ผลของการใช้รูปแบบการสัมภาษณ์แบบสถานีสอบย่อยผสมผสานกับการสร้างแรงจูงใจต่อความพึงพอใจและอัตราการสละสิทธิ์ของนักศึกษาหลักสูตรพยาบาลศาสตรบัณฑิต มหาวิทยาลัยเทคโนโลยีสุรนารี ปีการศึกษา 2555

Surada Nonsuphap

Authors

Surada Nonsuphap Institute of Nursing, Suranaree University of Technology

Keywords:

Multiple mini interview, Motivation technique, Nursing student, Disclaim rate

Abstract

Objectives: The objectives of this descriptive study were to 1) determine the interviewing committes’ and nursing student applicants’ satisfaction on the Multiple Mini interview (MMI), 2) determine parents/guardians’ satisfaction on motivation activity, and 3) study the disclaim rate of the eligible nursing student applicants, academic year 2012. Methods: The sample of this study consisted of the interviewers, students and guardians who passed the exam and were eligible for the interview session, Institute of Nursing (IN), academic year 2012, Suranaree University of Technology (SUT). Total of 151 respondents answered the questionnaire. The tools used for this study comprised of 1) Interview Activity of Multiple Mini interview (MMI), 2) Motivation Activity for guardian and who have the right of interview, 3) Satisfaction rating scale questionnaire of MMI, 4) Satisfaction rating scale questionnaire (1 = least satisfy, 5 = most satisfy) interviewing for committee of MMI and, 5) Satisfaction rating scale questionnaire of guardian for motivation Activity.

Data analysis: Data were analyzed by using descriptive statistics. Results: Students satisfied with the MMI interview at the highest level (Mean=4.76, S.D.=0.48). Guardians satisfied with the motivate activities at the highest level (Mean=4.74, S.D. = 0.45). The interviewers satisfied with the MMI interview at highest level (Mean=4.74, S.D. = 0.45). Based on record, out of 48 eligible students, there were 18 candidates (37.50%) declined to study in Nursing. It is a decreasing rate compare to 2010 academic year (54.17%). As following the all 18 disclaimers, it was found that 72.22% chose to study at other institutes. The reasons were 1) close to hometown (33.33%), 2) IN, SUT was newly established and has had no graduate students yet (16.67%), therefore; they were not confident about the secure job being offered, and 3) they were offered scholarships by Colleges of Nursing under the Ministry of Public (55.56%). Recommendations: The study on the predictive factors on the enrollment in the Bachelor of Nursing Science Program is recommended.

Author Biography

Surada Nonsuphap, Institute of Nursing, Suranaree University of Technology

Administrative Assistant

References

1. กฤษมันต์ วัฒนาณรงค์. เทคโนโลยีการศึกษาวิชาชีพ. กรุงเทพฯ: สินทวีการพิมพ์; 2549.
2. ยุทธนา ธรรมเจริญ. พฤติกรรมผู้บริโภค หน่วยที่ 5 ความต้องการ การจูงใจ บุคลิกภาพกับพฤติกรรมผู้บริโภค. นนทบุรี: สาขาวิทยาการจัดการ มหาวิทยาลัยสุโขทัยธรรมาธิราช; 2536.
3. Brownell K, Lockyer J, Collin T, Lemay JF. Introduction of the multiple mini interview into the admissions process at the University of Calgary: ฤcceptability and feasibility. Medical Teacher 2007; 29(4), 394-6.
4. Roberts C, Rothnie I, Zoanetti N, Crossley J. Should candidate scores be adjusted for interviewer stringency or leniency in the multiple mini-interview? Medical Education 2010; 44(7), 690-8.
5. Roberts C, Walton M, Rothnie I, Crossley J, Lyon P, Kumar K, Tiller D. Factors affecting the utility of the multiple mini-interview in selecting candidates for graduate-entry medical school. Medical Education 2008; 42(4), 396–404.
6. Roberts C, Zoanetti N, Rothnie I. Validating a multiple mini-interview question bank assessing entry-level reasoning skills in candidates for graduate-entry medicine and dentistry programmes. Medical Education 2009; 43(4), 350–359.
7. Dore KL, Kreuger S, Ladhani M, Rolfson D, Kurtz D, Kulasegaram K, et al. The Reliability and Acceptability of the Multiple Mini-Interview as a Selection Instrument for Postgraduate Admissions. Academic Medicine 2010; 85(10), S60-S63.
8. Eva KW, Reiter HI, Rosenfeld J, Norman GR. The Ability of the Multiple Mini-Interview to Predict Preclerkship Performance in Medical School. Academic Medicine 2004; 79(10), S40-S42.
9. Eva KW, Reiter HI, Rosenfeld J, Norman GR. The Relationship between Interviewers' Characteristics and Ratings Assigned during a Multiple Mini-Interview. Academic Medicine 2004; 79(6), 602-9.
10. Norman G. Editorial-Theory Testing Research Versus Theory-Based Research. Advances in Health Sciences Education 2004; 9(3), 175-8.
11. Reiter HI, Eva KW, Rosenfeld J, Norman GR. Multiple mini-interviews predict clerkship and licensing examination performance. Medical Education 2007; 41(4), 378–384.
12. Reiter HI, Salvatori P, Rosenfeld J, Trinh K, Eva KW. The effect of defined violations of test security on admissions outcomes using multiple mini-interviews. Medical Education 2006; 40(1), 36–42.
13. Rosenfeld JM, Reiter HI, Trinh K, Eva KW. A Cost Efficiency Comparison Between The Multiple Mini-Interview and Traditional Admissions Interviews. Advances in Health Sciences Education 2008; 13(1), 43-58.
14. Lemay JF, Lockyer JM, Collin VT, Brownell KW. Assessment of non-cognitive traits through the admissions multiple mini-interview. Medical Education 2007; 41(6), 573–9.
15. Hecker K, Donnon T, Fuentealba C, Hall D, Illanes O, Morck DW, Muelling C. Assessment of Applicants to the Veterinary Curriculum Using a Multiple Mini-Interview Method. Journal of Veterinary Medical Education 2009; 36(2), 166-73.
16. Eva KW, Reiter HI, Trinh K, Wasi P, Rosenfeld J, Norman GR. Predictive validity of the multiple mini-interview for selecting medical trainees. Medical Education 2009; 43(8), 767–775.
17. Eva KW, Rosenfeld J, Reiter HI, Norman GR. An admissions OSCE: the multiple mini-interview. Medical Education 2004; 38(3), 314–326.
18. Kumar K, Roberts C, Rothnie I, Fresne CD, Walton M. Experiences of the multiple mini-interview: a qualitative analysis. Medical Education 2009; 43(4), 360–367.
19. Kulasegaram K, Reiter HI, Wiesner W, Hackett RD, Norman GR. Non-association between Neo-5 personality tests and multiple mini-interview. Advances in Health Sciences Education 2010; 15(3), 415-423.
20. David L, Bitta A. 1988. Consumer Behavior : Concepts and Applications. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw Hill.
21. Hofmeister M, Lockyer J, Crutcher R. The multiple mini-interview for selection of international medical graduates into family medicine residency education. Medical Education 2009; 43(6), 573–579.
22. Dodson M, Crotty B, Prideaux D, Carne R, Ward A, De Leeuw E. The multiple mini-interview: how long is long enough? Medical Education 2009; 43(2), 168–174.
23. Moreau K, Reiter H, Eva KW. Comparison of aboriginal and nonaboriginal applicants for admissions on the Multiple Mini-Interview using aboriginal and nonaboriginal interviewers. Teaching and Learning in Medicine 2006; 18(1), 58-61.
24. Humphrey S, Dowson S, Wall D, Diwakar V, Goodyear HM. Multiple mini-interviews: opinions of candidates and interviewers. Medical Education 2008; 42(2), 207–213.
25. Schiffman LG, Lazar KL. Consumer Behavior. 4th ed. New Jersey : Englewood Cliffs; 1991
26. Harris S, Owen C. Discerning quality: using the multiple mini-interview in student selection for the Australian National University Medical School. Medical Education 2007; 41(3), 234–241.