The role of the interview in residency selection: A mixed‐methods study.
Saved in:
| Title: | The role of the interview in residency selection: A mixed‐methods study. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Gordon, Emily K. B., Clapp, Justin T., Heins, Sarah J., Gaulton, Timothy G., Lane‐Fall, Meghan B., Aysola, Jaya, Baranov, Dimitri Y., Fleisher, Lee A. |
| Source: | Medical Education. Nov2020, Vol. 54 Issue 11, p1029-1039. 11p. 1 Diagram, 4 Charts. |
| Subjects: | Universities & colleges, Academic medical centers, Anesthesiology, Consensus (Social sciences), Employee selection, Internship programs, Interviewing, Research methodology, Qualitative research |
| Geographic Terms: | Pennsylvania |
| Abstract: | Context: Residency programmes invest considerable time and resources in candidate interviews as a result of their perceived ability to reveal important social traits. However, studies examining the ability of interviews to predict resident performance have shown mixed findings, and the role of the interview in candidate evaluation remains unclear. This mixed‐methods study, conducted in an anaesthesiology residency programme at a large academic medical centre, examined how interviews contributed to candidate assessment and whether the addition of behavioural questions to interviews altered their role in the evaluation process. Methods: During the 2018‐2019 residency selection season in the Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care at the University of Pennsylvania, independent ratings for each interviewee were collected from faculty interviewers. Consensus ratings subsequently established by committee were also collected. Committee meetings were audiorecorded and transcribed for qualitative analysis. Behavioural questions were integrated into half of interview days. Ratings of candidates interviewed on behavioural question days were compared statistically with those of candidates interviewed on non‐behavioural question days. Results: Qualitative analysis showed that interviewers heavily emphasised candidates' application files in evaluating the interviews. Interviewers focused on candidates' academic records and favoured candidates whose interview behaviours were consistent with their applications and whose applications demonstrated similarities to interviewers' traits. The addition of behavioural questions demonstrated little ability to alter these dynamics. Quantitatively, there were no significant differences in candidate rating outcomes between behavioural and non‐behavioural interviewing days, whereas a higher medical school rating and higher score on the United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 were associated with a more favourable consensus rating. Conclusions: Residency candidates' application files predisposed interviewers' experience and evaluation of interviews, preventing the interviews from providing discrete assessments of interpersonal qualities, even when behavioural questions were included. In the continued effort to perform well‐rounded assessments of residency candidates, further research and reflection on the role of interviewing in evaluation are necessary. Given considerable debate regarding how interviews are (and should be) used to evaluate candidates to residency, the authors explore challenges in generating discrete assessments of interpersonal qualities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of Medical Education is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection |
| FullText | Links: – Type: pdflink Text: Availability: 0 |
|---|---|
| Header | DbId: pbh DbLabel: Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection An: 146554390 AccessLevel: 6 PubType: Academic Journal PubTypeId: academicJournal PreciseRelevancyScore: 0 |
| IllustrationInfo | |
| Items | – Name: Title Label: Title Group: Ti Data: The role of the interview in residency selection: A mixed‐methods study. – Name: Author Label: Authors Group: Au Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Gordon%2C+Emily+K%2E+B%2E%22">Gordon, Emily K. B.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Clapp%2C+Justin+T%2E%22">Clapp, Justin T.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Heins%2C+Sarah+J%2E%22">Heins, Sarah J.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Gaulton%2C+Timothy+G%2E%22">Gaulton, Timothy G.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Lane‐Fall%2C+Meghan+B%2E%22">Lane‐Fall, Meghan B.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Aysola%2C+Jaya%22">Aysola, Jaya</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Baranov%2C+Dimitri+Y%2E%22">Baranov, Dimitri Y.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Fleisher%2C+Lee+A%2E%22">Fleisher, Lee A.</searchLink> – Name: TitleSource Label: Source Group: Src Data: <searchLink fieldCode="JN" term="%22Medical+Education%22">Medical Education</searchLink>. Nov2020, Vol. 54 Issue 11, p1029-1039. 11p. 1 Diagram, 4 Charts. – Name: Subject Label: Subjects Group: Su Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Universities+%26+colleges%22">Universities & colleges</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Academic+medical+centers%22">Academic medical centers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Anesthesiology%22">Anesthesiology</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Consensus+%28Social+sciences%29%22">Consensus (Social sciences)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Employee+selection%22">Employee selection</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Internship+programs%22">Internship programs</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Interviewing%22">Interviewing</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Research+methodology%22">Research methodology</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Qualitative+research%22">Qualitative research</searchLink> – Name: SubjectGeographic Label: Geographic Terms Group: Su Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Pennsylvania%22">Pennsylvania</searchLink> – Name: Abstract Label: Abstract Group: Ab Data: Context: Residency programmes invest considerable time and resources in candidate interviews as a result of their perceived ability to reveal important social traits. However, studies examining the ability of interviews to predict resident performance have shown mixed findings, and the role of the interview in candidate evaluation remains unclear. This mixed‐methods study, conducted in an anaesthesiology residency programme at a large academic medical centre, examined how interviews contributed to candidate assessment and whether the addition of behavioural questions to interviews altered their role in the evaluation process. Methods: During the 2018‐2019 residency selection season in the Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care at the University of Pennsylvania, independent ratings for each interviewee were collected from faculty interviewers. Consensus ratings subsequently established by committee were also collected. Committee meetings were audiorecorded and transcribed for qualitative analysis. Behavioural questions were integrated into half of interview days. Ratings of candidates interviewed on behavioural question days were compared statistically with those of candidates interviewed on non‐behavioural question days. Results: Qualitative analysis showed that interviewers heavily emphasised candidates' application files in evaluating the interviews. Interviewers focused on candidates' academic records and favoured candidates whose interview behaviours were consistent with their applications and whose applications demonstrated similarities to interviewers' traits. The addition of behavioural questions demonstrated little ability to alter these dynamics. Quantitatively, there were no significant differences in candidate rating outcomes between behavioural and non‐behavioural interviewing days, whereas a higher medical school rating and higher score on the United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 were associated with a more favourable consensus rating. Conclusions: Residency candidates' application files predisposed interviewers' experience and evaluation of interviews, preventing the interviews from providing discrete assessments of interpersonal qualities, even when behavioural questions were included. In the continued effort to perform well‐rounded assessments of residency candidates, further research and reflection on the role of interviewing in evaluation are necessary. Given considerable debate regarding how interviews are (and should be) used to evaluate candidates to residency, the authors explore challenges in generating discrete assessments of interpersonal qualities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] – Name: AbstractSuppliedCopyright Label: Group: Ab Data: <i>Copyright of Medical Education is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract.</i> (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) |
| PLink | https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=pbh&AN=146554390 |
| RecordInfo | BibRecord: BibEntity: Identifiers: – Type: doi Value: 10.1111/medu.14248 Languages: – Code: eng Text: English PhysicalDescription: Pagination: PageCount: 11 StartPage: 1029 Subjects: – SubjectFull: Universities & colleges Type: general – SubjectFull: Academic medical centers Type: general – SubjectFull: Anesthesiology Type: general – SubjectFull: Consensus (Social sciences) Type: general – SubjectFull: Employee selection Type: general – SubjectFull: Internship programs Type: general – SubjectFull: Interviewing Type: general – SubjectFull: Research methodology Type: general – SubjectFull: Qualitative research Type: general – SubjectFull: Pennsylvania Type: general Titles: – TitleFull: The role of the interview in residency selection: A mixed‐methods study. Type: main BibRelationships: HasContributorRelationships: – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Gordon, Emily K. B. – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Clapp, Justin T. – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Heins, Sarah J. – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Gaulton, Timothy G. – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Lane‐Fall, Meghan B. – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Aysola, Jaya – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Baranov, Dimitri Y. – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Fleisher, Lee A. IsPartOfRelationships: – BibEntity: Dates: – D: 01 M: 11 Text: Nov2020 Type: published Y: 2020 Identifiers: – Type: issn-print Value: 03080110 Numbering: – Type: volume Value: 54 – Type: issue Value: 11 Titles: – TitleFull: Medical Education Type: main |
| ResultId | 1 |
