A diverse physician workforce is needed to increase access to care for underserved populations, particularly as the Affordable Care Act expands insurance coverage. Yet legal restrictions constrain the extent to which medical schools may use race/ethnicity in admissions decisions. We conducted simulations using academic metrics and socioeconomic data from applicants to a California public medical school from 2011 to 2013. The simulations systematically adjusted medical school applicants' academic metrics for socioeconomic disadvantage. We found that socioeconomic and under-represented minority disparities in admissions could be eliminated while maintaining academic readiness. Adjusting applicant academic metrics using socioeconomic information on medical school applications may be a race-neutral means of increasing the socioeconomic and racial/ethnic diversity of the physician workforce.

Purpose

To compare the predictive validities of medical school admissions multiple mini-interviews (MMIs) and traditional interviews (TIs).

Method

This longitudinal observational study of 2011-2013 matriculants to five California public medical schools examined the associations of MMI scores (two schools) and TI scores (three schools) with subsequent academic performance. Regression models adjusted for sociodemographics and undergraduate academic metrics examined associations of standardized mean MMI and TI scores with United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 and Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) scores and, for required clerkships, with mean National Board of Medical Examiners Clinical Science subject (shelf) exam score and number of honors grades.

Results

Of the 1,460 medical students, 746 (51.1%) interviewed at more than one study school; 579 (39.7%) completed at least one MMI and at least one TI. Neither interview type was associated with Step 1 scores. Higher MMI scores were associated with more clerkship honors grades (adjusted incidence rate ratio [AIRR] 1.28 more [95% CI 1.18, 1.39; P < .01] per SD increase) and higher shelf exam and Step 2 CK scores (adjusted mean 0.73 points higher [95% CI 0.28, 1.18; P < .01] and 1.25 points higher [95% CI 0.09, 2.41; P = .035], respectively, per SD increase). Higher TI scores were associated only with more honors grades (AIRR 1.11 more [95% CI 1.01, 1.20; P = .03] per SD increase).

Conclusions

MMI scores were more strongly associated with subsequent academic performance measures than were TI scores.