To determine the extent to which the structured interview is used in the PharmD admissions process in US colleges and schools of pharmacy, and the prevalence and content of interviewer training

Chesnut RJ

Kuncel NR

Latif DA

McCall KL

Schuh AJ

PubMed

Pamela U. Joyner

Wendy C. Cox

Carla White-Harris

Susan J. Blalock

Crossref

American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education

The Structured Interview and Interviewer Training in the Admissions Process

Joyner, P. U.

Cox, W. C.

White-Harris, C.

Blalock, S. J.

CU FIND (Campbell University, Catherine W. Wood School of Nursing)

The structured interview and interviewer training in the admissions process

Joyner, Pamela U.

Cox, Wendy C.

White-Harris, Carla

Blalock, Susan J.

Carolina Digital Repository

RESEARCH ARTICLESThe Structured Interview and Interviewer Training in theAdmissions ProcessPamela U. Joyner, EdD, MS Pharm, Wendy C. Cox, PharmD, Carla White-Harris, BS Pharm,and Susan J. Blalock, PhD, MPHThe University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of PharmacySubmitted October 16, 2006; accepted March 11, 2007; published October 15, 2007.Objectives. To determine the extent to which the structured interview is used in the PharmD admis-sions process in US colleges and schools of pharmacy, and the prevalence and content of interviewertraining.Methods. A survey instrument consisting of 7 questions regarding interviews and interviewer trainingwas sent to 92 colleges and schools of pharmacy in the United States that were accredited or seekingaccreditation.Results. Sixty survey instruments (65% response rate) were returned. The majority of the schools thatresponded (80%) used interviews as part of the PharmD admissions process. Of the schools that used aninterview as part of the admissions process, 86% provided some type of interviewer training and 13%used a set of predefined questions in admissions interviews.Conclusions.Most colleges and schools of pharmacy use some components of the structured interviewin the PharmD admissions process; however, training for interviewers varies widely among collegesand schools of pharmacy.Keywords: structured interview, interview, interviewer training, admissionsINTRODUCTIONAlthough Pharmacy College Admissions Test(PCAT) scores and undergraduate grade point averagespredict academic success in pharmacy school,1,2 nontra-ditional or noncognitive variables, such as oral com-munication skills, maturity, integrity, compassion, andleadership are essential traits for good professional prac-tice. These can only be assessed by interviewing potentialstudents.3,4 In the interview setting, however, assessmentof nontraditional factors is highly subjective. Therefore,interviewer training is required to improve consistencyacross interviewers. This need is recognized by the newaccreditation standards for the doctor of pharmacy degree(PharmD), which require that admission interviewers re-ceive training in order to promote inter-rater reliabilityand standardization of the interview process.5This requirement is supported by research in nonac-ademic settings, which suggests that interviewer trainingimproves the reliability of interviews, decreases bias inthe rating of applicants, and enhances overall interviewerperformance.6-8 For example, Chapman and Zweigsurveyed 812 applicants and 592 interviewers from morethan 502 organizations and concluded that interviewerswho had received training were more standardizedand formalized in their evaluation of applicants.7 Further,the limited research focusing on the selection of studentsfor health professional programs also suggests that reli-ability and validity can be improved through interviewertraining.9-12The structure and intensity of interviewer training isnot prescribed in the new accreditation standards. How-ever, the literature provides some guidance. For example,Schuh suggests that a good interviewer training programshould include instruction, coaching, and supervisedpractice.13 Meanwhile, research in medical schools sug-gests that it is beneficial for faculty interviewers to receivetraining on an annual basis to assure standardization,12and Edwards and colleagues stress the importance of pro-viding training as new members are added to an admis-sions committee.9Althoughnot required by the newaccreditation stand-ards, greater standardization can also be achieved throughthe use of structured (rather than unstructured) inter-views.9 Structured interviews usually include: (1) a setof standardized questions asked of all applicants; (2)a standardized scoring system, with guidelines for ratingapplicant responses to each question; (3) a panel of 2 orCorresponding author: Pamela U. Joyner, EdD, MS Pharm,UNC School of Pharmacy, CB 7360, 100 Beard Hall, ChapelHill, NC 27599-7360. Tel: 919-962-0030. Fax: 919-966-9428.E-mail: pam_joyner@unc.eduAmerican Journal of Pharmaceutical Education 2007; 71 (5) Article 83.1more interviewers; and (4) interviewer training. Opti-mally, interviewers are given sample answers corre-sponding to each level in the scoring system. Usinga panel of interviewers enables more than 1 person to rateapplicant responses to the same questions. Typically,interviewers are not allowed to discuss applicants beforerecording their ratings.9,14Research supporting the superiority of structured ver-sus unstructured interviews comes primarily from busi-ness settings, where structured interviews are usedmore frequently than any other type of interview.15 Forexample, in a comprehensive analysis of employmentinterviews by McDaniel and colleagues, structured inter-views proved to be more valid than unstructured inter-views in predicting job performance criteria.16 Thesefindingswere supported by results of ameta-analysis con-ducted by Conway and colleagues. They observed a two-fold difference in inter-rater reliability favoring struc-tured versus unstructured interviews.6Despite concern about reliability and validity, healthprofessional schools tend to use unstructured or semi-structured interviews as part of admissions procedures.In the unstructured interview, neither the questions askedof applicants nor the scoring system used to rate respon-dent answers is standardized, increasing the possibilitythat interviewer ratings will be influenced by bias.14,17Examples of bias include rating tendencies such as leni-ency and severity, whereby some interviewers tend to usethe upper, more positive portion of the rating scale, whileother interviewers tend to use the lower, more negativeportion of the scale. Consequently, ratings made by dif-ferent interviewers may not be comparable. Interviewersmay also tend to unconsciously rate applicants who aresimilar to themselves in terms of demographics or pro-fessional interests more favorably, introducing anothersource of systematic bias.9There is little information in the pharmacy literatureregarding the extent to which schools of pharmacy in theUnited States currently use applicant interviews as partof the PharmD admissions process and, among thoseschools that use applicant interviews, the nature and ex-tent of training varies. Latif has discussed the develop-ment of the structured interview at the Bernard J DunnSchool of Pharmacy at Shenandoah University3 andothers have recognized that the structured interview for-mat facilitates the identification of studentswho have thequalities needed for professional practice.10,17,18 How-ever, little is known about the extent towhichUS schoolsof pharmacy currently use structured versus unstruc-tured interviews as part of the PharmD admissions pro-cess. Thus, the current study was undertaken to obtainthis information.METHODSData were collected via a mailed survey sent to the 92schools of pharmacy in the United States that wereaccredited or seeking accreditation as of August 2006.The survey instrument consisted of 7 questions askingabout the school’s procedures concerning PharmDadmis-sions interviews. The survey instrument was mailed to 1faculty member at each school of pharmacy who wasidentified from an AACP mailing list as being affiliatedwith the admissions process. If an admissions contact wasnot listed for a particular school of pharmacy or if it wasunclear who to contact, a call was made to the school toask the name of themost appropriate person to receive thesurvey instrument.RESULTSSixty surveys were returned (65% response rate). Themajority of the schools that responded (80%) used inter-views as a part of the PharmD admissions process. Two ofthe schools that did not use interviews were 0-6 programsin which students who successfully completed their pre-pharmacy coursework were guaranteed admission intopharmacy school. Two schools reported plans to imple-ment interviews as a part of the admissions process inJanuary 2007.Themajority of the schools using interviews reportedthat they used some, but not all, components of a struc-tured interview (Table 1). Most schools reported usinga well-defined scoring system for evaluating applicantinterviews (92%), using a panel of interviewers (86%)and providing interviewer training (86%). Fewer schoolsreported having explicitly defined goals for admissions(57%) or using a set of predefined questions during inter-views (13%).Although most of the schools reported that they pro-vided interviewer training, comments that respondentsincluded on the survey instrument suggested that thistraining varied immensely across schools. Most of thetraining was done face-to-face with the interviewers,but ranged from a review of the evaluation form to havinga professional trainer not affiliated with the school in-volved. The majority of the training reported was con-ducted by a person affiliated with the admissionscommittee at the school of pharmacy and involved dis-cussing appropriate questions to ask applicants, tips onrating applicant responses, and use of the evaluation form.All but 1 school reported that faculty members wereused to interview PharmD applicants. In most schools,deans and assistant or associate deans as well as PharmDstudents were used to interview applicants; whereas,pharmacist practitioners not affiliated with the schoolwere used by less than one third of the schools. Alumni,American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education 2007; 71 (5) Article 83.2staff members, pharmacy residents, and preceptors werealso used by some schools to assist with interviews.DISCUSSIONMost colleges and schools of pharmacy conduct inter-views as part of the admissions process and use somecomponents of the structured interview. However, mostcolleges and schools are not using strictly structuredinterviews in the process.Interviewer training was reported by 86% of theschools, but the nature and extent of this training variedgreatly. Some schools reviewed the scoring form used inthe interview,while others had a trainer not affiliatedwiththe school perform training. Interviewer training is im-portant because individuals do not inherently know howto effectively interview applicants in order to elicit themost information in a consistent and fair manner. Instruc-tion, coaching, and supervised practice are recommendedas part of an interviewer training program.13Using predefined questions is a component of thestructured interviewand only 13%of colleges and schoolsreported using a set of predefined questions. Asking sim-ilar questions of all applicants is important to ensure fair-ness andminimize bias (ie, some applicants may be askedeasier questions than others, depending on the inter-viewer). If predefined questions are not used, how canschools of pharmacy ensure that the interview is achiev-ing the desired outcomes?One limitation of the study was the lack of definitionof terms used in the survey instrument. Terms such as‘‘well-defined scoring system’’ and ‘‘interviewer train-ing’’ should have been defined so that faculty memberscompleting the survey instrument would have had moreinformation and may have answered the questions moreaccurately. Because of the confidential manner of the in-terview, we did not ask faculty members to submit theirinterview forms. However, doing so may have helpeddetermine whether the scoring system was well-defined,goals of admission were explicit, and standardized ques-tions were used.The interview is the only opportunity to evaluate non-traditional or noncognitive variables. It can be argued thatthese variables are more important than grade point aver-age or Pharmacy College Admissions Test (PCAT) score.However, the interview takes a tremendous amount offaculty and staff time. Therefore, efforts to optimize theinterview and to elicit the information that colleges andschools need from applicants are vital. If colleges andschools of pharmacy are not using the structured inter-view, they may not be getting as much information aspossible.CONCLUSIONSAdmissions interviews are now an accreditation re-quirement for colleges and schools of pharmacy. Thema-jority of schools are conducting interviews but not usingstrictly structured interviews. Interviewer training is pro-vided, but the definition of training varies immensely andoften does not consist of instruction, coaching, and super-vised practice as recommended. Colleges and schools ofpharmacy need more guidance on the use of structuredinterviews and interviewer training. In addition, data onTable 1. Responses to a Survey of Faculty Members in US Colleges and Schools of Pharmacy Regarding the StructuredInterview and Interviewer Training in the Admissions ProcessSurvey QuestionFaculty Response, % (No.)Yes No No ResponseInterviews are a part of the PharmD admissions process at the school ofpharmacy where I work.80 (49) 20 (12) 0Interviewer training is provided for interviewers participating in PharmDadmissions interviews.86 (42) 10 (5) 4 (2)A set of predefined questions is utilized in admissions interviews. 13 (12) 76 (37) 0The goals for admission are explicitly defined. For example, types of studentsyour school would like to admit (backgrounds, interests, etc.).57 (28) 41 (20) 2 (1)A well-defined scoring system or protocol is utilized in the admissionsprocess for interviews.92 (45) 8 (4) 0A panel of interviewers (two or more) is used in admissions interviews. 86 (42) 14 (7) 0Applicants are interviewed by:Faculty members 98 (48)PharmD students 55 (27)Dean or assistant/associate dean 63 (31)Pharmacist practitioners not affiliated with the school 31 (15)Other 43 (21)American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education 2007; 71 (5) Article 83.3the use of interviews and interviewer training in improv-ing admissions outcomes are needed.ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSThe authors would like to acknowledge Tina Ayers,PharmD, and K.T. Vaughan, MSLS, for their assistancewith the preparation of this manuscript.REFERENCES1. Kuncel NR, Crede M, Thomas LL, Klieger DM, Seiler SN,Woo SE. A meta-analysis of the validity of the pharmacy collegeadmission test (PCAT) and grade predictors of pharmacy studentperformance. Am J Pharm Educ. 2005;69:Article 51.2. McCall KL, Allen DD, Fike DS. Predictors of academic successin a doctor of pharmacy program. Am J Pharm Educ. 2006;70:Article 106.3. Latif DA. Including the assessment of nontraditional factors inpharmacy school admissions. Ann Pharmacother. 2005;39:721-6.4. Chesnut RJ, Phillips CR. Current practices and anticipated changesin academic and nonacademic admission sources for entry-levelPharmD programs. Am J Pharm Educ. 2000;64:251-9.5. Accreditation Standards and Guidelines for the ProfessionalProgram in Pharmacy Leading to the Doctor of Pharmacy Degree,Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education, Inc., Chicago IL(January 15, 2006). Available at: http://www.acpe-accredit.org.Accessed September 13, 2006.6. Conway JM, Jako RA, Goodman DF. A meta-analysis of interraterand internal consistency reliability of selection interviews. J ApplPsychol. 1995;80:565-79.7. Chapman DS, Zweig DI. Developing a nomological network forinterview structure: Antecedents and consequences of the structuredselection interview. Pers Psychol. 2005;58:673-702.8. Garman AN, Lesowitz T. Research update: Interviewingcandidates for leadership roles. Consult Psychol J Pract Res.2005;57:266-73.9. Edwards JC, Johnson EK, Molidor JB. The interview in theadmission process. Acad Med. 1990;65:167-77.10. Johnson EK, Edwards JC. Current practices in admissioninterviews at U.S. medical schools. Acad Med. 1991;66:408-12.11. Salvatori P. Reliability and validity of admissions tools used toselect students for the health professions. Adv Health Sci Educ TheoryPract. 2001;6:159-75.12. Rippentrop AE, Wong M, Altmaier EM. A content analysis ofinterviewee reports of medical school admissions interviews. MedEduc Online [serial online] 2003;8:10. Available at: http://www.med-ed-online.org. Accessed April 26, 2006.13. Schuh AJ. Establishing, maintaining and evaluating aninterviewer training program. Bull Psychon Soc. 1981;17:143-6.14. Latif DA. Using the structured interview for a more reliableassessment of pharmacy student applicants. Am J Pharm Educ.2004;68:Article 21.15. Campion MA, Pursell ED, Brown BK. Structured interviewing:raising the psychometric properties of the employmentinterview. Pers Psychol. 1988;41:25-42.16. McDaniel MA, Whetzel DL, Schmidt FL, Maurer SD. Thevalidity of employment interviews: a comprehensive review andmeta-analysis. J Appl Psychol. 1994;79:599-616.17. Patrick LE, Altmaier EM, Kuperman S, Ugolini K. A structuredinterview for medical school admission, Phase 1: Initial proceduresand results. Acad Med. 2001;76:66-71.18. Courneya CA, Wright K, Frinton V, Mak E, Schulzer M, PachevG. Medical student selection: choice of a semi-structured panelinterview or an unstructured one-on-one interview. Med Teach.2005;27:499-503.American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education 2007; 71 (5) Article 83.4

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2064881

The Structured Interview and Interviewer Training in the Admissions Process

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Crossref

CU FIND (Campbell University, Catherine W. Wood School of Nursing)

Carolina Digital Repository