Multiple mini-interview as a predictor of performance in the objective structured clinical examination among Physician Associates in the United Kingdom: a cohort study

Medical school grades may predict future clinical competence

BACKGROUND

In real-world medical education, there is a lack of reliable predictors of future clinical competencies. Hence, we aim to identify the factors associated with clinical competencies and construct a prediction model to identify "improvement required" trainees.

METHODS

We analyzed data from medical students who graduated from National Yang-Ming University with clerkship training and participated in the postgraduate year (PGY) interview at Taipei Veterans General Hospital. Clinical competencies were evaluated using grades of national objective structured clinical examination (OSCEs). This study used data from medical students who graduated in July 2018 as the derivation cohort (N = 50) and those who graduated in July 2020 (n = 56) for validation.

RESULTS

Medical school grades were associated with the performance of national OSCEs (Pearson r = 0.34, p = 0.017), but the grades of the structured PGY interviews were marginally associated with the national OSCE (Pearson r = 0.268, p = 0.06). A prediction model was constructed to identify "improvement required" trainees, defined: trainees with the lowest 25% of scores in the national OSCEs. According to this model, trainees with the lowest 25% medical school grades predicted a higher risk of the "improvement required" clinical performance (Q1-Q3 vs Q4 = 15% vs 60%, odds ratio = 8.5 [95% confidence interval = 1.8-39.4], p = 0.029). In the validation cohort, our prediction model could accurately classify 76.7% "improvement required" and "nonimprovement required" students.

CONCLUSION

Our study suggests that interventions for students with unsatisfactory medical school grades are warranted to improve their clinical competencies.

The predictive validity of Multiple Mini Interviews (MMIs) in nursing and midwifery programmes: Year three findings from a cross-discipline cohort study

BACKGROUND

Education literature worldwide is replete with studies evaluating the effectiveness of Multiple Mini Interviews (MMIs) in admissions to medicine but <1% of published studies have been conducted in selection to nursing and midwifery programmes.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the predictive validity of MMIs using end of programme clinical and academic performance indicators of pre-registration adult, child, and mental health nursing and midwifery students.

DESIGN AND SETTING

A cross-sectional cohort study at one university in the United Kingdom.

PARTICIPANTS

A non-probability consecutive sampling strategy whereby all applicants to the September 2015 pre-registration adult, child, mental health nursing and midwifery programmes were invited to participate. Of the 354 students who commenced year one, 225 (64%) completed their three-year programme and agreed to take part (adult 120, child 32, mental health nursing 30 and midwifery 43).

METHODS

All applicants were interviewed using MMIs with six and seven station, four-minute models deployed in nursing and midwifery student selection respectively. Associations between MMI scores and the cross-discipline programme performance indicators available for each student at this university at the end of year three: clinical practice (assessed by mentors) and academic attainment (dissertation mark) were explored using multiple linear regression adjusting for applicant age, academic entry level, discipline and number of MMI stations.

RESULTS

In the adjusted models, students with higher admissions MMI score (at six and seven stations) performed better in clinical practice (p < 0.001) but not in academic attainment (p = 0.122) at the end of their three-year programme.

CONCLUSION

These findings provide the first report of the predictive validity of MMIs for performance in clinical practice using six and seven station models in nursing and midwifery programmes. Further evidence is required from both clinical and academic perspectives from larger, multi-site evaluations.

Multiple Mini-Interviews: Current Perspectives on Utility and Limitations

The growing role of healthcare professionals urged admissions committees to restructure their selection process and assess key personal attributes rather than academic achievements only. Multiple mini interviews (MMIs) were designed in 2002 to assess such domains in prospective healthcare professions. Being a high-stake assessment, the utility and limitations of MMI need to be explored. The purpose of this article is to review the available evidence to establish its utility. The claim of the reliability is verified by the studies assessing the effect of number of stations, duration of stations, format and scoring systems of stations and number of raters assessing the applicants. Similarly, by gathering evidence concerning its content validity, convergent/divergent correlation and predictive ability, validity is ensured. Finally, its acceptability and feasibility along with limitations is discussed. This article concludes by providing recommendations for further work required to deal with the limitations and enhance its utility.