Cargando…

Validity evidence for a virtual multiple mini interview at a pharmacy program

BACKGROUND: Numerous health professions schools have transitioned to virtual admissions interviews in recent years. While some research suggests that virtual multiple mini-interviews (vMMIs) are feasible, acceptable, and more affordable, there is a paucity of research concerning the validity of this...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Hammond, Sarah, McLaughlin, Jacqueline E., Cox, Wendy C.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10401851/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37537588
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12909-023-04521-9
_version_ 1785084756200783872
author Hammond, Sarah
McLaughlin, Jacqueline E.
Cox, Wendy C.
author_facet Hammond, Sarah
McLaughlin, Jacqueline E.
Cox, Wendy C.
author_sort Hammond, Sarah
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Numerous health professions schools have transitioned to virtual admissions interviews in recent years. While some research suggests that virtual multiple mini-interviews (vMMIs) are feasible, acceptable, and more affordable, there is a paucity of research concerning the validity of this approach. The purpose of this study was to examine the validity and reliability of vMMIs and explore differences in performance between vMMI and in-person MMIs. METHODS: Data were collected for two years of in-person MMIs and two years of vMMIs at a pharmacy program/school in the United States. An exploratory factor analysis (principal components analysis) with varimax rotation and Kaiser rule (i.e. retaining factors with eigenvalue > 1.0) was used to explore the construct validity of the vMMI data. Pearson correlation was used to examine correlations between vMMI stations and Cronbach alpha was used to determine the internal consistency of each station. Independent t-tests were used to examine differences between in-person MMI and vMMI scores. Cohen’s d was used to determine effect sizes. RESULTS: Four hundred and thirty-eight (42.69%) candidates completed an in-person MMI and 588 (57.31%) completed a vMMI. Factor analysis indicated that each vMMI station formed a single factor with loads ranging from 0.86 to 0.96. The vMMI stations accounted for most of the total variance, demonstrated weak to negligible intercorrelations, and high internal consistency. Significant differences between in-person and vMMI scores were found for the teamwork-giving, teamwork-receiving, and integrity stations. Medium effect sizes were found for teamwork-giving and teamwork-receiving and a small effect size was found for integrity. CONCLUSIONS: Initial evidence suggests that the vMMI is a valid and reliable alternative to in-person MMIs. Additional research is needed to examine sources of differences in rating patterns between the two approaches and identify strategies that align with institutional priorities for recruitment and admissions.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10401851
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-104018512023-08-05 Validity evidence for a virtual multiple mini interview at a pharmacy program Hammond, Sarah McLaughlin, Jacqueline E. Cox, Wendy C. BMC Med Educ Research BACKGROUND: Numerous health professions schools have transitioned to virtual admissions interviews in recent years. While some research suggests that virtual multiple mini-interviews (vMMIs) are feasible, acceptable, and more affordable, there is a paucity of research concerning the validity of this approach. The purpose of this study was to examine the validity and reliability of vMMIs and explore differences in performance between vMMI and in-person MMIs. METHODS: Data were collected for two years of in-person MMIs and two years of vMMIs at a pharmacy program/school in the United States. An exploratory factor analysis (principal components analysis) with varimax rotation and Kaiser rule (i.e. retaining factors with eigenvalue > 1.0) was used to explore the construct validity of the vMMI data. Pearson correlation was used to examine correlations between vMMI stations and Cronbach alpha was used to determine the internal consistency of each station. Independent t-tests were used to examine differences between in-person MMI and vMMI scores. Cohen’s d was used to determine effect sizes. RESULTS: Four hundred and thirty-eight (42.69%) candidates completed an in-person MMI and 588 (57.31%) completed a vMMI. Factor analysis indicated that each vMMI station formed a single factor with loads ranging from 0.86 to 0.96. The vMMI stations accounted for most of the total variance, demonstrated weak to negligible intercorrelations, and high internal consistency. Significant differences between in-person and vMMI scores were found for the teamwork-giving, teamwork-receiving, and integrity stations. Medium effect sizes were found for teamwork-giving and teamwork-receiving and a small effect size was found for integrity. CONCLUSIONS: Initial evidence suggests that the vMMI is a valid and reliable alternative to in-person MMIs. Additional research is needed to examine sources of differences in rating patterns between the two approaches and identify strategies that align with institutional priorities for recruitment and admissions. BioMed Central 2023-08-03 /pmc/articles/PMC10401851/ /pubmed/37537588 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12909-023-04521-9 Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research
Hammond, Sarah
McLaughlin, Jacqueline E.
Cox, Wendy C.
Validity evidence for a virtual multiple mini interview at a pharmacy program
title Validity evidence for a virtual multiple mini interview at a pharmacy program
title_full Validity evidence for a virtual multiple mini interview at a pharmacy program
title_fullStr Validity evidence for a virtual multiple mini interview at a pharmacy program
title_full_unstemmed Validity evidence for a virtual multiple mini interview at a pharmacy program
title_short Validity evidence for a virtual multiple mini interview at a pharmacy program
title_sort validity evidence for a virtual multiple mini interview at a pharmacy program
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10401851/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37537588
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12909-023-04521-9
work_keys_str_mv AT hammondsarah validityevidenceforavirtualmultipleminiinterviewatapharmacyprogram
AT mclaughlinjacquelinee validityevidenceforavirtualmultipleminiinterviewatapharmacyprogram
AT coxwendyc validityevidenceforavirtualmultipleminiinterviewatapharmacyprogram