Document Type: Short Communication


University of California, Irvine, Department of Emergency Medicine, Orange, CA


Introduction: A multiple-mini interview (MMI) is a type ofstructured interview, which may assess many non-cognitivedomains in residency applicants. There are few studies on MMIduring the emergency medicine (EM) residency admissionsprocess in the United States. We sought to determine the strengths,weaknesses, and acceptability of a pilot MMI for EM residencyadmissions.Methods: We piloted a five-station MMI with nine residencyapplicants. Following the MMI, we surveyed all participants,using 15 open- and closed-ended questions. Using groundedtheory analysis, we coded the responses to the post-interventionsurvey to uncover the strengths and weaknesses of the MMI forEM residency admissions.Results: All nine students completed the survey. A positivetheme that emerged from the survey was that the MMI wasa positive, unexpected experience (all respondents, n=9).Candidates felt they were able to showcase unique talents,which would not be observed during a traditional interview(n=3). A negative theme that emerged from the survey was thatthe experience was intimidating (n=3). Candidates felt that theMMI left out important aspects of a typical interview day (n=3),such as time for the candidate to become more familiar withthe program.Conclusion: An MMI may be a positive experience for candidates,but may also induce more anxiety. The MMI may omit animportant piece of the interview day: an opportunity for theapplicants to familiarize themselves with the residency program.Keywords: Internship, Residency, Interview, Medical students

  1. Aghababian R, Tandberg D, Iserson K, Martin M, Sklar D. Selection of emergency medicine residents. Ann Emerg Med 1993. 22:1753–61.
  2. Crane JT, Ferraro CM. Selection criteria for emergency medicine residency applicants. Acad Emerg Med 2000. 7:54–60.
  3. Hayden SR, Hayden MH, Gamst A. What Characteristics of Applicants to Emergency Medicine Residency Programs Predict Future Success as an Emergency Medicine Resident? Acad Emerg Med 2005. 12:206-210.
  4. Patrick LE, Altmaier EM, Kuperman S, Ugolini K. A structured interview for medical school admission, Phase 1: Initial procedures and results. Acad Med 2001. 76(1): 66-71.
  5. Foster C, Godkin L. Employment selection in health care: The case for structured interviewing. Health Care Manage Rev 1998. 23(1): 46-51.
  6. Bandiera G, Regehr G. Reliability of a structured interview scoring instrument for a Canadian postgraduate emergency medicine training program. Acad Emerg Med 2004. 11(1): 27-32.
  7. Eva KW, Rosenfeld J, Retter HI, Norman GR. An admissions OSCE: the multiple mini interview Med Educ 2004. 38:314–326.
  8. Lemay JF, Lockyer JM, Collins VT, Brownell KW. Assessment of non-cognitive traits through the admissions multiple mini-interview. Med Educ 2007. 41: 573-579.
  9. Dore JL, Kreuger S, Ladhani M, et al. The Reliability and Acceptability of the Multiple Mini-Interview as a Selection Instrument for Postgraduate Admissions. Acad Med 2010. 85:S60-63.
  10. Finlayson HC, Townson AF. Resident selection for a physical medicine and rehabilitation program: Feasibility and reliability of the multiple mini-interview. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2001. 90:330 – 335.
  11. Hofmeister M, Lockyer J, Crutcher R. The multiple mini-interview for selection of international medical graduates into family medicine residency education. Med Educ 2009. 43:573-579.
  12. Jones PE, Forister JG. A comparison of behavioral and multiple mini-interview formats in physician assistant program admissions. J Physician Assist Educ 2011. 22(1);36-40.
  13. Eva KW, Reiter HJ, Trinh J, Wasi P, Rosenfeld J, Norman GR. Predictive validity of the multiple-mini-interview for selecting medical trainees. Med Educ 2009: 43:767–775.
  14. Harris I. What Does “The Discovery of Grounded Theory” Have to Say to Medical Education? Adv Health Sci Educ 2003. 8:49 – 61.
  15. Reiter HI, Eva KW, Rosenfeld J, Norman GR. Multiple mini-interviews predict clerkship and licensing examination performance. Med Educ 2007. 41:378-84.