Back

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

Callwood, A.; Harris, J.; Gillam, L.; Roberts, S.; Kubacki, A.; Tiffin, P.

2023-03-13 medical education
10.1101/2023.03.09.23287032 medRxiv
Show abstract

ObjectivesEnsuring 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, participantsCross-discipline multi-method evaluation with applicants to Nursing, Midwifery and Paramedic Science under-graduate programmes from one UK university (2021/2022). Primary, secondary outcome measuresPsychometric 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. MethodsThe 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. ResultsPerformance data from 712 applicants determined good-excellent reliability for the asynchronous MMI assessment (mean 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. ConclusionsOur 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. Study strengths and limitations O_LIThe theoretical approach aligned with an iterative process necessary to design a new technology to reduce bias. C_LIO_LIThe large sample enabled us to assess psychometric properties with sub-group analysis for the first time in this context. C_LIO_LIThe study provides perspectives from one large site; a necessary step to inform a planned international multi-site evaluation. C_LIO_LIThe multi-method design provided insights necessary to embed fairness into online selection approaches in the absence of best practice guidance. C_LI

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.