Cross-sectional evaluation of an asynchronous Multiple Mini Interview (MMI) in selection to health professions training programmes with ten principles for fairness built-in

Objectives Ensuring equity, inclusivity, and diversity in health professions selection is an ethical and practical imperative. We have built the first known online asynchronous Multiple Mini-Interview (MMI). We aimed to explore psychometric properties for all users with sub-group analysis by key characteristics, acceptability, and usability. Design, setting, participants. Cross-discipline multi-method evaluation with applicants to Nursing, Midwifery and Paramedic Science under-graduate programmes from one UK university (2021/2022). Primary, secondary outcome measures Psychometric properties (internal consistency, construct validity, dimensionality) were assessed using Cronbachs alpha, parallel analysis (PA), Schmid-Leiman transformation and ordinal confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Usability and acceptability were evaluated using descriptive statistics and conventional content analysis. Methods The system was configured in a seven question four-minute MMI. Applicants video-recorded their answers which were later assessed by interviewers and scores summed. Applicants and interviewers completed online evaluation questionnaires. Results Performance data from 712 applicants determined good-excellent reliability for the asynchronous MMI assessment (mean alpha; 0.72) with similar results across sub-groups (gender, age, disability/support needs, UK/non-UK). Parallel analysis and factor analysis results suggested that there were seven factors relating to the MMI questions with an underlying general factor that explained the variance in observed candidate responses. A confirmatory factor analysis testing a seven-factor hierarchical model showed an excellent fit to the data (Confirmatory Fit Index =0.99), Tucker Lewis Index =0.99, RMSE=0.034). Applicants (n=210) viewed the flexibility, relaxed environment, and cost savings advantageous. Interviewers (n=65) reported the system intuitive, flexible with >70% time saved compared to face-to-face interviews. Reduced personal communication was cited as the principle disadvantage. Conclusions Our findings suggest that the asynchronous MMI is reliable, time-efficient, fair, and acceptable. In the absence of any known precedent, these internationally applicable, cross discipline insights inform the future configuration of online interviews where building-in principles for fairness are relatively straight forward to implement.

[1]  P. Yeates,et al.  Technology enhanced assessment: Ottawa consensus statement and recommendations , 2022, Medical teacher.

[2]  N. Kapur,et al.  Implementation and evaluation of virtual multiple mini interviews as a selection tool for entry into paediatric postgraduate training: A Queensland experience , 2021, Medical teacher.

[3]  Isabelle Raiche,et al.  Video-based interviewing in medicine: a scoping review , 2021, Systematic Reviews.

[4]  I. Zulkipli,et al.  Conducting multiple mini-interviews in the midst of COVID-19 pandemic , 2021, Medical education online.

[5]  Madhu N. Rao,et al.  Virtual Interviews at Graduate Medical Education Training Programs: Determining Evidence-Based Best Practices. , 2020, Academic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges.

[6]  Nicolas Roulin,et al.  Into the void: A conceptual model and research agenda for the design and use of asynchronous video interviews , 2020, Human Resource Management Review.

[7]  M. Talamonti,et al.  Virtual Surgical Fellowship Recruitment During COVID-19 and Its Implications for Resident/Fellow Recruitment in the Future , 2020, Annals of Surgical Oncology.

[8]  J. Cleland,et al.  COVID 19: Designing and conducting an online mini-multiple interview (MMI) in a dynamic landscape , 2020, Medical teacher.

[9]  M. Yusoff Multiple Mini Interview as an admission tool in higher education: Insights from a systematic review , 2019, Journal of Taibah University Medical Sciences.

[10]  Greg Welch,et al.  A Systematic Review of Social Presence: Definition, Antecedents, and Implications , 2018, Front. Robot. AI.

[11]  K. Eva,et al.  2018 Ottawa consensus statement: Selection and recruitment to the healthcare professions , 2018, Medical teacher.

[12]  Elizabeth Linos,et al.  Levelling the playing field in police recruitment: Evidence from a field experiment on test performance , 2017 .

[13]  D. Fay,et al.  Asynchronous Video Interviewing as a New Technology in Personnel Selection: The Applicant’s Point of View , 2016, Front. Psychol..

[14]  D. van Dierendonck,et al.  Selection Fairness and Outcomes: A Field Study of Interactive Effects on Applicant Reactions , 2013 .

[15]  M. Timmerman,et al.  Dimensionality assessment of ordered polytomous items with parallel analysis. , 2011, Psychological methods.

[16]  Chris Naylor,et al.  Reducing health inequalities in priority public health conditions: using rapid review to develop proposals for evidence-based policy. , 2010, Journal of public health.

[17]  Pere J. Ferrando,et al.  FACTOR: A computer program to fit the exploratory factor analysis model , 2006, Behavior research methods.

[18]  Hsiu-Fang Hsieh,et al.  Three Approaches to Qualitative Content Analysis , 2005, Qualitative health research.

[19]  Kelly A. Piasentin,et al.  Applicant attraction to organizations and job choice: a meta-analytic review of the correlates of recruiting outcomes. , 2005, The Journal of applied psychology.

[20]  K. Eva,et al.  An admissions OSCE: the multiple mini‐interview , 2004, Medical education.

[21]  T. Bauer,et al.  Selection fairness information and applicant reactions: a longitudinal field study. , 2002, The Journal of applied psychology.

[22]  Glenda H. Eoyang,et al.  Facilitating Organization Change: Lessons from Complexity Science , 2001 .

[23]  S. Gilliland The Perceived Fairness of Selection Systems: An Organizational Justice Perspective , 1993 .

[24]  R. Rice Media Appropriateness Using Social Presence Theory to Compare Traditional and New Organizational Media , 1993 .

[25]  J. Horn A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis , 1965, Psychometrika.

[26]  John Schmid,et al.  The development of hierarchical factor solutions , 1957 .