MMI format in NY Times

[Mithril]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/11/health/policy/11docs.html?_r=2&st=cse&adxnnl=1&scp=1&adxnnlx=1310374847-1WYtn%20Ju4/ax/xMxGo%20Skw&pagewanted=all

Comments: http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/10/screening-for-a-better-medical-student/#postComment

 

Looks like even the schools to the south are now implementing the MMI format.

[RaVen777]

That story about barging in and telling a minister he is positive for syphilis is horrible but I couldn't help chuckle a little.

[preppy038]

Interesting,

 

one thing I noticed was that this school created their own questions?

 

Virginia Tech Carilion administrators said they created questions that assessed how well candidates think on their feet and how willing they are to work in teams.

 

but I thought because of copyright issues, they aren't allowed to create their own questions but have to "buy" questions from mcmaster?

That's what I recall from my interview in Manitoba

 

:S

[preppy038]

That story about barging in and telling a minister he is positive for syphilis is horrible but I couldn't help chuckle at the absurdity of it.

 

+1 hahahaha

[D.K.]

Not surprizing, considering the MMI is the Apple of interview techniques - all flash no substance. It's trendy, hip, sexy, and counter-culture, it's a dream come true from the perspective of an adcom trying to improve the school's reputation. Notably, the best schools like Harvard, Stanford, and Yale aren't buying it.

[Mithril]

Notably, the best schools like Harvard, Stanford, and Yale aren't buying it.

Stanford uses the MMI.

 

Interesting,

 

one thing I noticed was that this school created their own questions?

 

 

 

but I thought because of copyright issues, they aren't allowed to create their own questions but have to "buy" questions from mcmaster?

That's what I recall from my interview in Manitoba

 

:S

Not sure if you can actually copyright an interview format.

[Asta]

Stanford uses the MMI.

 

Not sure if you can actually copyright an interview format.

 

Stole my line.

[pluripotent]

This article actually says that Stanford IS buying it. So are UCLA and Cincinnati.

[vancity88]

Not surprizing, considering the MMI is the Apple of interview techniques - all flash no substance. It's trendy, hip, sexy, and counter-culture, it's a dream come true from the perspective of an adcom trying to improve the school's reputation. Notably, the best schools like Harvard, Stanford, and Yale aren't buying it.

 

Ummmmm LOL.... did you even read the article? It actually discusses the research validating the "substance" behind the MMI. And specifically mentions Stanford as using the MMI...

[rmorelan]

Stanford uses the MMI.

.

 

Yeah exactly - and Havard is considering it from what I hear. If I read the article right about 5% of US schools now use the MMI and it sounds like that is going to go up over time

[Mithril]

Forgot there was a comments section: http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/10/screening-for-a-better-medical-student/#postComment

 

Looks like a lot of people don't like the MMI because they believe it's choosing smooth-talking politicians or salespeople.

[D.K.]

I couldn't resist posting this. It's from someone who wrote a comment:

 

The problem is that these exams (and they are a test like any other) focus inadvertently on many of the most superficial aspects of applicants such as dress, physical attractiveness, and charm. Everybody loves a pretty girl as well as a man that looks good in a suit but they don't necessarily make the best physicians.

 

This pretty much summarizes the whole interview process, but applies moreso to the MMI.

 

I've read the research on the MMI. But I've also read more unbiased psychological research, showing that humans for the most part base hiring decisions on peripheral influence factors, such as body language, eye contact, physical attractiveness, confidence, charisma, and good sense of humor.

 

In one study researchers were able to predict with high reliablility in real life settings, who would get a job, based only on video of the first 15 seconds of the candidate entering the room.

 

In addition to this, in another notable study, researchers sat participants down in front of a computer screen, and flashed the faces of job candidates on the screen for about 150 miliseconds... then asked participants to rate how competent the person looked. The researchers were able to predict, 90% of the time, who would get the job, based on the participants ratings of the candidates competency.

 

That's right. The interview panel has already decided whether or not you are getting into medical school in the first 150 miliseconds of you entering the room.

 

This speaks to the validity of using interviews (MMI or otherwise) to select for the best doctors. I'll let you come to your own conclusions.

[sleeping_sickness]

i knew the only reason that i was accepted to medical school was my charming nature and dashing good looks! Not only was i able to charm an interviewer once, but 10 times!! thank you MMI!

 

the studies that D.K. mentions are legit. I'm sure most of us have heard mention of them at one point or another. I just don't see why you need to spew off your comments with such venom. There's no sense in getting angry. It's just a waste of energy.

[pluripotent]

I'm not sure why it would be undesirable to base a hiring decision on "body language, eye contact, physical attractiveness, confidence, charisma, and good sense of humor." In that list, the only objectionable one is really "physical attractiveness."

 

For the others... in the business world as well as in the anxious sphere of medical school interviews, what else would an interviewer base their decision on? What other qualities should be measured, if not these? All the quantitative stuff is already on paper, in the candidate's application/resume/sketch.

 

It's a waste of time and money to interview candidates who aren't qualified at all for the job, AND they have no need to interview potential duds when there's so many potential winners. When you're a medical school, you don't need to interview 200 maybes and 100 no's to "boost" ratings or rejected/accepted ratios, because you can interview 300 maybes and still get the same result.

 

When every candidate who is invited to the interview is already highly (or even over-) qualified to be in medical school, the interview is essentially about exactly the qualities listed above.

 

Even say the 150-millisecond research is true. Just as a mental exercise. That means that whether the interview is 4 minutes or 4 hours long, the interviewers have already decided who's in and who's out just by looking at the candidates.

 

As a candidate, would you rather be judged once, in the four-hour interview, based on the first 150 milliseconds of your presentation, or would you rather be judged ten times, in ten four-minute interviews, for 150 milliseconds each, totaling 1500 milliseconds?

 

As a medical school, would you rather choose your candidates based on one evaluation or ten independent ones?

 

Even someone with no formal statistical training would reasonably choose ten evaluations over just one. This, then, actually supports the MMI as an evaluation tool. If people are going to make snap decisions ANYWAY, (and I imagine it is very hard to change this human characteristic), why not turn that from a disadvantage into an asset?

 

One snap judgment could be wrong, but ten? Man, if seven out of ten people don't like you ON SIGHT, something's wrong with your presentation.

[igeorgex]

Man, if seven out of ten people don't like you ON SIGHT, something's wrong with your presentation.

 

+1

 

you think 8 minutes is a short time until you're actually IN the situation talking to an interviewer and then you realize how long 8 minutes actually is. and (in my experience) you don't concentrate on just the one question you read on the door before you enter. there are always follow-ups and tangents and some rapport-building in that time span. plenty of opportunities for the interviewer to probe deeper, challenge and ascertain a candidate's character.

[EoE]

Lets not forget that this has been studied a bit by mac. I would really like to see an independent group publish their own findings. Especially the reliability from the first paper. Especially in Canada.

 

The data speaks for itself. Here are the results from the abstracts from the initial study and the follow up:

 

"The reliability of the MMI was observed to be 0.65. Furthermore, the hypothesis that context specificity might reduce the validity of traditional interviews was supported by the finding that the variance component attributable to candidate-station interaction was greater than that attributable to candidate. Both applicants and examiners were positive about the experience and the potential for this protocol."

 

"In-programme, MMI was the best predictor of OSCE performance, clerkship encounter cards, and clerkship performance ratings. On the MCCQE Part I, MMI significantly predicted CLEO/PHELO scores and clinical decision-making (CDM) scores. None of these assessments were predicted by other non-cognitive admissions measures or uGPA. Only uGPA predicted progress test scores and the MCQ-based specialty-specific subsections of the MCCQE Part I."

[rmorelan]

I should just mention that a lot of the studies people are flying around are designed to have an experimental data set and a control data set which are exactly the same EXCEPT the experimental group is full of attractive people and the control is full of plain or dare I say somewhat ugly people. That makes good science because you can the definitely say that appearance matters. I am sure that is a complete shock to everyone

 

Now the issue is this is the real world and people are not attractive or plain and aren't exactly the same in every other way. Not only that but at the interview stage everyone does everything they can to look the best - the room is full of well dressed, well presenting people. It is all suits and smiles all around. You can't simply say the most attractive person wins etc - that is vastly too simple.

 

And also the MMI is not just a overall score - people are graded following a rather specific list. The main problem with interviews traditionally is you are just trying to get an impression of the person - that is the entire point. Not to really evaluate their skills etc. MMI is designed, whether you agree with it or not, to be something a bit different.

 

Anyway sorry about the rant - I actually was in HR for awhile and have a psychology degree so I have heard this in many forms over the years. You have to be careful in overly simplifying the research findings