1 / 18

Evaluating Resident Candidates: Does Closed File Review Yield Better Information?

Evaluating Resident Candidates: Does Closed File Review Yield Better Information?. Shahnaz Chowdhry MS MD 1 , Linnea S. Hauge PhD 1 , Steve Stroessner PhD 2 , and Norman L. Wool MD 1 Department of General Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL 1

rock
Télécharger la présentation

Evaluating Resident Candidates: Does Closed File Review Yield Better Information?

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Evaluating Resident Candidates: Does Closed File Review Yield Better Information? Shahnaz Chowdhry MS MD1, Linnea S. Hauge PhD1, Steve Stroessner PhD2, and Norman L. Wool MD1 Department of General Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL1 and Department of Psychology, Barnard College, New York, NY2

  2. Background • Bias created by open file interviews • Robin, Bombeck, Pollak, Nyhus (1991) • Miles, Shaw, Risucci (2001) • Closed file interviews designed to reduce bias

  3. Purpose of the Study To determine the efficacy of enhanced interview and rating process

  4. Research Questions • Is there a difference between faculty ratings of applicant characteristics in open and closed file conditions? • Do ratings of applicants, in these conditions, vary by gender and known status?

  5. Study Participants • Large, urban academic general surgery program • 70 residency candidates (interviewees) • 44 Male • 26 Female • 17 surgery faculty members (interviewers) • 12 Male • 5 Female

  6. Closed File Rating Process • Each applicant was interviewed by 2 faculty members (140 total interviews) • Closed file interview • Name • Personal statement • Undergraduate institution • Medical school • Faculty completed evaluation instrument

  7. Open File Rating Process • Faculty reviewed applicant files • ERAS application • Transcript • USMLE Scores • MSPE • Letters of Recommendation • Faculty completed the same evaluation instrument

  8. Motivation for learning Motivation to do research Ability to work effectively with others Commitment to general surgery Likelihood to succeed in surgery Overall fit in our program Evaluation Instrument • Self-confidence • Communication • Intelligence • Maturity • Compassion • Interpersonal Skills • Motivation for Surgery Miles WS, Shaw V, and Risucci D. The Role of blinded interview in the assessment of surgical residency candidates. The American Journal of Surgery. 182 (2001) 143-162.

  9. Data Analysis • Factor analysis to yield rating components • MANOVA on: • Interview type (closed vs. open) • Known status (known vs. unknown) • Gender (male vs. female) • Ratings

  10. Results • No significant differences between • Ratings between open vs. closed file (F=.34, p=.56) • Open vs. closed file ratings by gender (F=.04, p=.84)

  11. Results: Interaction Effects • Significant interaction effects between: • Open vs. closed file ratings by known status (F=4.7, p=.04) • Open vs. closed file ratings by trait (F=1.8, p=.04) • Open vs. closed file ratings by trait, gender and known status (F=1.98, p=.02) • Trait by gender (F=3.1, p=.001)

  12. Results: Closed vs. Open • By trait (F=1.8, p=.04) Closed Open Intelligence 4.19 4.33 Maturity 4.16 4.29 Commitment to general surgery 4.32 4.41 Qualifications to succeed 4.20 4.32

  13. Results: Closed vs. Open • By known status (F=4.7, p=.04) KnownUnknown Maturity (open) 4.02 4.43 Motivation for general surgery (closed) 4.26 4.59 Working with others (closed) 4.91 4.36 Qualifications to succeed (open) 4.04 4.41 Likelihood to succeed (open) 4.00 4.45 Fit to program (open) 4.00 4.33

  14. Results: Closed vs. Open Closed Open • Known females • Communication 4.4 4.0 • Interpersonal skills 4.4 3.7 • Motivation for research 3.6 3.1 • Known males • Qualifications to succeed 4.4 4.0

  15. Results: Closed vs. Open • Maturity Ratings Closed Open Known Male 3.8 4.0 Unknown Male 4.2 4.3 Known Female 4.6 4.4 Unknown Female 4.2 4.6

  16. Results: Trait by Gender M F

  17. Factor Analysis Results • Social Traits • Communication = 0.87 • Maturity = 0.85 • Self-confidence = 0.77 • Interpersonal skills =0.76 • General Surgery • Commitment to general surgery = 0.871 • Motivation to do general surgery = 0.85 • Research • Motivation to do research = 0.89

  18. Conclusions • No significant change in closed and open file evaluations except: • Differences in ratings of known vs. unknown applicants • Differences in ratings of some traits by the gender of the applicant • Constructs evaluated are social traits, motivation for general surgery, and research

More Related