MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2138754693

The acceptability of the multiple mini interview for resident selection.

2009· article· en· W2138754693 on OpenAlexaffabout
Marianna Hofmeister, Jocelyn Lockyer, Rod Crutcher

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGlobal Health Workforce Issues
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInterviewThematic analysisMedical educationContext (archaeology)Government (linguistics)Family medicineGraduate medical educationPsychologyCognitive interviewMEDLINEDescriptive statisticsMedicineAccreditationQualitative researchCognitionPolitical science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: This study describes and assesses the acceptability of the multiple mini interview (MMI) to both international medical graduate (IMG) applicants to family medicine residency training in Alberta, Canada, and also interviewers for Alberta's International Medical Graduate Program (AIMGP), an Alberta Health and Wellness government initiative designed to help integrate IMGs into Canadian residency training. IMGs are physicians who completed undergraduate medical education outside of Canada and the United States. IMGs who live in the Canadian province of Alberta may obtain a limited number of government-funded positions for residency training by applying to AIMGP. METHODS: A literature review and faculty and medical community consultation informed the development of a 12-station MMI designed to identify non-cognitive characteristics associated with professionalism potential. Clinical scenarios were developed by family physicians and medical educators. Applicant and interviewer posttest acceptability was assessed using surveys. Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, and qualitative data were analyzed using content analysis and thematic description. RESULTS: Our research demonstrates evidence for applicant and interviewer acceptability of the MMI. Interviewers reported high levels of satisfaction with the time-restricted process that addressed multiple situations pertinent to the Canadian family medicine context. Applicants and interviewers were each satisfied that 8 minutes was enough time at each station. Applicants reported that they felt the process was free from gender and cultural bias. Interviewers agreed that this MMI was a fair assessment of potential for family medicine. CONCLUSIONS: Standardized residency selection interviews can be adapted to measure professionalism potential characteristics important to family medicine in ways that are acceptable to IMG applicants and interviewers.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.172
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.295
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.172
Threshold uncertainty score0.911

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1720.295
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.086
GPT teacher head0.407
Teacher spread0.320 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations50
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicGlobal Health Workforce IssuesFrench-language works237,207