This is a sel -a chi ed e sion o an o iginal a icle. This e sion
may di e om he o iginal in pagina ion and ypog aphic de ails.
Au ho (s):
Ti le:
Yea :
Ve sion:
Copy igh :
Righ s:
Righ s u l:
Please ci e he o iginal e sion:
CC BY 4.0
h ps://c ea i ecommons.o g/licenses/by/4.0/
Explo ing he eliabili y and alidi y o mul iple mini-in e iews in admission o eache
educa ion
© 2024 he Au ho s
Published e sion
Vilppu, Henna; Laakkonen, Ee o; Haa aja, Ee a; Tol anen, Asko; Me säpel o,
Rii a-Leena
Vilppu, H., Laakkonen, E., Haa aja, E., Tol anen, A., & Me säpel o, R.-L. (2024). Explo ing he
eliabili y and alidi y o mul iple mini-in e iews in admission o eache educa ion. Eu opean
Jou nal o Teache Educa ion, Ea ly online. h ps://doi.o g/10.1080/02619768.2024.2351068
2024
Full Te ms & Condi ions o access and use can be ound a
h ps://www. and online.com/ac ion/jou nalIn o ma ion?jou nalCode=ce e20
Eu opean Jou nal o Teache Educa ion
ISSN: (P in ) (Online) Jou nal homepage: www. and online.com/jou nals/ce e20
Explo ing he eliabili y and alidi y o mul iple
mini-in e iews in admission o eache educa ion
Henna Vilppu, Ee o Laakkonen, Ee a Haa aja, Asko Tol anen & Rii a-Leena
Me säpel o
To ci e his a icle: Henna Vilppu, Ee o Laakkonen, Ee a Haa aja, Asko Tol anen & Rii a-
Leena Me säpel o (04 May 2024): Explo ing he eliabili y and alidi y o mul iple mini-
in e iews in admission o eache educa ion, Eu opean Jou nal o Teache Educa ion, DOI:
10.1080/02619768.2024.2351068
To link o his a icle: h ps://doi.o g/10.1080/02619768.2024.2351068
© 2024 The Au ho (s). Published by In o ma
UK Limi ed, ading as Taylo & F ancis
G oup.
Published online: 04 May 2024.
Submi you a icle o his jou nal
View ela ed a icles
View C ossma k da a
Explo ing he eliabili y and alidi y o mul iple
mini-in e iews in admission o eache educa ion
Henna Vilppu
a
, Ee o Laakkonen
a
, Ee a Haa aja
b
, Asko Tol anen
c
and Rii a-
Leena Me säpel o
d
a
Depa men o Teache Educa ion and Cen e o Resea ch on Lea ning and Ins uc ion (CERLI), Uni e si y
o Tu ku, Tu ku, Finland;
b
Facul y o Educa ional Sciences, Uni e si y o Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland;
c
Me hodology Cen e o Human Sciences, Uni e si y o Jy äskylä, Jy äskylä, Finland;
d
Depa men o
Teache Educa ion, Uni e si y o Jy äskylä, Jy äskylä, Finland
ABSTRACT
This s udy add essed he need o explo e he eliabili y and alidi y
o he ecen ly enewed ap i ude es based on he mul iple mini-
in e iew (MMI) o ma in Finnish eache educa ion p og ammes.
U ilising a na ionwide da ase (N = 3306), we explo ed he eliabili y
o he o ma using in aclass co ela ions and mul ile el modelling.
Fu he mo e, we alida ed he in ended s uc u e o he MMI wi h
con i ma o y ac o analysis and con as ed he sco es o he MMI
wi h o he admission sco es, i.e. cogni i e measu es. The esul s
showed mos ly small e ec s o clus e ing o he applican s acco d-
ing o he di e en in e iewe s and ci cui s. The la ges a iance
componen o he MMI o al sco e was he applican (73.3%),
ollowed by measu emen e o (15.09%). The in ended s uc u e
was alida ed, and he MMI seemed o measu e di e en a ibu es
om o he admission measu es. Thus, he s udy demons a ed
sa is ac o y eliabili y and alidi y o MMI in admission o eache
educa ion, ye he s a ions need u he de elopmen .
ARTICLE HISTORY
Recei ed 12 June 2023
Accep ed 28 Ap il 2024
KEYWORDS
Mul iple mini-in e iews;
s uden admission; ini ial
eache educa ion
In oduc ion
In Finland, many eache educa ion p og ammes ha e long main ained hei place as he
mos compe i i e uni e si y p og ammes, wi h accep ance a es o less han 10%. This
makes he admission p ocess a high-s akes si ua ion (Rees e al. 2016) and places special
impo ance on he selec ion: how o selec he mos sui able candida es o eache
educa ion om among housands o applican s (Lehane, Lysagh , and O’Lea y 2023).
Recen ly, admission o eache educa ion p og ammes in Finland has been signi ican ly
de eloped and uni ied among he eigh uni e si ies o e ing ini ial eache educa ion
(ITE). Consequen ly, uni e si y-speci ic ap i ude es s and pe sonal o g oup in e iews
ha e been eplaced by a common ap i ude es based on he mul iple mini-in e iew
(MMI) o ma , by which he applican can apply o almos any o he eache educa ion
p og ammes.
CONTACT Henna Vilppu [email p o ec ed] Depa men o Teache Educa ion & Cen e o Resea ch on
Lea ning and Ins uc ion (CERLI), Uni e si y Resea ch Fellow, Uni e si y o Tu ku, Tu ku, Finland
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF TEACHER EDUCATION
h ps://doi.o g/10.1080/02619768.2024.2351068
© 2024 The Au ho (s). Published by In o ma UK Limi ed, ading as Taylo & F ancis G oup.
This is an Open Access a icle dis ibu ed unde he e ms o he C ea i e Commons A ibu ion License (h p://c ea i ecommons.o g/
licenses/by/4.0/), which pe mi s un es ic ed use, dis ibu ion, and ep oduc ion in any medium, p o ided he o iginal wo k is p ope ly
ci ed. The e ms on which his a icle has been published allow he pos ing o he Accep ed Manusc ip in a eposi o y by he au ho (s) o
wi h hei consen .
The basic idea o he MMI me hod is ha he applican goes h ough se e al s a ions
wi h di e en in e iewe s, and mul iple a ibu es a e assessed using a p ede ined,
s uc u ed sco ing ub ic (E a e al. 2004). These mul iple in e iews should educe he
e ec o chance and in e iewe o si ua ional biases; his is seen as an impo an asse o
MMI compa ed o adi ional pe sonal semis uc u ed o uns uc u ed in e iews.
MMI has been widely used and s udied in he con ex o medical educa ion, bu
ela i ely li le is known abou i s applica ion in admission o eache educa ion.
Howe e , a couple o ecen s udies ha e shown p omising esul s conce ning i s elia-
bili y and in e iewe and applican pe cep ions o he p ocedu e (Me säpel o, U iainen,
e al. 2022), as well as i s abili y o measu e ac ual disposi ions in con as o wo k
expe ience (Saling é and MacMa h 2021). Ne e heless, he u ili y o MMI in eache
educa ion admissions calls o mo e esea ch. The pu pose o his s udy was o ill his
gap and shed ligh on he eliabili y and alidi y o he MMI me hod as one pa o he
admission p ocess wi h an ex ensi e sample, he en i e na ional popula ion o applican s
in Finland. Speci ically, we aimed o s udy whe he MMI demons a es sa is ac o y elia-
bili y, whe he i can measu e mul iple noncogni i e a ibu es, and whe he i assesses
di e en a ibu es om he o he admission measu es.
The MMI as a me hod in s uden selec ion
Mul iple app oaches ha e been used in s uden selec ion. In he ela ed li e a u e,
a dis inc ion is ypically made be ween measu ing he cogni i e and noncogni i e a i-
bu es o applican s (e.g. Ba dach, Klassen, and Pe y 2022; Rei e e al. 2007). Cogni i e
a ibu es usually e e o in ellec ual p owess, measu ed by high school g ade poin
a e age (GPA), o pe o mance on a ce ain knowledge o cogni i e p ocessing es , while
noncogni i e a ibu es a e o en used o encapsula e all he o he desi ed quali ies in an
applican (E a e al. 2004). P e ious s udies on s uden admission o ITE do no show e y
p omising esul s o selec ion solely based on cogni i e a ibu es (e.g. Ba dach and
Klassen 2020; D’Agos ino and Powe s 2009) bu encou age he use o b oade app oaches
ha include speci ic noncogni i e measu es, such as psychological eache cha ac e is ics
(Ba dach, Klassen, and Pe y 2022). Howe e , iden i ying sui able ools o he e alua ion
o noncogni i e a ibu es seems o be challenging (Klassen e al. 2020).
In he domain o medical educa ion, he MMI o ma was de eloped o ackle p oblems
ela ed o measu ing noncogni i e a ibu es on a single measu emen occasion, such as
pe sonal o g oup in e iews (E a e al. 2004; Rei e e al. 2007). The MMI is a highly
s uc u ed selec ion me hod in which applican s o a e h ough a se ies o s a ions whe e
hey espond o p ede ined ques ions on a opic, p oblem, o case-based scena io.
Fu he mo e, in e iewe s may assess candida es on mul iple a ibu es, bo h wi hin
and ac oss in e iew s a ions (Oli e e al. 2014).
S uc u e and design o he MMI
The MMI u ilises mul iple s a ions wi h di e en in e iewe s who independen ly sco e
each applican on a s anda d a ing scheme. Thus, i applies a mul iple independen
sampling me hodology (Hanson e al. 2012). The e has been sligh a ia ion in he
numbe and du a ion o he s a ions, which o en ep esen s a comp omise be ween
2H. VILPPU ET AL.
easibili y (e.g. esou ces, pa icipan a igue) and eliabili y (Dodson e al. 2009). Typically,
medical schools ha e adop ed MMIs wi h six o wel e s a ions, wi h du a ions o 5 o 15
minu es (Kno and Hissbach 2014). Conce ning eliabili y, a s a ion ime o 5 o 6 minu es
has been p o en su icien (e.g. Dodson e al. 2009; Kno and Hissbach 2014).
The s a ions a e designed o measu e, o example, he applican ’s abili y o sol e
p oblems while communica ing hei ideas clea ly, as opposed o speci ic lea ned knowl-
edge (E a e al. 2004). Pau e al. (2013) p o ided e idence ha he MMI can assess c i ical
hinking abili y, communica ion skills, p o essionalism, and a i udes owa ds ce ain
e hical and social dilemmas. Thus, he MMI aims o measu e mul iple noncogni i e
a ibu es, which a e belie ed o be impo an o and p edic i e o u u e pe o mance
in he p o ession (Oli e e al. 2014). Howe e , ew s udies ha e epo ed iden i ying he
a ge a ibu es h ough li e a u e esea ch and s akeholde analysis (Kno and Hissbach
2014).
The MMI s a ions ypically equi e applican s o espond o a p omp , which migh be
a pic u e, an a icle, o a scena io (Saling é and McMa h 2021). S a ions may u ilise
di e en ask o ma s, such as discussing a opic o dilemma wi h he in e iewe ,
answe ing s anda dised ques ions, collabo a ing wi h o he applican s, o answe ing
p oblem-sol ing asks (Kno and Hissbach 2014). The applican ’s pe o mance on s a ions
is ypically a ed on ancho ed Like scales. S a ion sco es may be measu ed ei he on
a single scale o by summing o agg ega ing se e al subscales.
The MMI is a esou ce-in ensi e me hod o assessmen as i equi es ex ensi e human
esou ces and space, which may a ec , o example, he numbe o s a ions a anged
(Uij dehaage, Doyle, and Pa ke 2011; Yamada e al. 2017). Se ing up an adequa e
numbe o s a ions and ques ions wi hin s a ions, as well as p o iding a su icien amoun
o aining o he examine s, can imp o e he eliabili y o he MMIs bu may be oo cos ly
(Robe s e al. 2008). To dec ease he inancial cos s o he MMI, Rosen eld e al. (2008)
sugges ed ec ui ing exis ing acul y o be examine s, using uni e si y p emises, and
educing he du a ion o s a ions a he han hei numbe .
Reliabili y and alidi y o MMIs
In a high-s akes si ua ion, issues o eliabili y and alidi y equi e special a en ion.
Gene ally, eliabili y e e s o he consis ency o he measu es used, while alidi y e e s
o whe he he i ems used measu e wha hey a e in ended o measu e. Validi y may
include a numbe o mo e speci ic componen s, such as con en alidi y (consis ency
be ween he s a ion scena io and he a ge a ibu e o be measu ed) and cons uc
alidi y (consis ency be ween he sco es and he a ge a ibu e; Hecke e al. 2009). In
addi ion, he MMI li e a u e o en discusses p edic i e, disc iminan , and ace alidi y.
P edic i e alidi y de e mines he ex en o which MMI iden i ies applican s who will
display he desi ed a ibu es du ing aining and h oughou hei p o essional p ac ice
(Came on e al. 2017). Disc iminan alidi y con as s MMI wi h o he selec ion measu es
(B eil e al. 2020), and ace alidi y e e s o he accep abili y o he MMI by in e iewe s
and applican s (Hecke e al. 2009).
The use o he MMI o ma has yielded p omising esul s in s uden admissions o
heal h p o essions. Compa ed o adi ional in e iews, MMIs o e imp o ed eliabili y
and alidi y, which should be expec ed o a selec ion ins umen in a high-s akes selec ion
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF TEACHER EDUCATION 3

se ing (Pa e son e al. 2016). Fo example, he mul iple independen sampling me ho-
dology is hough o con ibu e o i s eliabili y, as one assessmen does no in luence
ano he (Hanson e al. 2012). Gene ally, he eliabili y o MMI has been epo ed o be
accep able; howe e , he in e p e a ion o eliabili y in s udies has no always been clea ly
explained (Pau e al. 2013). Fac o analysis is ecommended o iden i ying which s a ions
assess he same a ibu es (Lemay e al. 2007), and gene alisabili y analysis is o en ca ied
ou o compu e he o e all eliabili y o he MMI conside ing all sou ces o a iance (Pau
e al. 2013), such as in e iewe , s a ion, o applican . In a ecen s udy pilo ing he MMI
p ocedu e in Finnish eache educa ion, app oxima ely 63% o he a iance be ween he
MMI sco es could be a ibu ed o he applican , while measu emen e o accoun ed o
abou 21% o he a iance (Me säpel o, U iainen, e al. 2022). In mos o he s a ions,
in e iewe and ci cui e ec s we e small (unde 10%), while he s a ion explained a ound
20% o he a iance, poin ing o a ying le els o di icul y be ween s a ions.
The e has been disag eemen abou whe he MMIs can measu e only one a ibu e,
one a ibu e pe s a ion, o one a ibu e pe social skill dimension, ega dless o s a ion
(B eil e al. 2020). Fo example, measu es o di e en noncogni i e a ibu es assessed
wi hin he same s a ion ha e been ound o be highly co ela ed, which migh limi he
in e p e abili y o MMI sco es (Oli e e al. 2014). This has also led o he common p ac ice
o epo ing o al sco es wi hin each s a ion ins ead o sepa a e a ibu e-based sco es.
Thus, i emains unclea whe he MMI sco es a e able o cap u e one o mul iple a i-
bu es. Oli e e al. (2014) epo ed e idence suppo ing he measu emen o mul iple
a ibu es wi hin one s a ion bu highligh ed he need o clea ly de ine he aspec s o he
noncogni i e a ibu es ha a e in ended o be assessed. Addi ionally, s udies by Lemay
e al. (2007) and Hecke e al. (2009) p o ided simila e idence suppo ing he mul i-
dimensionali y o MMI, ha is, he abili y o he o ma o assess mul iple noncogni i e
a ibu es.
In medical educa ion, consis en e idence has been epo ed conce ning he p edic-
i e alidi y o MMIs. Acco ding o a sys ema ic e iew (Pa e son e al. 2016), pe o mance
on MMIs was ela ed o subsequen pe o mance on bo h unde g adua e and pos g ad-
ua e examina ions o clinical compe ence, as well as on o he examina ions. Kelly e al.
(2014) p o ed he opposi e, showing ha MMI was no highly p edic i e o i s -yea
success in he p og amme. Howe e , hey sugges ed ha p edic i e alidi y pa e ns may
change as s uden s p og ess in hei s udies and gain mo e clinical expe ience. In he
eache educa ion con ex , Saling é and MacMa h (2021) epo ed ew co ela ions
be ween MMI and success measu es in he long p ac icum, sugges ing he need o
mo e esea ch.
Conce ning he disc iminan alidi y o MMI, he o ma has shown low o non-exis en
associa ions wi h adi ional admission ools, such as cogni i e abili y, p e-en y academic
quali ica ions (e.g. GPA), o in e iew (e.g. E a e al. 2004; Hecke e al. 2009; Pau e al.
2013; Rees e al. 2016). Howe e , sco es om MMIs wi h only in e iew s a ions we e
s ongly associa ed wi h sco es om MMIs ha included di e en kinds o exe cises,
demons a ing con e gence be ween di e en ask o ma s (Ga ni e al. 2012).
Acco ding o B eil e al. (2020), mos p e ious s udies ha e ocused on he ela ionships
be ween o e all MMI sco es and o he selec ion measu es, while i would be impo an o
conside he co ela ion be ween indi idual s a ions and o he selec ion measu es i MMI
is assumed o measu e se e al dis inc a ibu es.
4H. VILPPU ET AL.
In he medical con ex , se e al s udies indica e good ace alidi y o MMI,
cha ac e ising i as a mo e accep able me hod o admission assessmen han adi-
ional in e iews by bo h in e iewe s and in e iewees (e.g. Do e e al. 2010; Kelly
e al. 2014). In eache educa ion, MMI has also been pe cei ed posi i ely by bo h
applican s and in e iewe s (Me säpel o, U iainen, e al. 2022). The special ad an-
age o MMIs is ha applican s can imp o e hei pe o mance a he nex s a ion,
ega dless o possible ailu es in p e ious s a ions (Pau e al. 2013; Rosen eld e al.
2008). Se e al s udies on he accep abili y o MMIs s a e ha MMI sco es a e no
ela ed o applican s’ gende , disad an ages, p e ious school success, o access o
paid coaching (Pau e al. 2013; Uij dehaage, Doyle, and Pa ke 2011). Howe e , some
s udies ha e epo ed ha applican s o abo iginal o u al backg ound ecei e lowe
sco es compa ed o o he applican s (Rees e al. 2016). Accep abili y can be
inc eased by combining di e en ypes o ques ions wi hin he s a ions (Yamada
e al. 2017).
The cu en s udy: MMI as a pa o s uden admission o eache educa ion
in Finland
In Finland, s uden s a e selec ed o ITE ia a wo-phase selec ion p ocess. The i s phase
includes he p eselec ion o applican s based on hei weigh ed ma icula ion exam
sco es, which a e applied o a pe cen age (e.g. 60%) o applican s. They a e g an ed he
igh o en e he second phase wi hou pa icipa ing in he i s phase sc eening.
Applican s wi hou ma icula ion exams o high enough sco es may ake i s phase
sc eening, which aims o measu e he applican s’ cogni i e compe encies, such as con-
cep ual comp ehension. I is comp ised o a na ionally planned and coo dina ed w i en
exam (VAKAVA) ha comp ises eading scien i ic ex s and answe ing mul iple-choice
ques ions based on he ex s wi hin a ime limi . Based on he success in he i s phase, a
leas wice as many applican s compa ed o he numbe o s udy places a e in i ed in
he second phase.
The inal sc eening o applican s akes place in he second phase, which ocuses on
applican s’ noncogni i e a ibu es, such as social skills. The inal sc eening is based on
a na ionally planned and coo dina ed MMI o ma in which applican s mo e h ough
a sequence o s a ions wi h di e en in e iewe s and espond o s uc u ed asks (E a
e al. 2004). The a ibu es measu ed in he MMI a e de i ed om he mul idimensional
adap ed p ocess model (MAP) o eaching (Me säpel o, Poikkeus, e al. 2022), highligh ing
applican s’ sui abili y o he eaching p o ession. In he inal selec ion decision, nei he
he sco es om he p eselec ion no he i s phase sc eening a e conside ed; only he
sco es o he MMI a e used o ank he s uden s.
In bo h he i s and second phase sc eenings, he p ocedu es and sco ing a e uni o m
ac oss uni e si ies, and bo h phases apply o all eache educa ion p og ammes in
Finland. The applican s can simul aneously apply o se e al p og ammes wi hin he
same o mul iple uni e si ies, bu hey mus ank hei choices and can only en e one
p og amme in which hey sco e highe han i s cu -o .
The cu en s udy add essed ques ions conce ning he eliabili y as well as cons uc
and disc iminan alidi y o MMI as a pa o s uden admission o eache educa ion
p og ammes in Finland. The MMI o ma was pilo ed in some eache educa ion uni s in
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF TEACHER EDUCATION 5
2019, a e which i was u he de eloped; since 2020, i has been u ilised na ionwide.
Since he o ma has been ai ly ecen ly applied o he eache educa ion con ex bu is
less s udied wi hin i , he s udy aimed o shed mo e ligh on he ma e by answe ing he
ollowing esea ch ques ions:
In he con ex o s uden admission o eache educa ion,
(1) Does he MMI o ma demons a e eliabili y?
●How much o he a ia ion in MMI sco es in each s a ion is explained by he
clus e ing o applican s o di e en in e iewe s and ci cui s?
●How much o he a ia ion in MMI sco es is a ibu able o he in e iewe ,
ci cui , s a ion, applican , and measu emen e o ?
(2) Does he MMI o ma demons a e alidi y?
●Does he MMI measu e se e al noncogni i e a ibu es, as i is designed o do?
●To wha ex en does MMI assess a ibu es ha a e no assessed by o he
admission a iables (ma icula ion exam sco es and VAKAVA sco es)?
The i s esea ch ques ion add essed he eliabili y o he MMI in e ms o how much o
he a iance be ween he sco es could be a ibu ed o he pa icipan s and how much o
he o he ac o s. In a p e ious s udy, he la ges a iance componen in he MMI o al
sco e was o he applican , bu i e lec ed only ma ginally sa is ac o y eliabili y
(Me säpel o, U iainen, e al. 2022). A he ime o he ea lie s udy, he MMI p ocedu e
was pilo ed o he i s ime in Finnish eache educa ion admissions, whe eas a he ime
o he cu en s udy, he o ma had become es ablished. Thus, we expec ed sligh ly
highe eliabili y in e ms o applican sco es.
The second esea ch ques ion conce ning he alidi y o he MMI was di ided in o wo
sub-ques ions. The i s aimed o examine whe he he da a s uc u e o he MMI sco es
suppo s he p esence o mul iple noncogni i e a ibu es as independen es dimen-
sions. Gi en he explici measu emen and supposed dis inc i eness o i e MMI dimen-
sions, we expec ed a s onge model i o a i e- ac o solu ion han o a one- ac o
solu ion, sugges ing ha only one a ibu e is measu ed; o o a ou - ac o solu ion,
sugges ing ha each s a ion would measu e only one a ge a ibu e (ins ead o he wo
a ibu es ha we e aimed a ; see Oli e e al. 2014).
The second sub-ques ion pe ained o he ela ionship be ween he MMI and he o he
admission measu es. Based on ea lie esea ch, we assumed ha he MMI measu es
some hing o he han he cogni i e skills measu ed by he o he admission a iables,
namely, ma icula ion exam sco es and VAKAVA sco es ( o GPA, see E a e al. 2004, 2012;
Rei e e al. 2007). Thus, we expec ed only modes co ela ions be ween MMI s a ion
sco es and o he admission measu es.
Ma e ials and me hods
Pa icipan s
The pa icipan s o he s udy comp ised he en i e popula ion o applican s (N = 3309)
who had applied o a leas one o he h ee la ges eache educa ion p og ammes in
Finland (p ima y eache educa ion, ea ly childhood eache educa ion, o special
6H. VILPPU ET AL.
needs eache educa ion) and had pa icipa ed in he second phase o s uden
admission ( he ap i ude es o ganised in he MMI o ma in 2021). The da a we e
d awn om he na ional egis e o s udy p og ammes leading o a deg ee, main-
ained by he Finnish Na ional Agency o Educa ion. Complying wi h he Eu opean
Gene al Da a P o ec ion Regula ion, he pa icipan s we e in o med abou he p oces-
sing o hei pe sonal da a and gi en he oppo uni y o e use pa icipa ion. Th ee
applican s eques ed non-pa icipa ion in he s udy, esul ing in a inal sample size o
3306.
Measu es and p ocedu e
The mul iple mini-in e iew
The mul iple mini-in e iew (MMI) p ocedu e was designed based on a pilo s udy
(Me säpel o, U iainen, e al. 2022), whe e i e a ibu es we e measu ed h ough i e i e-
minu e s a ions. Howe e , due o esou ce-in ensi eness and a la ge numbe o appli-
can s compa ed o many s udies in he medical ield (e.g. E a e al. 2004; Uij dehaage,
Doyle, and Pa ke 2011), in he cu en s udy, he MMI ci cui was condensed in o ou
s a ions, each las ing i e minu es, wi h a h ee-minu e u na ound be ween s a ions.
While he numbe o s a ions was smalle han epo ed in se e al s udies (see, e.g. he
e iews o Kno and Hissbach 2014; Pau e al. 2013), i is no excep ionally small, as e en
h ee-s a ion MMIs ha e been used (e.g. Klassen and Kim 2021; Onyon, Wall, and
Goodyea 2009). Each applican o a ed h ough he ou -s a ion ci cui and me wi h
a di e en in e iewe a each s a ion. The MMIs we e o ganised in adi ional ace- o- ace
mode (Kok e al. 2021) and synch onously a di e en uni e si ies in Finland, o alling 51
ci cui s and 204 in e iewe s. All he in e iewe s ecei ed one-day aining on he aims
and implemen a ion o MMIs as well as on he adminis a ion and sco ing o hei s a ions.
The s a ions we e designed by an admission commi ee o eigh senio s a mem-
be s om di e en uni e si ies. S a ion de elopmen was based on he MAP ame-
wo k (Me säpel o, Poikkeus, e al. 2022), which speci ies he key compe ence domains
pe cei ed o be c i ical o he eaching p o ession. The model conside s high-quali y
eaching lea ne -cen ed and cons uc i is , and emphasises eaching in e ac ions,
s uden s’ ac i e ole in lea ning, and eache s’ emo ional and lea ning suppo o
s uden s. S a ions we e designed acco ding o ce ain a ibu es ha we e conside ed
c ucial in de eloping hese skills and ha indica ed applican s’ gene al sui abili y o
he eaching p o ession.
Each o he ou s a ions ocused on one a ge a ibu e (mo i a ion o pu sui o
a eaching ca ee , skills in managing emo ions, in e cul u al compe ence, and social
p oblem sol ing), which was assessed wi h a c i e ion- e e enced sco ing ub ic.
Addi ionally, social skills we e assessed a each s a ion. The s a ions included sub asks
ha comp ised di e en o ma s and con en ypes, such as e lec ion on ce ain opics. A
each s a ion, applican s could ea n a maximum o 24 poin s on he measu ed a ibu e,
and he same o al sco e applied o he a ibu e o social skills assessed a each s a ion
(wi h a maximum o six poin s a each). Thus, he maximum MMI sco e was 120. The o al
sco e o he applican and a ibu e- ela ed sco es we e u ilised in he analyses. Fo he
i s s a ion, howe e , a o al sco e o 18 was applied, since he i s sub ask o he s a ion
was no ela ed o he main a ge a ibu e o he s a ion (i.e. mo i a ion), bu o
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF TEACHER EDUCATION 7
eliably and consis en ly in he assessmen o mos a ibu es. Thus, he sco es gi en by
one in e iewe did no esemble each o he mo e han he sco es o o he applican s by
o he in e iewe s (Me säpel o, U iainen, e al. 2022). A S a ion 3, a ge ing applican s’
in e cul u al compe ence, he in aclass co ela ion was somewha highe (17%), hin ing
ha in e iewe bias may ha e a ec ed he sco ing o some deg ee.
The eliabili y o he MMI was u he s udied using mul ile el modelling. When he
sou ces o a iance in he MMI o al sco e we e s udied, he e ec o he ci cui was
minimal (1.1%) and ha o he in e iewe was ai ly small (<8%). Howe e , he s a ion
explained abou one- ou h o he o e all a iance, highligh ing ha one applican
ecei ed di e en sco es om di e en s a ions. This seems unde s andable, as he
s a ions we e designed o measu e di e en noncogni i e a ibu es; hus, hei pe cei ed
di icul y o he applican p obably a ied. The e o e, one could sco e high on social
p oblem-sol ing bu low on in e cul u al compe ence, o ins ance. These esul s a e e y
much in line wi h he p e ious s udy in he con ex o Finnish eache educa ion
(Me säpel o, U iainen, e al. 2022).
The applican s’ ue sco e a iance u ned ou o be 73.3%, which can be conside ed
accep able (e.g. Do e e al. 2010) and shows imp o emen om he ea lie s udy when he
MMI p ocedu e was pilo ed (63.3%; Me säpel o, U iainen, e al. 2022). Al hough he MMIs
a e edesigned e e y yea and hus a e no di ec ly compa able, his can be seen as
a posi i e de elopmen , indica ing ha he eliabili y o he p ocedu e has been s eng h-
ened by expe ience. Wi h only ou 5-minu e s a ions and i e measu ed a ibu es aiming
a cos -e ec i e implemen a ion, he esul s conce ning eliabili y a e encou aging.
Howe e , he s a ions’ in e nal consis ency a ied ema kably (C onbach’s alphas 0.53–
0.77), and despi e he s uc u ed s a ions and c i e ion-based sco ing ub ic, app oxi-
ma ely 15% o he a ia ion in he MMI o al sco e was s ill a ibu able o measu emen
e o . In a-s a ion eliabili y is usually expec ed o be high (Pau e al. 2013), and some
s udies epo esul s complian wi h his assump ion (e.g. Callwood e al. 2018; Do e e al.
2010; Lemay e al. 2007). Howe e , in a-s a ion (o domain) eliabili y is no o en s udied,
and o he examples o a iabili y exis , such as in Dowell e al. (2012). The easons o
inconsis ency migh be ela ed o di e en ask ypes applied in he s a ions, as well as
di e en numbe o sub asks wi hin s a ions. These indings emphasise ha mo e a en-
ion should be paid o de eloping he s a ions and hei sub asks.
Ou esul s suppo he assump ion ha he MMI is able o assess and di e en ia e
among mul iple noncogni i e a ibu es (Hecke e al. 2009; Lemay e al. 2007; Oli e e al.
2014). The co ela ion analyses showed a ela i ely low co ela ion be ween he a ge
dimensions, sugges ing ha he s a ions measu e di e en a ibu es. Howe e , he
co ela ions be ween social skills dimensions, measu ed a e e y s a ion, and each s a ion
a ibu e we e he highes , sugges ing ha he dimension o social skills was he leas
dis inguishable a ibu e o he i e measu ed a ibu es. Howe e , CFAs suppo ed he
i e- ac o s uc u e o e he one- ac o model, sugges ing ha MMI would measu e only
one a ge a ibu e as well as o e he ou - ac o model, whe e he dimension o social
skills was embedded in he o he ou a ge a ibu es and no as a sepa a e dimension.
When he MMI sco es we e con as ed wi h he cogni i e measu es o ma icula ion
examina ion sco es and VAKAVA w i en en ance examina ion sco es, only weak o non-
exis en associa ions be ween hem we e ound. This p o ides e idence ha he MMI
measu es some hing o he han he cogni i e measu es o he applica ion phase (e.g. E a
14 H. VILPPU ET AL.

e al. 2004, 2012; Rei e e al. 2007). Thus, he esul s suppo he ole o MMI in he
admission p ocess as a supplemen a y measu e o cogni i e sc eening.
The s eng h o he s udy lies in he sophis ica ed s a is ical modelling based on ep e-
sen a i e da a om he en i e yea ly popula ion o applican s o he la ges eache educa-
ion p og ammes in Finland. Howe e , one needs o conside he one-o na u e o he MMI:
since he s a ions a e edesigned e e y yea , hei compa abili y o ea lie and u u e s udies
is limi ed. Howe e , he measu ed a ibu es show a ce ain consis ency om yea o yea (c .
Me säpel o, U iainen, e al. 2022), as hey a e based on he MAP model (Me säpel o,
Poikkeus, e al. 2022). Fu he , al hough he s udy explo ed he eliabili y and alidi y o
he MMI in e sa ile ways, i was in no accoun comp ehensi e. Fu u e s udies should
he e o e be conduc ed, o example, o assess i s p edic i e alidi y, ha is, whe he he
MMI sco es a e associa ed wi h s udy achie emen in eache educa ion as well as success
and pe sis ence in he eache p o ession, o con e gence alidi y, ha is, whe he o he
es s measu ing simila a ibu es gi e simila esul s. Addi ionally, he s udy did no conside
he ai ness o he MMI o all applican s, ha is, whe he applican s’ age, gende , socio-
economic s a us o e hnic backg ound had an e ec on hei pe o mance (c . Rees e al.
2016).
Conclusion
In conclusion, ou s udy p o ides encou aging suppo o he eliabili y and alidi y o
using he MMI o ma as a pa o s uden admission o eache educa ion. Howe e , mo e
esea ch and de elopmen wo k a e needed o imp o e he in e nal consis ency o he
s a ions. Conside ing he esou ce in ensi y o he adi ional ace- o- ace MMI, o he
solu ions could also be conside ed, such as an au oma ed in e iew g ounded in MMI
me hodology pilo ed in heal hca e s uden selec ions (Callwood e al. 2022).
Acknowledgmen s
The au ho s wish o hank he Resea ch Council o Finland [#342191] o he inancial suppo o
conduc ing his s udy. Fu he mo e, he au ho s wish o hank all he pa icipan s in he s udy.
Disclosu e s a emen
No po en ial con lic o in e es was epo ed by he au ho (s).
Funding
This wo k was suppo ed by he Resea ch Council o Finland unde G an [#342191]. Howe e , he
unding agency had no in ol emen in s udy design, in he collec ion, analysis, and in e p e a ion o
da a, no w i ing he epo o he decision o submi he a icle o publica ion.
No es on con ibu o s
Henna Vilppu PhD (educa ion), wo ks as a Uni e si y Resea ch Fellow a he Depa men o Teache
Educa ion, Uni e si y o Tu ku, Finland. He esea ch in e es s conce n eaching and lea ning a
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF TEACHER EDUCATION 15
di e en highe educa ion con ex s, as well as eache educa ion and eache s’ p o essional
de elopmen .
Ee o Laakkonen Lic. Econ. (S a is ics), wo ks as a senio esea che a he Depa men o Teache
Educa ion, Uni e si y o Tu ku, Finland. His esea ch in e es s conce n he applica ion o quan i a-
i e esea ch me hods in beha iou al sciences, e.g., s a is ical mul i a ia e me hods, s uc u al
equa ions models, s a is ical compu ing.
Ee a Haa aja PhD (educa ion), wo ks as a uni e si y lec u e a he Facul y o Educa ional Sciences,
Uni e si y o Helsinki, Finland. He esea ch in e es s conce n eache s’ p o essional ision and
eache -s uden in e ac ion in ma hema ics educa ion, as well as eache educa ion and eache s’
p o essional de elopmen .
Asko Tol anen PhD (S a is ics), wo ks as p o esso in Me hodology Cen e o Human Sciences, a
he Uni e si y o Jy äskylä, Finland. His esea ch in e es conce n applying s uc u al equa ion
modelling in he con ex o mul ile el and mix u e modelling.
Rii a-Leena Me säpel o PhD (Psychology) and Adjunc P o esso , wo ks as a senio esea che a he
Depa men o Teache Educa ion, Uni e si y o Jy äskylä, Finland. He esea ch in e es s conce n
s uden selec ion o eache educa ion, eache compe ences and eache s’ p o essional
de elopmen .
Re e ences
Ba dach, L., and R. Klassen. 2020. “Sma Teache s, Success ul S uden s? A Sys ema ic Re iew o he
Li e a u e on Teache s’ Cogni i e Abili ies and Teache E ec i eness.” Educa ional Resea ch
Re iew 30:100312. h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/j.edu e .2020.100312 .
Ba dach, L., R. Klassen, and N. Pe y. 2022. “Teache s’ Psychological Cha ac e is ics: Do They Ma e
o Teache E ec i eness, Teache s’ Well-Being, Re en ion, and In e pe sonal Rela ions? An
In eg a i e Re iew.” Educa ional Psychology Re iew 34 (1): 259–300. h ps://doi.o g/10.1007/
s10648-021-09614-9 .
B eil, S., B. Fo hmann, A. He el-Waszak, H. Ah ens, B. B ouwe , E. Schöne eld, B. Ma schall, and
M. Back. 2020. “Cons uc Validi y o Mul iple Mini In e iews—In es iga ing he Role o S a ions,
Skills, and Ra e s Using Bayesian G-Theo y.” Medical Teache 42 (2): 164–171. h ps://doi.o g/10.
1080/0142159X.2019.1670337 .
B ennan, R. 2010. “Gene alizabili y Theo y and Classical Tes Theo y.” Applied Measu emen in
Educa ion 24 (1): 1–21. h ps://doi.o g/10.1080/08957347.2011.532417 .
Callwood, A., D. Cooke, S. Bolge , A. Lemanska, and H. Allan. 2018. “The Reliabili y and Validi y o
Mul iple Mini In e iews (MMIs) in Values Based Rec ui men o Nu sing, Midwi e y and
Pa amedic P ac ice P og ammes: Findings om an E alua ion S udy.” In e na ional Jou nal o
Nu sing S udies 77:138–144. h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/j.ijnu s u.2017.10.003 .
Callwood, A., L. Gillam, A. Ch is idis, J. Doul on, J. Ha is, M. Piano, A. Kubacki, e al. 2022. “Feasibili y
o an Au oma ed In e iew G ounded in Mul iple Mini In e iew (MMI) Me hodology o Selec ion
in o he Heal h P o essions: An In e na ional Mul ime hod E alua ion.” BMJ Open 12 (2): e050394.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-050394 .
Came on, A., L. MacKeigan, N. Mi sakakis, and J. Pugsley. 2017. “Mul iple Mini-In e iew P edic i e
Validi y o Pe o mance on a Pha macy Licensing Examina ion.” Medical Educa ion 51 (4):
379–389. h ps://doi.o g/10.1111/medu.13222 .
D’Agos ino, J., and S. Powe s. 2009. “P edic ing Teache Pe o mance wi h Tes Sco es and G ade
Poin A e age: A Me a-Analysis.” Ame ican Educa ional Resea ch Jou nal 46 (1): 146–182. h ps://
doi.o g/10.3102/0002831208323280 .
Dodson, M., B. C o y, D. P ideaux, R. Ca ne, A. Wa d, and E. de Leeuw. 2009. “The Mul iple
Mini-In e iew: How Long Is Long Enough?” Medical Educa ion 43 (2): 168–174. h ps://doi.o g/
10.1111/j.1365-2923.2008.03260.x .
16 H. VILPPU ET AL.
Do e, K., S. K euge , M. Ladhani, D. Rol son, D. Ku z, K. Kulasega am, A. Cullimo e, e al. 2010. “The
Reliabili y and Accep abili y o he Mul iple Mini-In e iew As a Selec ion Ins umen o
Pos g adua e Admissions.” Academic Medicine 85 (10): 60–63. h ps://doi.o g/10.1097/ACM.
0b013e3181ed442b .
Dowell, J., B. Lynch, H. Till, B. Kumwenda, and A. Husbands. 2012. “The Mul iple Mini-In e iew in he
UK Con ex : 3 Yea s o Expe ience a Dundee.” Medical Teache 34 (4): 297–304. h ps://doi.o g/10.
3109/0142159X.2012.652706 .
E a, K., H. Rei e , J. Rosen eld, K. T inh, T. Wood, and G. No man. 2012. “Associa ion Be ween
a Medical School Admission P ocess Using he Mul iple Mini-In e iew and Na ional Licensing
Examina ion Sco es.” Jou nal o he Ame ican Medical Associa ion 308 (21): 2233–2240. h ps://doi.
o g/10.1001/jama.2012.36914 .
E a, K., J. Rosen eld, H. Rei e , and G. No man. 2004. “An Admissions OSCE: The Mul iple Mini
In e iew.” Medical Educa ion 38 (3): 314–326. h ps://doi.o g/10.1046/j.1365-2923.2004.01776.x .
Ga ni, N., A. Moshinsky, O. Eisenbe g, D. Zeigle , and A. Zi . 2012. “Reliabili y Es ima es: Beha iou al
S a ions and Ques ionnai es in Medical School Admissions.” Medical Educa ion 46 (3): 277–288.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2011.04155.x .
Haa aja, E., A. Tol anen, H. Vilppu, M. Kallio, J. Pel onen, and R.-L. Me säpel o. 2023. “Measu ing
Highe -O de Cogni i e Skills wi h Mul iple-Choice Ques ions: Po en ial and Pi alls o Finnish
Teache Educa ion En ance.” Teaching and Teache Educa ion 122:103943. h ps://doi.o g/10.
1016/j. a e.2022.103943 .
Hanson, M., K. Kulasega am, D. Coombs, and J. He old. 2012. “Admissions File Re iew: Applying he
Mul iple Independen Sampling (MIS) Me hodology.” Academic Medicine 87 (10): 1335–1340.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1097/ACM.0b013e3182674629 .
Hecke , K., T. Donnon, C. Fuen ealba, D. Hall, O. Illanes, D. Mo ck, and C. Muelling. 2009. “Assessmen
o Applican s o he Ve e ina y Cu iculum Using a Mul iple Mini-In e iew Me hod.” Jou nal o
Ve e ina y Medical Educa ion 36 (2): 166–173. h ps://doi.o g/10.3138/j me.36.2.166 .
Kelly, M., J. Dowell, A. Husbands, J. Newell, S. O’Flynn, T. K opmans, F. Dunne, and A. Mu phy. 2014.
“The Fai ness, P edic i e Validi y and Accep abili y o Mul iple Mini In e iew in an In e na ionally
Di e se S uden Popula ion—A Mixed Me hods S udy.” BMC Medical Educa ion 14 (1): 267.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1186/s12909-014-0267-0 .
Killip, S., Z. Mah oud, and K. Pea ce. 2004. “Wha Is an In aclus e Co ela ion Coe icien ? C ucial
Concep s o P ima y Ca e Resea che s.” The Annals o Family Medicine 2 (3): 204–208. h ps://doi.
o g/10.1370/a m.141 .
Klassen, R., and L. Kim. 2021. Teache Selec ion: E idence-Based P ac ices. Wiesbaden: Sp inge .
Klassen, R., L. Kim, J. Rushby, and L. Ba dach. 2020. “Can We Imp o e How We Sc een Applican s o Ini ial
Teache Educa ion?” Teaching and Teache Educa ion 87:102949. h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/j. a e.2019.
102949 .
Kno , M., and J. Hissbach. 2014. “Mul iple Mini-In e iews: Same Concep , Di e en App oaches.”
Medical Educa ion 48 (12): 1157–1175. h ps://doi.o g/10.1111/medu.12535 .
Kok, K., L. Chen, F. I daya i Id is, N. H. Mumin, H. Ghani, I. Nazu ah Zulkipli, and M. Ann Lim. 2021.
“Conduc ing Mul iple Mini-In e iews in he Mids o COVID-19 Pandemic.” Medical Educa ion
Online 26 (1): 1. h ps://doi.o g/10.1080/10872981.2021.1891610 .
Koo, T., and M. Li. 2016. “A Guideline o Selec ing and Repo ing In aclass Co ela ion Coe icien s o
Reliabili y Resea ch.” Jou nal o Chi op ac ic Medicine 15 (2): 155–163. h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/j.jcm.
2016.02.012 .
Lehane, P., Z. Lysagh , and M. O’Lea y. 2023. “A Validi y Pe spec i e on In e iews as a Selec ion
Mechanism o En y o Ini ial Teache Educa ion P og ammes.” Eu opean Jou nal o Teache
Educa ion 46 (2): 293–307. h ps://doi.o g/10.1080/02619768.2021.1920920 .
Lemay, J.-F., J. Lockye , T. Collin, and K. B ownell. 2007. “Assessmen o Non-Cogni i e T ai s Th ough
he Admissions Mul iple Mini-In e iew.” Medical Educa ion 41 (6): 573–579. h ps://doi.o g/10.
1111/j.1365-2923.2007.02767.x .
Ma sh, H., A. Ma in, and J. Cheng. 2008. “A Mul ile el Pe spec i e on Gende in Class oom
Mo i a ion and Clima e: Po en ial Bene i s o Male Teache s o Boys?” Jou nal o Educa ional
Psychology 100 (1): 78–95. h ps://doi.o g/10.1037/0022-0663.100.1.78 .
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF TEACHER EDUCATION 17
Me säpel o, R.-L., A.-M. Poikkeus, M. Heikkilä, J. Husu, A. Laine, K. Lappalainen, M. Läh eenmäki, e al.
2022. “A Mul idimensional Adap ed P ocess Model o Teaching.” Educa ional Assessmen ,
E alua ion and Accoun abili y 34 (2): 143–172. h ps://doi.o g/10.1007/s11092-021-09373-9 .
Me säpel o, R.-L., J. U iainen, A.-M. Poikkeus, J. Muo ka, A. Tol anen, and A. Wa inowski. 2022.
“Mul iple Mini In e iew As a Selec ion Tool o Ini ial Teache Educa ion Admissions.” Teaching
and Teache Educa ion 113:103660. h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/j. a e.2022.103660 .
Mu hén, L., and B. Mu hén. 1998–2017. Mplus Use ’s Guide. 8 h ed. Los Angeles, CA: Mu hén & Mu hén.
Oli e , T., K. Hecke , P. Hausdo , and P. Conlon. 2014. “Valida ing MMI Sco es: A e We Measu ing
Mul iple A ibu es?” Ad ances in Heal h Sciences Educa ion 19 (3): 379–392. h ps://doi.o g/10.
1007/s10459-013-9480-6 .
Onyon, C., D. Wall, and H. Goodyea . 2009. “Reliabili y o Mul i-S a ion In e iews in Selec ion o
Junio Doc o s o Special y T aining.” Medical Teache 31 (7): 665–667. h ps://doi.o g/10.1080/
01421590802578236 .
Pa e son, F., A. Knigh , J. Dowell, S. Nicholson, F. Cousans, and J. Cleland. 2016. “How E ec i e A e
Selec ion Me hods in Medical Educa ion? A Sys ema ic Re iew.” Medical Educa ion 50 (1): 36–60.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1111/medu.12817 .
Pau, A., K. Jee a a nam, Y. Chen, A. Fall, C. Khoo, and V. Nada ajah. 2013. “The Mul iple
Mini-In e iew (MMI) o S uden Selec ion in Heal h P o essions T aining: A Sys ema ic
Re iew.” Medical Teache 35 (12): 1027–1041. h ps://doi.o g/10.3109/0142159X.2013.829912 .
Rees, E., A. Hawa den, G. Den , R. Hays, J. Ba es, and A. Hassell. 2016. “E idence Rega ding he U ili y o
Mul iple Mini-In e iew (MMI) o Selec ion o Unde g adua e Heal h P og ams: A BME Sys ema ic
Re iew.” Medical Teache 38 (5): 443–445. h ps://doi.o g/10.3109/0142159X.2016.1158799 .
Rei e , H., K. E a, J. Rosen eld, and G. No man. 2007. “Mul iple Mini-In e iews P edic Cle kship and
Licensing Examina ion Pe o mance.” Medical Educa ion 41 (4): 378–384. h ps://doi.o g/10.1111/
j.1365-2929.2007.02709.x .
Robe s, C., M. Wal on, I. Ro hnie, J. C ossley, P. Lyon, K. Kuma , and D. Tille . 2008. “Fac o s A ec ing
he U ili y o he Mul iple Mini-In e iew in Selec ing Candida es o G adua e-En y Medical
School.” Medical Educa ion 42 (4): 396–404. h ps://doi.o g/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2008.03018.x .
Rosen eld, J., H. Rei e , K. T inh, and K. E a. 2008. “A Cos E iciency Compa ison Be ween he
Mul iple Mini-In e iew and T adi ional Admissions In e iews.” Ad ances in Heal h Sciences
Educa ion 13 (1): 43–58. h ps://doi.o g/10.1007/s10459-006-9029-z .
Saling é, B., and S. MacMa h. 2021. “Using Mul iple-Mini-In e iews o Admission in o Teache
Educa ion.” Canadian Jou nal o Educa ion 44 (1): 150–173. h ps://doi.o g/10.53967/cje- ce.
44i1.4401 .
Sch eibe , J., A. No a, F. S age, E. Ba low, and J. King. 2006. “Repo ing S uc u al Equa ion Modeling
and Con i ma o y Fac o Analysis Resul s: A Re iew.” The Jou nal o Educa ional Resea ch 99 (6):
323–338. h ps://doi.o g/10.3200/JOER.99.6.323-338 .
Uij dehaage, S., L. Doyle, and N. Pa ke . 2011. “Enhancing he Reliabili y o he Mul iple
Mini-In e iew o Selec ing P ospec i e Heal h Ca e Leade s.” Academic Medicine 86 (8):
1032–1039. h ps://doi.o g/10.1097/ACM.0b013e3182223ab7 .
Yamada, T., J. Sa o, H. Yoshimu a, T. Okubo, E. Hi aoka, T. Shiga, T. Kubo a, e al. 2017. “Reliabili y and
Accep abili y o Six S a ion Mul iple Mini-In e iews: Pas -Beha iou al e sus Si ua ional
Ques ions in Pos g adua e Medical Admission.” BMC Medical Educa ion 17 (1): 57. h ps://doi.
o g/10.1186/s12909-017-0898-z.
18 H. VILPPU ET AL.