• Anthony Jerant, Tonya Fancher, Joshua J Fenton, Kevin Fiscella, Francis Sousa, Peter Franks, and Mark Henderson.
• A. Jerant is professor, Department of Family and Community Medicine, Center for Healthcare Policy and Research, University of California, Davis, School of Medicine, Sacramento, California. T. Fancher is associate professor, Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, University of California, Davis, School of Medicine, Sacramento, California. J.J. Fenton is associate professor, Department of Family and Community Medicine, Center for Healthcare Policy and Research, University of California, Davis, School of Medicine, Sacramento, California. K. Fiscella is professor, Department of Family Medicine, University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, New York. F. Sousa is assistant dean, Admissions and Student Development, and volunteer clinical professor, Department of Internal Medicine, University of California, Davis, School of Medicine, Sacramento, California. P. Franks is professor, Department of Family and Community Medicine, Center for Healthcare Policy and Research, University of California, Davis, School of Medicine, Sacramento, California. M. Henderson is associate dean, Admissions and Outreach, and professor, Division of General Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, University of California, Davis, School of Medicine, Sacramento, California.
• Acad Med. 2015 Dec 1; 90 (12): 1667-74.

PurposeTo examine associations of medical school applicant underrepresented minority (URM) status and socioeconomic status (SES) with Multiple Mini-Interview (MMI) invitation and performance and acceptance recommendation.MethodThe authors conducted a correlational study of applicants submitting secondary applications to the University of California, Davis, School of Medicine, 2011-2013. URM applicants were black, Southeast Asian, Native American, Pacific Islander, and/or Hispanic. SES from eight application variables was modeled (0-1 score, higher score = lower SES). Regression analyses examined associations of URM status and SES with MMI invitation (yes/no), MMI score (mean of 10 station ratings, range 0-3), and admission committee recommendation (accept versus not), adjusting for age, sex, and academic performance.ResultsOf 7,964 secondary-application applicants, 19.7% were URM and 15.1% self-designated disadvantaged; 1,420 (17.8%) participated in the MMI and were evaluated for acceptance. URM status was not associated with MMI invitation (OR 1.14; 95% CI 0.98 to 1.33), MMI score (0.00-point difference, CI -0.08 to 0.08), or acceptance recommendation (OR 1.08; CI 0.69 to 1.68). Lower SES applicants were more likely to be invited to an MMI (OR 5.95; CI 4.76 to 7.44) and recommended for acceptance (OR 3.28; CI 1.79 to 6.00), but had lower MMI scores (-0.12 points, CI -0.23 to -0.01).ConclusionsMMI-based admissions did not disfavor URM applicants. Lower SES applicants had lower MMI scores but were more likely to be invited to an MMI and recommended for acceptance. Multischool collaborations should examine how MMI-based admissions affect URM and lower SES applicants.

20 keywords...

hide…