BMJ Open (Oct 2023)

Cross-sectional evaluation of an asynchronous multiple mini-interview (MMI) in selection to health professions training programmes with 10 principles for fairness built-in

  • Sarah Roberts,
  • Paul Alexander Tiffin,
  • Jenny Harris,
  • Alison Callwood,
  • Lee Gillam,
  • Angelos Christidis,
  • Angela Kubacki

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2023-074440
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 13, no. 10

Abstract

Read online

Objectives We aimed to explore the psychometric properties of the first known online asynchronous multiple mini-interview (MMI) designed for fairness with subgroup analyses by key characteristics, usability and acceptability.Design Cross-discipline multimethod evaluation.Setting One UK University.Participants Applicants to nursing, midwifery and paramedic science undergraduate programmes during 2021–2022.Primary, secondary outcome measures Psychometric properties (internal consistency, construct validity, dimensionality) were assessed using Cronbach’s alpha (α), parallel analysis (PA), Schmid-Leiman transformation and ordinal confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Usability and acceptability were evaluated using descriptive statistics and conventional content analysis.Methods The system was configured in a seven question 4 min MMI. Applicants’ videorecorded their answers which were later assessed by interviewers and scores summed. Applicants and interviewers completed online evaluation questionnaires.Results Performance data from 712 applicants determined good-excellent reliability for the asynchronous MMI (mean α 0.72) with similar results across subgroups (gender, age, disability/support needs, UK/non-UK). PA and factor analysis results suggested there were seven factors relating to the MMI questions with an underlying general factor that explained the variance in observed candidate responses. A CFA testing a seven-factor hierarchical model showed an excellent fit to the data (Confirmatory Fit Index=0.99), Tucker Lewis Index=0.99, root mean square error (RMSE) =0.034). Applicants (n=210) viewed the flexibility, relaxed environment and cost savings advantageous. Interviewers (n=65) reported the system to be intuitive, flexible with >70% time saved compared with face-to-face interviews. Reduced personal communication was cited as the principal disadvantage.Conclusions We found that the asynchronous MMI was reliable, time-efficient, fair and acceptable and building fairness in was lost-cost. These novel, insights are applicable across health professions selection internationally informing the future configuration of online interviews to ensure workforces represent the societies they serve.