Dataset Information

The Standardized Video Interview: How Does It Affect the Likelihood to Invite for a Residency Interview?

ABSTRACT:

Background

The Association of American Medical Colleges instituted a standardized video interview (SVI) for all applicants to emergency medicine (EM). It is unclear how the SVI affects a faculty reviewer's decision on likelihood to invite an applicant (LTI) for an interview.

Objectives

The objective was to determine whether the SVI affects the LTI.

Methods

Nine Accreditation Council of Graduate Medication Education (ACGME)-accredited EM residency programs participated in this prospective, observational study. LTI was defined on a 5-point Likert scale as follows: 1 = definitely not invite, 2 = likely not invite, 3 = might invite, 4 = probably invite, 5 = definitely invite. LTI was recorded at three instances during each review: 1) after typical screening (blinded to the SVI), 2) after unblinding to the SVI score, and 3) after viewing the SVI video.

Results

Seventeen reviewers at nine ACGME-accredited residency programs participated. We reviewed 2,219 applications representing 1,424 unique applicants. After unblinding the SVI score, LTI did not change in 2,065 (93.1%), increased in 85 (3.8%) and decreased in 69 (3.1%; p = 0.22). In subgroup analyses, the effect of the SVI on LTI was unchanged by United States Medical Licensing Examination score. However, when examining subgroups of SVI scores, the percentage of applicants in whom the SVI score changed the LTI was significantly different in those that scored in the lower and upper subgroups (p < 0.0001). The SVI video was viewed in 816 (36.8%) applications. Watching the video did not change the LTI in 631 (77.3%); LTI increased in 106 (13.0%) and decreased in 79 (9.7%) applications (p = 0.04).

Conclusions

The SVI score changed the LTI in 7% of applications. In this group, the score was equally likely to increase or decrease the LTI. Lower SVI scores were more likely to decrease the LTI than higher scores were to increase the LTI. Watching the SVI video was more likely to increase the LTI than to decrease it.

SUBMITTER: Husain A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6637009 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background:The Standardized Video Interview (SVI) was developed by the American Association of Medical Colleges to allow applicants to include objective data about professional behaviors and interpersonal and communication skills. Although the SVI pilot was administered to individuals applying to emergency medicine (EM) residency programs during the 2018 Electronic Residency Application Service (ERAS) cycle, little data have been published evaluating the applicant's perceptions. This survey aims to assess EM residency applicant attitudes toward the SVI. Methods:During the 2018 ERAS application season an anonymous survey was administered to interviewees at one urban Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-approved EM residency. Respondents were asked questions regarding the production of their video interviews, thoughts regarding the additive value of the SVI, and individual demographic data such as ethnicity and sex. Participation was optional. Results:A total of 219 of 238 candidates completed the survey representing a 92% response rate. While the majority of applicants did not feel that their ethnicity impacted their application, 58.1% of those who did self-identified as African American or Asian. A total of 8.7% of respondents felt the SVI added information about their professional behaviors and 11% felt that it added information about interpersonal and communication skills. Only 2.8% of survey respondents felt the SVI should remain a portion of the ERAS application. Conclusions:Most respondents felt that the SVI was not an accurate representation of their interpersonal and communication skills or their professionalism and that it did not add value to their applications. While most cohorts were not concerned about bias regarding sex, ethnicity, sex, or age, a small subset felt that there was a potential for the SVI to bias the party reviewing their applications. Very few applicants felt the SVI should remain a part of the ERAS application. Applicant attitudes toward the SVI are largely negative and require further investigation prior to becoming a standard part of applicants' ERAS files.

Project description:IntroductionAlthough emergency medicine (EM) residency program directors (PD) have multiple sources to evaluate each applicant, some programs await the release of the medical student performance evaluation (MSPE) to extend interview offers. While prior studies have demonstrated that MSPE content is variable and selectively positive, no prior work has evaluated the impact of the MSPE on the likelihood to invite (LTI) applicants for a residency interview. This study aimed to evaluate how information in the MSPE impacted LTI, with the hypothesis that changes in LTI would be relatively rare based on MSPE review alone.MethodsWe conducted a prospective, observational study analyzing applications to three EM residency programs during the 2019-2020 match cycle. Reviewers assessed applications and rated the LTI on a five-point Likert scale where LTI was defined as follows: 1 = definitely no; 2 = probably no; 3 = unsure; 4 = probably yes; and 5 = definitely yes. The LTI was recorded before and after MSPE review. A change in LTI was considered meaningful when it changed the overall trajectory of the applicant's likelihood to receive an invitation to interview.ResultsWe reviewed a total of 877 applications with the LTI changing ≥1 point on the Likert scale 160 (18.2%) times. The LTI was meaningfully impacted in a minority of applications - 48 total (5.5 %, p< 0.01) - with only 1 (0.11%) application changing from 1 or 2 (definitely/probably no) to 4 or 5 (probably/definitely yes) and 34 (3.8%) changing from 3 (unsure) to 4 or 5 (probably/definitely yes). Thirteen (1.5%) applications changed from 4 or 5 (probably/definitely yes) to 3 (unsure or probably/definitely no).ConclusionReview of the MSPE resulted in a meaningful change in LTI in only 5.5% of applications. Given the time required for program leadership to review all parts of the variably formatted MSPEs, this finding supports a more efficient application review, where the PD's focus is on succinct and objective aspects of the application, such as the Standardized Letter of Evaluation.