The multiple mini‐interview for selection of international medical graduates into family medicine residency education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: The multiple mini-interview (MMI) was used to measure professionalism in international medical graduate (IMG) applicants for family medicine residency in Alberta for positions accessed through the Alberta International Medical Graduate (AIMG) Program. This paper assesses the evidence for the MMI's reliability and validity in this context. METHODS: A group of 71 IMGs participated in our 12-station MMI designed to assess professionalism competency. A 10-point scale evaluated applicants on ability to address the objectives of the situation, interpersonal skills, suitability for a residency and for family medicine, and overall performance. We conducted generalisability and decision studies to assess the reliability of MMI scores. We assessed the validity by examining the differences in MMI scores associated with session, track and socio-demographic characteristics of applicants and by measuring the correlations between MMI scores and scores on compulsory examinations, including the AIMG objective structured clinical examination, the Medical Council of Canada Evaluating Examination (MCCEE) and the Medical Council of Canada Qualifying Examination Part I (MCCQE I). We measured the correlation between MMI and non-requisite MCCQE Part II (MCCQE II) scores that were provided. RESULTS: The reliability as indicated by the generalisability coefficient associated with average station scores was 0.70 with one interviewer per station. There were no statistically significant differences in total MMI scores or mean station sum scores based on session, track, applicant age, gender, years since medical school completion, or language of medical school. There were low, non-significant correlations with OSCE overall (r = 0.15), MCCEE (r = 0.01) and MCCQE I (r = 0.06) scores and a higher non-significant correlation with MCCQE II scores (r = 0.33). CONCLUSIONS: There is evidence that the MMI offers a reliable and valid assessment of professionalism in IMG doctors applying for Canadian family medicine residencies and that this clinically situated MMI assessed facets of competency other than those assessed by the OSCE.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".