, Education, Pharmacy, Education, Pharmacy, Graduate, Ethnicity, Female, Humans, Male, School Admission Criteria, Schools, Pharmacy, Sex Factors, Students, Pharmacy, 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