Skip to main content
Log in

Qualitative Analysis of Multiple Mini Interview Interviewer Comments

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Medical Science Educator Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

Qualitative studies of the Multiple Mini Interview (MMI) have investigated the attitudes and thoughts of prospective students and interviewers (i.e., raters) on the MMI interview, but none have examined rater’s written assessments. Concerns regarding what the MMI measures, especially across and within each interview, have sparked investigations to determine how and what raters are measuring. Raters communicate their student evaluation(s) through numerical ratings and written comments that provide score context. This study explores rater’s written comments to better understand the specific information gathered during the MMI process that contributes to interviewee evaluations.

Methods

Randomized data from two US medical schools were examined with no numerical scores or other information about the interviewee provided to reviewers. In reviewing the rater comments, common words and phrases were identified to help construct themes that characterized the content (domains). Authors reviewed each other’s notes and comments regarding themes and worked together to verify themes for accuracy.

Results

Using a directed content approach to content analysis and reviewing the rater’s comments, the results indicate that raters are focused on seven different domains: perspective taking, presentation, qualities, communication, coherence, comprehension, and non-verbal. Many of the rater comments contained multiple themes.

Conclusion

Raters’ MMI comments provide the context for numerical scores allowing admissions committees to more fully understand a candidate’s strengths or weaknesses. Identifying the themes in rater comments can ultimately assist the admissions committee to more comprehensively understand assessment elements that raters are using and consider important during the MMI evaluation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Khan KZ, Gaunt K, Ramachandran S, Pushkar P. The Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE): AMEE Guide No. 81. Part II: Organisation & Administration. Med Teach. 2013;35(9):e1447–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Ponnamperuma G, et al. The long case and its modifications: a literature review, vol. 43; 2009. p. 936–41.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Regehr G, Freeman R, Hodges B, Russell L. Assessing the generalizability of OSCE measures across content domains. Acad Med. 1999;74(12):1320–2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Eva KW, Rosenfeld J, Reiter HI, Norman GR. An admissions OSCE: the multiple mini-interview. Med Educ. 2004;38(3):314–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Eva KW, Reiter HI, Rosenfeld J, Norman GR. The ability of the multiple mini-interview to predict preclerkship performance in medical school. Acad Med. 2004;79(10 Suppl):S40–2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Eva KW, Reiter HI, Trinh K, Wasi P, Rosenfeld J, Norman GR. Predictive validity of the multiple mini-interview for selecting medical trainees. Med Educ. 2009;43(8):767–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Kumar K, Roberts C, Rothnie I, du Fresne C, Walton M. Experiences of the multiple mini-interview: a qualitative analysis. Med Educ. 2009;43(4):360–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Alweis RL, Fitzpatrick C, Donato AA. Rater perceptions of bias using the multiple mini-interview format: a qualitative study. J Educ Train Stud. 2015;3(5):52–8.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Zaidi NB, Swoboda C, Wang LL, Manuel RS. Variance in attributes assessed by the multiple mini-interview. Med Teach. 2014;36(9):794–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Eva KW, Macala C. Multiple mini-interview test characteristics: ‘tis better to ask candidates to recall than to imagine. Med Educ. 2014;48(6):604–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Tavares W, Ginsburg S, Eva KW. Selecting and simplifying: rater performance and behavior when considering multiple competencies. Teach Learn Med. 2016;28(1):41–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Axelson RD, Kreiter CD. Rater and occasion impacts on the reliability of pre-admission assessments. Med Educ. 2009;43(12):1198–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Cunnington JP, Neville AJ, Norman GR. The risks of thoroughness: reliability and validity of global ratings and checklists in an OSCE. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 1996;1(3):227–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Manuel, R.S. MMI training sessions for rater. Use of Comments, sessions 2014;1-9 (slide 33). Retrieved from https://med.uc.edu/medicalstudentadmissions/interviewday/training. Accessed 9 July 2014.

  15. Hsieh HF, Shannon SE. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res. 2005;15(9):1277–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Glaser BG, Strauss A. The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research. New York: Aldine De Gruyter; 1967. p. 271.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Wilkerson L, Rose M. Learning from thenarrative comments of standardized patients during an objective structured clinical examination of fourthyear medical students. ERIC Clearinghouse on Assessment and Evaluation. 2001.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to R. Stephen Manuel.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

School A – IRB approval #07-08-23-02-E.

School B – The study does not meet the criteria for human subject’s research.

Informed Consent

NA

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Manuel, R.S., Dickens, L. & Young, K. Qualitative Analysis of Multiple Mini Interview Interviewer Comments. Med.Sci.Educ. 29, 941–945 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-019-00778-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-019-00778-2

Keywords

Navigation