Key Points
-
To inform the reader of what is involved in the multi mini-interview process.
-
To highlight the introduction of multi mini-interviews as a selection tool for dental students by a dental school.
-
To communicate the perceived positive and negative impacts of the multi-mini interview process.
Abstract
Objective This research evaluated the mutliple mini-interview (MMI) process as part of the admissions procedure for a dental school.
Design The thematic analysis of a paper-based questionnaire.
Materials and methods Following screening an MMI was arranged for 190 candidates applying to study dentistry with written feedback obtained from candidates and interviewers.
Results A 100% response rate to the paper-based questionnaire was achieved for candidates and a 90% response rate was obtained from interviewers. With specific reference to how candidates perceived their performance, 127 (67.9%) felt they had performed well with 24 (19.3%) unsure and 36 (12.8%) saying their performance was not ideal. Candidates generally thought that they had prepared as well as they could have done for the MMIs and 146 (77.2%) thought that they had done enough at interview to merit being offered a place to study dentistry. The MMI experience was considered favourable and from 137 written comments received by candidates 39 were most positive with reference to the MMIs. A thematic analysis of the comments identified a number of emergent themes including lack of control, anxiety and nervousness, preparedness and comparisons with conventional interviews.
Conclusion The MMI appears to be useful in the selection of dental students.
Log in or create a free account to read this content
Gain free access to this article, as well as selected content from this journal and more on nature.com
or
References
Harris S, Owen C . Discerning quality: using the multiple mini-interview in student selection for the Australian National University Medical School. Med Educ 2007; 41: 234–241.
Norman G R. Editorial: the morality of medical school admissions. Adv Health Sci Educ 2004; 9: 79–82.
Albanese M A, Snow M H, Skochelak S E, Huggett K N, Farrell P M . Assessing personal qualities in medical school admissions. Acad Med 2003; 78: 313–321.
Story M, Mercer A . Selection of medical students: an Australian persepective. Inter Med J 2005; 35: 647–649.
Edwards J C, Johnson E K, Molidor J B . The interview in the admission process. Acad Med 1990; 65: 167–177.
Kreiter C D, Yin P, Solow C, Brennan R L . Investigating the reliability of the medical school admissions interview. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract 2004; 9: 147–159.
Streyffeler L, Altmaier E M, Kuperman S, Patrick L E . Development of a medical schools admissions interview phase 2: predictive validity of cognitive and non-cognitive attributes. Med Educ Online 2005; 10: 1–5.
Eva K W, Reiter H I, Rosenfeld J, Norman G R . The relationship between interviewers' characteristics and ratings assigned during a multiple mini-interview. Acad Med 2004; 79: 602–609.
Roberts C, Walton M, Rothnie I et al. Factors affecting the utility of the multiple mini-interview in selecting candidates for graduate-entry medical school. Med Educ 2008; 42: 396–404.
Eva K W, Reiter H I, Rosenfeld J, Norman G R . The ability of the multiple mini-interview to predict preclerkship performance in medical school. Acad Med 2004; 79: S40–42.
Brownwell K, Lockyer J, Collin T, Lemay J F . Introduction of the multiple mini interview into the admissions process at the University of Calgary: acceptability and feasibility. Med Teach 2007; 29: 394–396.
Humphrey S, Dowson S, Wall D, Diwakar V, Goodyear H M . Multiple mini-interviews: opinions of candidates and interviewers. Med Educ 2008; 42: 207–213.
Pope C, Ziebland S, Mays N . Qualitative research in health care. Analysing qualitative data. Br Med J 2000; 320: 114–116.
Cleland J A, Knight L V . Rees C E, Tracey S, Bond C M . Is it me or is it them? Factors that influence the passing of underperforming students. Med Educ 2008; 42: 800–809.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank all applicants and interviewers who participated in the MMI process. Their comments, observations, responses and replies proved invaluable in the production of this manuscript. Additionally, the support from the Dean of the School of Dentistry should also be recognised, as without it the process could not have been completed.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Refereed paper
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
McAndrew, R., Ellis, J. An evaluation of the multiple mini-interview as a selection tool for dental students. Br Dent J 212, 331–335 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.2012.267
Accepted:
Published:
Issue date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.2012.267
This article is cited by
-
The current dental school applicant: an overview of the admission process for UK dental schools and the sociodemographic status of applicants
British Dental Journal (2022)
-
The factors that count in selecting future dentists: sensorimotor and soft skills
British Dental Journal (2019)
-
Multiple mini interviews: revealing similarities across institutions
BMC Medical Education (2018)
-
The admissions process in a graduate-entry dental school: can we predict academic performance?
British Dental Journal (2013)
-
Summary of: The admissions process in a graduate-entry dental school: can we predict academic performance?
British Dental Journal (2013)
