Multiple Mini Interviews vs Traditional Interviews - Response to Letter - Assessing Reliability and Equity in Medical School Admissions

Oct 3, 2026

Uploaded by Terk

Letter responding to an editor’s request about a previous article on multiple mini interviews (MMIs) versus traditional interviews in medical school admissions. The authors address questions about including the Casper situational judgment test, arguing that Casper assesses interpersonal and intrapersonal competencies and can predict OSCE and clinical performance beyond GPA. They also acknowledge modest effect sizes, consistency across cycles, and discuss equity, professionalism, and the role of academic metrics like MCAT and GPA alongside holistic tools.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryHealthcare

FormatPDF

Pages2

Reading Time5 min

AccessFree to download

Response to letter

Casper test and admissions tools

Equity, professionalism, and counseling

Position on MMIs versus traditional interviews

Weighting of academic metrics and holistic tools

Advances in Medical Education and Practice downloaded from [https://www.dovepress.com/](https://www.dovepress.com/) For personal use only. Advances in Medical Education and Practice Open Access Full Text Article RESPONSE TO LETTER Multiple Mini Interviews vs Traditional Interviews: Assessing Reliability and Equity in Medical School Admissions [Response to Letter] Pierre W Banks 1 , *, John C Hagedorn II2 , *, Alexandria Soybel 3 , Delayne Michelle Coleman 3 , Gabriel Rivera 3 , Namita Bhardwaj 2 ,4 1Department of Primary Care, University of Northern Colorado College of Osteopathic Medicine, Greeley, CO, USA; 2Department of Orthopaedic Surgery & Rehabilitation, The University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, TX, USA; 3The University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, TX, USA; 4Department of Family Medicine, The University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, TX, USA *These authors contributed equally to this work Correspondence: Pierre W Banks, John Sealy School of Medicine at The University of Texas Medical Branch, 301 University Blvd, Galveston, TX, 77555, USA, Tel +1 616-405-6656, Email [Pierre.Banks@unco.edu](Pierre.Banks@unco.edu) Dear editor We appreciate the opportunity to respond to the recent letter regarding our article, “Multiple Mini Interviews vs Traditional Interviews: Assessing Reliability and Equity in Medical School Admissions”. We are grateful for the engagement with our work and welcome the thoughtful critique. Scholarly discourse is essential for advancing practices in medical education. The letter to the editor raises a concern about including the Casper test in our broader discussion of admissions tools. The Casper test, a situational judgment test, is not a direct comparator to the MMI, but both are designed to assess interpersonal and intrapersonal competencies aligned with the qualities we hope to see in future physicians (eg, social intelligence, advocacy, respect, collaboration, and ethical responsibility) . These tools offer behavioral evidence of such characteristics, complementing applicants’ written materials and addressing gaps that traditional cognitive metrics or supplemental essays may overlook. Although concerns have been raised about demographic differences in Casper scores, it is also important to highlight that recent research has demonstrated Casper’s ability to predict performance in Objective Structured Clinical Examinations (OSCEs) and clinical settings, above and beyond GPA in other healthcare professionals.1 Furthermore, using Casper in admissions processes is associated with reduced professionalism concerns,2 which remain challenging for medical schools to define, assess, and evaluate.3 These findings suggest that, despite its limitations, Casper can serve as a meaningful component of a holistic admissions process aimed at identifying candidates with the potential to thrive in the practice of medicine. Additionally, we acknowledge that while the effect sizes in our study were modest, they were consistent across multiple cycles and measures of reliability. We intentionally highlighted these small but meaningful findings to underscore the incremental nature of progress in admissions reform. Large effect sizes are rare in a field as complex and multifactorial as medical school admissions, and small yet consistent differences can still inform policy and practice. Structured coaching is a promising strategy to support applicants from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. However, in the US, such interventions are increasingly scrutinized for potentially conferring unequal advantages. Moreover, offering coaching to all applicants may exceed most admissions offices’ logistical and resource capacities. It is also important to clarify that our study was not designed to promote MMIs over traditional interviews or to suggest that either format is superior. Instead, our objective was to empirically assess whether MMIs, often proclaimed more structured and objective, a

FAQs

Why do the authors discuss the Casper test in relation to MMIs and traditional interviews?

They clarify that Casper is not a direct comparator to the MMI, but both aim to assess interpersonal and intrapersonal competencies relevant to future physicians.

What evidence do the authors cite for Casper’s usefulness in admissions?

They reference research suggesting Casper can predict performance in OSCEs and clinical settings beyond GPA, and that its use is associated with reduced professionalism concerns.

How do the authors respond to concerns about the study’s effect sizes and reliability?

They state that effect sizes were modest but consistent across multiple cycles and measures of reliability, emphasizing incremental progress in admissions reform.

Oct 3, 2026

Uploaded by Terk