Most physician assistant (PA) programs receive applications in excess of available seats, yet based on the 2019 PAEA Curriculum Report, the all-cause attrition rate is 7.4%. Given the large pool of applicants available to select from, it is valuable to identify students who will succeed in and graduate from the program. Admissions interviews are typically a component of the admissions process for physician assistant candidates. Outcomes of these interviews are high-stakes for the program and applicants, as they are often the final step prior to admissions decisions. Numerous different interview styles exist, yet there is no known research comparing programmatic performance outcomes based on the interview style utilized. The purpose of this study is to evaluate if panel interviews and/or multiple mini-interviews (MMI), two of the most commonly used interview modalities, are predictive of didactic performance, incidence of major professionalism events, and/or on-time program progression in PA education. Two groups of 118 and 125 students admitted using panel interviews and MMI were compared. Each group included students from two academic year cohorts, 2016-2017 for panel and 2018-2019 for MMI. Though sample size was limited by cohort size, sample size calculations based on correlation coefficient demonstrated adequate power. Descriptive statistics confirmed there was no statistically significant differences in the two groups on demographic and academic variables, including age, gender, military service, race/ethnicity, state residency, overall GPA, and science GPA. These similarities in the groups allowed for statistical comparison of the outcome variables. Linear regression, independent t-tests, Fisher's exact rests, and chi-square tests were used to evaluate the relationship between interview score and cumulative medicine exam scores, incidence of major professionalism events, and the ability to progress with the original cohort between the panel interview and MMI groups. There was no statistically significant relationship between interview score and score on a cumulative medicine examination for either group (panel r[superscript 2] = 0.01, MMI r[superscript 2] = 0.0002). Interview score percentage did not significantly predict incidence of major professionalism issues in the panel interview group (n = 6, p = 0.53) or the MMI group (p = 0.89). Only one student representing 0.1% of the group in the MMI cohort had a major professionalism issue compared to six (5%) in the panel interview group; this was a nearly statistically significant difference (p = 0.051). There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups on ability to progress with the original entering cohort; 11 students in the panel interview group (9%) and 7 students in the MMI group (5.6%) failed to progress. Interview score percentage did not predict ability to progress with the cohort in either group (panel p = 0.47, MMI p = 0.71). Elucidating if MMI and/or panel interviews are predictors of academic performance, major professionalism events, and ability to progress with the entering cohort is valuable, as interviews are influential in the admissions process. This research indicates that MMI may be a valuable tool in reducing the number of major professionalism events by screening out applicants who have latent professionalism problems. Additionally, though not statistically significant, there were objectively more students in the MMI group able to progress with their entering cohort than in the panel interview group. It is equally valuable to consider that admissions interviews do not appear to be predictors of isolated academic success, measured on a cumulative medicine examination, and there are other tools in place in many admissions processes to evaluate for academic ability. Considering the high-stakes nature of admissions interviews, the potentially limited predictive ability of admissions interviews on academic ability and possible predictive ability of professionalism event incidence and ability to withstand the heavy course load by progressing with the original entering cohort supports a holistic approach where a variety of experiences, attributes, and metrics are considered in admissions decisions. [The dissertation citations contained here are published with the permission of ProQuest LLC. Further reproduction is prohibited without permission. Copies of dissertations may be obtained by Telephone (800) 1-800-521-0600. Web page: http://www.proquest.com.bibliotheek.ehb.be/en-US/products/dissertations/individuals.shtml.]