Part 2: Assessment of a virtual vs. onsite interview experience from the interviewer perspective.

INTRODUCTION: The University of Texas at Austin College of Pharmacy transitioned from onsite interviews to virtual interviews in fall 2020. There is limited literature on whether the virtual format impacts an interviewer's assessment of a candidate. This study examined interviewer ability to assess candidates and barriers to participation. METHODS: During the virtual interview process, interviewers utilized a modified multiple mini interview (mMMI) format to evaluate prospective college of pharmacy students. An 18-item survey was emailed to 62 interviewers from the 2020-2021 cycle. Virtual mMMI scores were compared to the previous year's onsite MMI scores. Descriptive statistics and thematic analysis were used to assess the data. RESULTS: The response rate to the survey was 53% (33/62), and 59% of interviewers preferred virtual interviews to in-person. Interviewers stated that there were fewer barriers to participation, increased comfort, and more time with applicants during virtual interviews. For six of the nine attributes evaluated, ≥ 90% of interviewers reported that they were able to assess applicants as well as they did in person. When comparing virtual and onsite MMI scores, seven of nine attributes were statistically significantly higher in the virtual cohort than onsite. CONCLUSIONS: From the perspective of interviewers, the virtual interview decreased barriers to participation and still allowed the ability to assess the candidates. While offering a choice of interview setting to interviewers could increase accessibility, the statistically significant difference in MMI scores between virtual and onsite formats suggests that additional standardization is required to offer both formats simultaneously.

Part 1: Assessment of a virtual vs. onsite interview experience from the interviewee perspective.

INTRODUCTION: The University of Texas at Austin College of Pharmacy transitioned the prospective student interview process for the incoming Class of 2025 from an onsite to a virtual Zoom interview. Differences between the two processes were assessed to determine utility of virtual interviews in the future. The objective was to compare preference, impact, and barriers to onsite and virtual interview experiences for prospective students. METHODS: A survey to assess interviewees' opinions regarding the interview process, preference, and barriers to participation was emailed to candidates following the 2020-2021 interviews. Responses were evaluated using descriptive statistics, chi-square, Mann-Whitney U tests, and constant comparison thematic analysis. RESULTS: The survey response rate was 40%. Of these, 54% preferred virtual interviews. Travel, lodging, and time were identified as barriers, with 80.5% of interviewees reporting at least one of these barriers. Respondents who chose time or had more barriers were more likely to prefer virtual interviews. Hosting a pre-interview day helped candidates prepare. Having a pharmacy student in the breakout room helped reduce stress. Interviewees were able to engage, showcase their personality, and learn the culture of the college despite the virtual nature. CONCLUSIONS: From an interviewee perspective, the virtual interview process is a viable method to continue. Virtual interviews decrease barriers to access for candidates unable to attend onsite interviews while still allowing candidates to feel engaged, learn about the program, and have a positive experience. Pharmacy institutions may consider virtual interviews as an alternative or supplement to onsite interviews.