Accepted Type
Dedicated Poster
Code
P1 - 01
Acceptance Declaration
Accept
Additional Information
I declare I have no actual or potential conflict of interest in relation to this program.
Was this work accepted for CCME 2020?
no
Category
General Call (Workshop, Oral Presentation, Poster Presentation)
Type
Poster
Sub Type
Education Research
Will the presenter be a:
Other
Presenter Other
Faculty
Affiliation
Title
Are different station formats assessing different constructs in Multiple Mini Interviews? Findings from the Canadian Integrated French Multiple Mini Interviews (IFMMI)
Length of Presentation
Background/Purpose
Multiple mini-interviews (MMI) are used to assess non-academic attributes for selection in medicine and other healthcare professions. It remains unclear if different MMI stations formats (discussions, role-plays, collaboration) can assess different constructs.
Methods
Based on station's format of the 2018-2019 IFMMI (5 discussions, 3 role-plays and 2 collaboration stations), we performed confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using the lavaan 0.6-5 R package (Rosseel, 2012) and compared a one-factor solution vs three-factor solution to applicants of the 2018 (n=1438) and 2019 (n=1440) cohorts of the IFMMI across three medical schools in Quebec, Canada.
Results
The three-factor solution was retained, with discussions, role-plays and collaboration stations all loading adequately with their scores. Furthermore, all three factors had moderate covariances together (range 0.44 to 0.64). The model fit was also excellent with a Comparative fit index (CFI) of 0.983 (good if >0.9), a Tucker Lewis index of 0.976 (good if > 0.95), a Standardized Root Mean Square Residual of 0.021 (good if < .08 ) and a Root Mean Square Error of 0.023 (good if < 0.08) for 2018 and similar results for 2019. In comparison, the single factor solution presented a lower fit (CFI=0.819, TLI=0.767, SRMR=0.049 and RMSEA=0.070)
Conclusion
The IFMMI has a stable tridimensional structure across two cohorts that was explained by station formats, suggesting that different station formats are assessing different but related constructs, reinforcing the construct validity of an MMI with multiple station formats. Further studies should try to characterize these constructs and look for differential predictive validity according to station format.
Keyword 1
selection
Keyword 2
multiple mini-interviews
Keyword 3
assessment
Level of Training
Undergraduate
Abstract Themes
Admissions
Additional Theme (First choice)
Undergraduate
Additional Theme (Second Choice)
Assessment
Additional Theme (Third Choice)
Authors
Presenter
Sébastien Béland
Term 1
Yes
Term 2
Yes
Term 3
Yes
Term 4
Yes
Term 5
Yes
