Comparing Virtual and In-Person Multiple Mini-Interviews
Author Information
Author(s): Grier David D., Turner Laurah, Prichard Tracy J., Oaks Andrea, Nolan David, Shomo Anisa S., Dunlavy Dustin, Batisky Donald L.
Primary Institution: University of Cincinnati College of Medicine
Hypothesis
How do virtual and in-person multiple mini-interviews differ in terms of bias related to gender identity and racial groups?
Conclusion
The study found no significant differences in performance between virtual and in-person interviews, but female URiM applicants performed better in the virtual setting.
Supporting Evidence
- Female applicants scored higher than male applicants in both interview formats.
- URiM females performed better in virtual interviews compared to non-URiM females.
- URiM males tended to score lower than their non-URiM counterparts in both formats.
- The transition to virtual interviews did not introduce significant biases.
- Virtual interviews reduced travel costs and increased accessibility for applicants.
Takeaway
This study looked at how well students did in virtual versus in-person interviews for medical school, finding that virtual interviews didn't hurt anyone's chances and some groups did better online.
Methodology
The study analyzed retrospective data from 627 virtual and 2248 in-person interview applicants using a three-way ANOVA.
Potential Biases
Concerns about exacerbating existing biases and new sources of bias in virtual settings were noted.
Limitations
The study was conducted at a single institution, which may limit the generalizability of the findings.
Participant Demographics
The study included applicants from various gender identities and racial groups, specifically focusing on URiM status.
Statistical Information
P-Value
p<0.001
Statistical Significance
p<0.05
Digital Object Identifier (DOI)
Want to read the original?
Access the complete publication on the publisher's website