Résumés
Abstract
Background: Interviews are considered an important part of the medical school admissions process but have been critiqued based on bias and reliability concerns since the 1950s. To determine the impact of the interview, this systematic review investigated the characteristics and outcomes of medical students admitted with and without interviews.
Methods: We searched four literature databases from inception through August 2022; all studies comparing medical students admitted with and without interviews were included. We excluded studies from outside the medical school setting and non-research reports. We reviewed interview type, study design, quality, and outcomes.
Results: Eight studies from five institutions across five countries were included. Six reported no demographic differences between students admitted with and without interviews; one found that more men were admitted without than with semi-structured interviews, and both cohorts had similar academic and clinical performance. Structured interviews admitted students who scored higher on clinical exams and social competence and lower on academic exams. Cohorts admitted with and without structured interviews had similar mental health issues by their final year of medical school.
Discussion: This review suggests that students admitted with and without unstructured and semi-structured interviews were similar demographically, academically, and clinically. Moreover, structured interviews selected more socially competent students who performed better clinically but worse academically. Further research is needed to determine the impact of the selection interview in medical school admissions.
Résumé
Contexte : Les entrevues sont considérées comme une composante importante du processus d'admission dans les facultés de médecine, mais elles ont été critiquées depuis les années 1950 sur la base de préoccupations liées à la partialité et à la fiabilité. Afin de déterminer l'impact de l’entrevue, nous avons étudié dans cette revue systématique les caractéristiques et les résultats des étudiants en médecine admis ayant passé ou non une entrevue.
Méthodes : Nous avons effectué des recherches dans quatre bases de données bibliographiques depuis leur création jusqu'à août 2022; toutes les études comparant les étudiants en médecine admis avec ou sans entrevue ont été incluses. Nous avons exclu les études réalisées en dehors du cadre des facultés de médecine et les rapports ne relevant pas de la recherche. Nous avons examiné le type d'entrevue, la conception de l'étude, la qualité et les résultats.
Résultats : Huit études provenant de cinq établissements dans cinq pays ont été incluses. Six d'entre elles ne font état d'aucune différence démographique entre les étudiants admis avec ou sans entrevue ; l'une d'entre elles a révélé que davantage d'hommes étaient admis sans entrevue qu'avec une entrevue semi-structurée, et que les deux cohortes présentaient des rendements universitaires et cliniques similaires. Les entrevues structurées ont permis d'admettre des étudiants qui ont obtenu de meilleurs résultats aux examens cliniques et compétence sociale et de moins bons résultats aux examens universitaires. Les cohortes admises avec et sans entrevues structurées présentaient des problèmes de santé mentale similaires lors de leur dernière année d'études de médecine.
Discussion : Cette étude suggère que les étudiants admis avec et sans entrevues non structurées et semi-structurées étaient similaires d'un point de vue démographique, universitaire et clinique. En outre, les entrevues structurées ont permis de sélectionner des étudiants plus compétents sur le plan social, qui ont obtenu de meilleurs résultats cliniques, mais avec une moins bonne performance sur le plan académique. D'autres recherches sont nécessaires pour déterminer l'impact de l’entrevue de sélection sur les admissions dans les facultés de médecine.
Veuillez télécharger l’article en PDF pour le lire.
Télécharger
Parties annexes
Bibliography
- Association of American Medical Colleges. Medical School Admission Requirements™ (MSAR®) report for applicants and advisors: interview procedures, 2023. Available from https://students-residents.aamc.org/media/7051/download [Accessed Aug 24, 2022].
- Association of Faculties of Medicine of Canada. Admission requirements of Canadian faculties of medicine. Ottawa, ON: 2021. Available from: https://www.afmc.ca/sites/default/files/pdf/2021_admission-requirements_EN.pdf.
- Dunleavy DM, Whittaker KM. The evolving medical school admissions interview. Analysis in Brief. Association of American Medical Colleges; 2011;11(7). Available from https://www.aamc.org/media/5921/download [Accessed Aug 31, 2022].
- Puryear JB, Lewis LA. Description of the interview process in selecting students for admission to U.S. medical schools. J Med Educ. Nov 1981;56(11):881-5. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-198111000-00001
- Hamidi Z, Durning SJ, Torre D, Liotta R, Dong T. Do Interviews Influence Admission Decisions? An Empirical Analysis From an Institution. Mil Med. 2021 Feb 26;186(3-4):426-436. doi: 10.1093/milmed/usaa477.
- Eva KW, Reiter HI, Rosenfeld J, Trinh K, Wood TJ, Norman GR. Association between a medical school admission process using the multiple mini-interview and national licensing examination scores. Jama. Dec 5 2012;308(21):2233-40. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2012.36914
- Kreiter CD, Yin P, Solow C, Brennan RL. Investigating the reliability of the medical school admissions interview. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2004;9(2):147-59. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:AHSE.0000027464.22411.0f
- Kelly EL. A critique of the interview. In: Gee HH, Cowles JT, eds. The appraisal of applicants to medical schools. Association of American Medical Colleges; 1957:78-84.
- Chatterjee A, Greif C, Witzburg R, Henault L, Goodell K, Paasche-Orlow MK. US medical school applicant experiences of bias on the interview trail. J Health Care Poor Underserved. 2020;31(1):185-200. https://doi.org/10.1353/hpu.2020.0017
- Pau A, Jeevaratnam K, Chen YS, Fall AA, Khoo C, Nadarajah VD. The Multiple Mini-Interview (MMI) for student selection in health professions training - a systematic review. Med Teach. Dec 2013;35(12):1027-41. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2013.829912
- Rees EL, Hawarden AW, Dent G, Hays R, Bates J, Hassell AB. Evidence regarding the utility of multiple mini-interview (MMI) for selection to undergraduate health programs: a BEME systematic review: BEME Guide No. 37. Med Teach. May 2016;38(5):443-55. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2016.1158799
- Lin JC, Lokhande A, Margo CE, Greenberg PB. Best practices for interviewing applicants for medical school admissions: a systematic review. Perspect Med Educ. 2022 Oct;11(5):239-246. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40037-022-00726-8.
- Edwards JC, Johnson EK, Molidor JB. The interview in the admission process. Acad Med. 1990 Mar;65(3):167-77. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-199003000-00008.
- Johnson EK, Edwards JC. Current practices in admission interviews at U.S. medical schools. Acad Med. 1991 Jul;66(7):408-12. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-199107000-00008.
- Rolfe IE, Pearson S, Powis DA, Smith AJ. Time for a review of admission to medical school? Lancet. 1995 Nov 18;346(8986):1329-33. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(95)92344-6.
- Tutton P, Price M. Selection of medical students. BMJ. 2002 May 18;324(7347):1170-1. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.324.7347.1170.
- Albanese MA, Snow MH, Skochelak SE, Huggett KN, Farrell PM. Assessing personal qualities in medical school admissions. Acad Med. 2003 Mar;78(3):313-21. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-200303000-00016.
- Monroe A, Quinn E, Samuelson W, Dunleavy DM, Dowd KW. An overview of the medical school admission process and use of applicant data in decision making: what has changed since the 1980s? Acad Med. 2013 May;88(5):672-81. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0b013e31828bf252.
- Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. Mar 29 2021;372:n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
- Chung HO, Oczkowski SJ, Hanvey L, Mbuagbaw L, You JJ. Educational interventions to train healthcare professionals in end-of-life communication: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Med Educ. Apr 29 2016;16:131. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-016-0653-x
- Smith SR. Medical school and residency performances of students admitted with and without an admission interview. Acad Med. Aug 1991;66(8):474-6. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-199108000-00012
- Bågedahl-Strindlund M, Mårtensson B, Fredrikson S. Medical students admitted by interviews as good as the rest of the students in examination following internship. They were also younger at the time of the final examination. Lakartidningen. 2008;105(48-49):3522-5.
- Dahlin M, Söderberg S, Holm U, Nilsson I, Farnebo LO. Comparison of communication skills between medical students admitted after interviews or on academic merits. BMC Med Educ. Jun 22 2012;12:46. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6920-12-46
- Wilkinson D, Casey MG, Eley DS. Removing the interview for medical school selection is associated with gender bias among enrolled students. Med J Aust. Feb 3 2014;200(2):96-9. https://doi.org/10.5694/mja13.10103
- Casey M, Wilkinson D, Fitzgerald J, Eley D, Connor J. Clinical communication skills learning outcomes among first year medical students are consistent irrespective of participation in an interview for admission to medical school. Med Teach. Jul 2014;36(7):640-2. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2014.907880
- Yusoff MSB. The outcomes that an interview-based medical school admission process has on academic performance, psychological health, personality traits, and emotional intelligence. J Taibah Univ Med Sci. 2018;13(6):503-11.
- Yusoff MS, Rahim AF, Baba AA, Ismail SB, Esa AR. A study of psychological distress in two cohorts of first-year medical students that underwent different admission selection processes. Malays J Med Sci. 2012 Jul;19(3):29-35.
- Azman MA-z, Yaacob NA, Yusoff MSB, Noor SH. Comparative study on medical student personality traits between interview and non-interview admission method in University Sains Malaysia. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2014;116:2281-5.
- Cook DA, Reed DA. Appraising the quality of medical education research methods: the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale-Education. Acad Med. Aug 2015;90(8):1067-76. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000000786
- Reed DA, Cook DA, Beckman TJ, Levine RB, Kern DE, Wright SM. Association between funding and quality of published medical education research. JAMA. Sep 5 2007;298(9):1002-9. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.298.9.1002
- Luckoski J, Jean D, Thelen A, Mazer L, George B, Kendrick DE. How do programs measure resident performance? A multi-institutional inventory of general surgery assessments. J Surg Educ. Nov-Dec 2021;78(6):e189-e195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsurg.2021.08.024
- Aagaard T, Lund H, Juhl C. Optimizing literature search in systematic reviews - are MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL enough for identifying effect studies within the area of musculoskeletal disorders? BMC Med Res Methodol. Nov 22 2016;16(1):161. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-016-0264-6