Research Article Computerized test versus personal interview as admission methods for graduate nursing studies: A retrospective cohort study Koren Hazut, MN, RN, 1 Pnina Romem, PhD, RN, 2 Smadar Malkin, MMeDSC, RN 2 and Ilana Livshiz-Riven, PhD, RN 2,3 1 Cardiothoracic Surgery Department, , 3 Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology Unit, Soroka University Medical Center and 2 Department of Nursing, Recanati School for Community Health Professions, Faculty of Health Sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva, Israel Abstract The purpose of this study was to compare the predictive validity, economic efficiency, and faculty staff satisfaction of a computerized test versus a personal interview as admission methods for graduate nursing studies. A mixed method study was designed, including cross-sectional and retrospective cohorts, interviews, and cost analysis. One hundred and thirty-four students in the Master of Nursing program participated. The success of students in required core courses was similar in both admission method groups. The personal interview method was found to be a significant predictor of success, with cognitive variables the only significant contributors to the model. Higher satisfaction levels were reported with the computerized test compared with the personal interview method. The cost of the personal interview method, in annual hourly work, was 2.28 times higher than the computerized test. These findings may promote discussion regarding the cost benefit of the personal interview as an admission method for advanced academic studies in healthcare professions. Key words college admission test, education, graduate, nursing post graduate. INTRODUCTION The best method to admit Master of Nursing students is still a debatable and rarely examined topic in professional journals (Creech & Aplin-Kalisz, 2011; Mancuso & Udlis, 2012). Aca- demic institutions use diverse methods to select the most suit- able candidates to ensure success in individual courses, retention, and, ultimately, graduation rates (Creech & Aplin- Kalisz, 2011). However, utilizing the best tools to select candi- dates for admission from a much larger applicant pool repre- sents a major challenge, especially for health science programs that have an ethical obligation to choose the best can- didates, as they will influence the quality of health care received by society (Powis, 2008; Grice, 2014). Over the years, the admission method for graduate-level studies in the Department of Nursing at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev in Israel was based on the undergraduate average grade (UAG), personal questionnaire grade (PQG), and a per- sonal interview that evaluated cognitive and non-cognitive skills. In 2011, for the sake of efficiency and with the notion that the most important skills needed from candidates for a Master of Nursing are cognitive, as they are already registered nurses, a computerized test was designed to replace the personal interview. Literature Review In terms of higher education resources, the meritocracy method is the most prominent. Its main criteria are the candi- date’s quality of performance, capabilities, and excellence (Beller, 1994). Prior academic achievements, interviews, ques- tionnaires, recommendations, and other tools are used to assess factors including the candidates’ general cognitive skills, basic science knowledge and non-cognitive skills (Linn, 1990; Salvatori, 2001; Poole et al., 2012; Mahon et al., 2013). Studies have shown that grade point average and tests such as the scholastic aptitude test and the medical college admission test are reasonably good predictors of academic performance, with predictive validity of 0.4–0.5. A combination of these im- proves their predictive ability to 0.61 (Kobrin et al., 2008). This meritocratic approach is widely accepted in academic institu- tions in Israel and in other countries (Linn, 1990; Creech & Aplin-Kalisz, 2011). However, these types of selection methods fail to address other requirements of the future professional, such as non-cognitive skills, including effective communication, teamwork, ethical behavior, and displaying the highest level of professionalism (Dahlin et al., 2012; Colbert-Getz et al., 2015). Historically, personal interviews are the most popular tool used to evaluate a candidate’s personality and to gain informa- tion unobtainable by other means, such as an impression of the candidate’s motivation, character, interest, teamwork, leader- ship, and decision-making ability (Salvatori, 2001; Albanese et al., 2003; Parry et al., 2006). Personal interviews, however, Correspondence address: Ilana Livshiz-Riven, Department of Nursing, Recanati School of Community Health Professions, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, P.O.B. 653, Beer-Sheva 84105, Israel. Email: livshiz@bgu.ac.il Received 17 January 2016; revision 18 July 2016; accepted 24 July 2016 © 2016 John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd. doi: 10.1111/nhs.12309 Nursing and Health Sciences (2016) 18, 503–509