Evaluation and validation of the interview process, Admissions, Faculty of Medicine, Memorial University of Newfoundland
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background/ObjectivesThe interview process is an integral component of medical school admission consideration at Canadian medical schools.Most medical schools across the country have changed from the traditional interview to the Multiple Mini Interview (MMI).Memorial University of Newfoundland retains the traditional panel interview and this study's purpose was to solicit opinions on the current interview process.Methods In 2010/2011, over 1000 questionnaires were circulated to faculty, current and prospective medical students and members of the interview committee soliciting feedback.Over 650 questionnaires were completed with response rates ranging from 30% for current medical students to 97% for prospective medical students.Topics covered in the questionnaire included those relating to preference of the MMI or traditional panel interview, pros and cons of the interview, strengths and limitations of the interview.Data was a combination of binary choices and open-ended questions.Results Benefits of the current traditional panel interview format were felt to be the approachability of the interviewers, overall fairness to a diverse applicant base, and the freedom of expression it allowed students.Challenges of the current traditional panel interview format were felt to be excessive subjectivity, variability of a semi-standardized interview, and a general bias towards extroverted applicants.Further, an increase in interviewer panel from two and more gender-balanced was suggested.Conclusions Overall, there was more opposition to the MMI than support for switching to this interview method.Among all groups surveyed, only the faculty members differed significantly from other groups in pattern of responses.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".