Reliability and validity of the multiple mini interview (MMI) for admissions to an occupational therapy professional program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Admissions decisions are among the most consequential assessment points in educating occupational therapists. Suboptimal measures of academic achievement and personal characteristics are often used to select candidates. The purpose of the study is to investigate reliability and validity evidence supporting the use of the multiple mini interview for selecting candidates to an occupational therapy master’s level program. Method The study used a prospective cohort design. Data sources included both archival data and prospective candidate-generated data (multiple mini interview scores, applicant file review scores and academic performance), analyzed using psychometric and correlational approaches. Results Seventy-seven of 80 candidates participated in the prospective component of the study. Overall reliability of a 10-station multiple mini interview was .72. Inter-rater reliability was reasonable. Weak interrelationships were found between multiple mini interview scores and other application components. Conclusion Multiple mini interview scores may be probing different attributes than the other components of the application package. Our study findings support the use of the multiple mini interview for selecting applicants to a professional master’s program in occupational therapy; however, future work should continue to investigate the predictive validity of the multiple mini interview.
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 | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".