Advances in Health Sciences Education

, Volume 13, Issue 1, pp 43–58 | Cite as

A Cost Efficiency Comparison Between The Multiple Mini-Interview and Traditional Admissions Interviews

  • Jack M. Rosenfeld
  • Harold I. Reiter
  • Kien Trinh
  • Kevin W. EvaEmail author


A major expense for most professional training programs, both financially and in terms of human resources, is the interview process used to make admissions decisions. Still, most programs view this as a necessary cost given that the personal interview provides an opportunity to recruit potential candidates, showing them what the program has to offer, and to try and gather more information about the candidates to ensure that those selected live up to the espoused values of the institution. We now have five years worth of experience with a Multiple Mini-Interview (MMI) process that, unlike traditional panel interviews, uses the OSCE model to have candidates interact with a larger number of interviewers. We have found that the MMI is more reliable and has better predictive power than our traditional panel interviews. Still, the extent to which any measurement is valuable depends also on the feasibility of use. In this paper we report on an exploration of the cost effectiveness of the MMI as compared to standard panel-based interviews by considering the generation of interview material, human resource (i.e., interviewer and support staff) use, infrastructure requirements, and other miscellaneous expenses. Our conclusion is that the MMI requires greater preparatory efforts and a larger number of rooms to carry out the interviews relative to panel-based interviews, but that these cost disadvantages are offset by the MMI requiring fewer person-hours of effort. The absolute costs will vary dependent on institution, but the framework presented in this paper will hopefully provide greater guidance regarding logistical requirements and anticipated budget.


admissions interviewing multiple mini-interview 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. CanMEDS 2000. Project Skills for the New Millenium: Report of the Societal Needs Working Group. The Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada’s Canadian Medical Education Directios for Specialists 2000 Project. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: 1996Google Scholar
  2. Cusimano M.D., Cohen R., Tucker W., Murnaghan J., Kodama R., Reznick R. (1994) A comparative analysis of the costs of administration of an OSCE (objective structured clinical examination). Academic medicine : Journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges. 69: 571–576Google Scholar
  3. Dawes R.M., Faust D., Meehl P.E. (1989) Clinical versus actuarial judgment. Science 243:1668–1674CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Eva K.W., Rosenfeld J., Reiter H.I., Norman G.R. (2004a) An admissions OSCE: The multiple mini-interview. Medical Education 38:314–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Eva K.W., Reiter H.I., Rosenfeld J., Norman G.R. (2004b) The relationship between interviewer characteristics and ratings assigned during a multiple mini-interview. Academic Medicine : Journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges79: 602–609Google Scholar
  6. Eva K.W., Reiter H.I., Rosenfeld J., Norman G.R. (2004c) The ability of the multiple mini-interview to predict pre-clerkship performance in medical school. Academic Medicine : Journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges79:S40–2Google Scholar
  7. Harden R.M., Gleeson F.A. (1979) Assessment of clinical competence using an objective structured clinical examination (OSCE). Medical Education 13: 41–54Google Scholar
  8. Hodges B., Regehr G., McNaughton N., Tiberius R., Hanson M. (1999) OSCE checklists do not capture increasing levels of expertise. Academic Medicine : Journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges74:1129–1134Google Scholar
  9. Johnson E.K., Edwards J.C. (1991) Current practices in admission interviews at U.S. medical schools. Academic Medicine : Journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges66:408–412Google Scholar
  10. Julian E.R. (2005) Validity of the Medical College Admission Test for predicting medical school performance. Academic Medicine : Journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges80:910–917Google Scholar
  11. Kreiter C.D., Yin P., Solow C., Brennan R.L. (2004) Investigating the reliability of the medical school admissions interview. Advances in Health Sciences Education : Theory and Practice9:147–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kulatunga-Moruzi C., Norman G.R. (2002) Validity of admissions measures in predicting performance outcomes: The contribution of cognitive and non-cognitive dimensions. Teaching and Learning in Medicine 14:34–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lind D.S., Marum T., Ledbetter D., Flynn T.C., Romrell L.J., Copeland E.M. (1999) The effect of the duration and structure of a surgery clerkship on student performance. The Journal of Surgical Research 84:106–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. McGaghie W.C., Kreiter C.D. (2005) Holistic versus actuarial student selection. Teaching and Learning in Medicine 17:89–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Moreau K., Eva K.W., Reiter H.I. (2006) Preserving an even playing field for aboriginal applicants to medical schools using the multiple mini-interview. Teaching and Learning in Medicine 18:58-61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Puryear J.B., Lewis L.A. (1981) Description of the interview process in selecting students for admission to US medical schools. Journal of Medical Education 56:881–885Google Scholar
  17. Reiter H.I., Salvatori P., Rosenfeld J., Trinh K., Eva K.W. (2006) The effect of defined violations of test security on admissions outcomes using Multiple Mini-Interviews. Medical Education 40: 36–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Reiter H.I., Eva K.W. (2005) Reflecting the relative values of community, faculty, and students in the admissions tools of medical school. Teaching and Learning in Medicine 17:4–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Reiter, H.I., Eva, K.W., Rosenfeld, J. & Norman G.R. Multiple mini-interview predicts clerkship and licensing exam performance. (submitted)Google Scholar
  20. Reznick R.K., Smee S., Baumber J.S., Cohen R., Rothman A., Blackmore D., Berard M. (1993) Guidelines for estimating the real cost of an objective structured clinical examination. Academic Medicine : Journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges68: 513–517Google Scholar
  21. Wiesner W.H., Cronshaw S.F. (1988) A meta-analytic investigation of the impact of interview format and degree of structure on the validity of the employment interview. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 61:275–290Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jack M. Rosenfeld
    • 1
  • Harold I. Reiter
    • 2
  • Kien Trinh
    • 3
  • Kevin W. Eva
    • 3
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Pathology and Molecular MedicineMcMaster UniversityHamiltonCanada
  2. 2.Department of MedicineMcMaster UniversityHamiltonCanada
  3. 3.Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Program for Educational Research and DevelopmentMcMaster UniversityHamiltonCanada

Personalised recommendations