Dataset Information

Applicant Attitudes Toward the Association of American Medical Colleges' Standardized Video Interview.

ABSTRACT: 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.

SUBMITTER: Winfield AD

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6965673 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Applicant Attitudes Toward the Association of American Medical Colleges' Standardized Video Interview.

Winfield Ashlea D AD Chhabra Neeraj N Schindlbeck Michael A MA Bowman Steven H SH

AEM education and training 20190603 1

<h4>Background</h4>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 sur ...[more]

PMID: 31989064

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe 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.ObjectivesThe objective was to determine whether the SVI affects the LTI.MethodsNine 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.ResultsSeventeen 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).ConclusionsThe 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.

Project description:OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to analyze bibliometric data from ISI, National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funding data, and faculty size information for Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) member schools during 1997 to 2007 to assess research productivity and impact. METHODS: This study gathered and synthesized 10 metrics for almost all AAMC medical schools(n=123): (1) total number of published articles per medical school, (2) total number of citations to published articles per medical school, (3) average number of citations per article, (4) institutional impact indices, (5) institutional percentages of articles with zero citations, (6) annual average number of faculty per medical school, (7) total amount of NIH funding per medical school, (8) average amount of NIH grant money awarded per faculty member, (9) average number of articles per faculty member, and (10)average number of citations per faculty member. Using principal components analysis, the author calculated the relationships between measures, if they existed. RESULTS: Principal components analysis revealed 3 major clusters of variables that accounted for 91% of the total variance: (1) institutional research productivity, (2) research influence or impact, and (3)individual faculty research productivity. Depending on the variables in each cluster, medical school research may be appropriately evaluated in a more nuanced way. Significant correlations exist between extracted factors, indicating an interrelatedness of all variables. Total NIH funding may relate more strongly to the quality of the research than the quantity of the research. The elimination of medical schools with outliers in 1 or more indicators (n=20)altered the analysis considerably. CONCLUSIONS: Though popular, ordinal rankings cannot adequately describe the multidimensional nature of a medical school's research productivity and impact. This study provides statistics that can be used in conjunction with other sound methodologies to provide a more authentic view of a medical school's research. The large variance of the collected data suggests that refining bibliometric data by discipline, peer groups, or journal information may provide a more precise assessment.

Dataset Information

Applicant Attitudes Toward the Association of American Medical Colleges' Standardized Video Interview.

Publications

Applicant Attitudes Toward the Association of American Medical Colleges' Standardized Video Interview.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets