Document Type : Original Article


Department of Medical Physics and Engineering, School of Medicine, Medical Image and Signal Processing Research Centre, Isfahan university of Medical sciences, Isfahan, Iran


Background: Admission includes written and interview at universities belonging to the
ministry of the health and medical education of Iran at PhD level. In the present work, it
was tried to find out the likelihood of interview performance of different candidates with
their teaching experience in Iranian national medical PhD admission in the year 1386‑87.
Methods and Materials: In this study, applicants’ exam results were extracted from their score
workbooks for year 86‑87. PhD applicants’ categories were public (ordinary) and employed
lecturers. Invited numbers of candidates for interview were 556 from 29 different fields of study.
As the number of written subjects were not the same within different fields of study, at the
first, each group score distribution were normalized to one and then combined together for
final consideration. Results: Accept and reject percentage within public applicants were 45.1
and 54.9, respectively, while the accept percentage within lecturer applicants was 66 and the
reject was 34 respectively. Scores of all 29 groups were combined after normalization. The
overall performance including test plus interview for public and lecturers were 1.02 ± 0.12
and 0.95 ± 0.1, respectively. The average and standard deviation of test exam of public and
lecturer were 1.04 ± 0.16 and 0.91 ± 0.12, respectively. The average and standard deviation of
interview exam of public applicants and lecturers applicants were 0.98 ± 0.18 and 1.04 ± 0.17,
respectively. Conclusion: As results show, the interview performance of lecturers is better
than public applicants. Unbalanced acceptance rate amongst lecturers was increased due to
the hold of reservation toward interview and due to their higher results gain during interview.
If the test performance was a reliable measure for viability of applicant, this reservation would
change the acceptance rate close to balance.


1. Bertrand M, Hanna R, Mullainathan S. Affirmative action in
education: Evidence from engineering college admissions in India.
J Public Econ 2010;94:16-29.
2. Sebastian B, Nadja D. Success in the university admission process
in Germany: Regional provenance matters. Vol. 58. Springer: Higher
Education; 2009. p. 71-80.
3. Roding K, Nordenram G. Students perceived experience of
university admission based on tests and interviews. Eur J Dent
Educ 2005;9:171-9.
4. Dalli DA, Vera EM. Psychological and Contextual influences on the
teacher selection interview: A Model for future research. J Pers
Eval Educ 2003;17:137-55.
5. Corey SM. The interview in teacher selection. Heldref Publication,
John Wiley and Sons Inc; 1933. p. 525-37.
6. Mary DB, Stephen JM. Effects of Procedure and outcome
accountability on interview validity. J Appl Psychol 2002;87:185-91.
7. Marchese MC, Muchinsky PM. The validity of the employment
interview: A Meta-Analysis. Int J Sel Assess 2007;1:18-26.
8. Wagner R. The employment interview: A critical summary. Pers
Psychol 1949;2:17-46.
9. Clauses and regulations of entrance exam. Available from: http://[Last accessed on
September 2008
10. Moavenat Amuzeshi Vezarate Behdasht Darmanva Amuzeshe
Pezeshki: Natayej PhD. Available from:
payeh/natayj/natayj_PhD.htm.[Last accessed on November 2008
11. Devore J, Peck R. Statistics, the exploration and analysis of data,
AWord to the Wise: Cautions and Limitations. 5th ed. Thomson
brooks/cole Belmont, California. 2005. p. 241-2.
12. Mehridehnavi AR, Mehridehnavi H. The role of different subject
material on the admission of PhD candidates of Epidemiology,
Bacteriology and Parasitology branches in year 2006-2007. FMEJ
13. Mehridehnavi AR. The Association between interview and written
exam in graduate student admission of medical education and
rehabilitation management. Iran J Med Educ 2009;8:315-21.