Linguistic Biases in Letters of Recommendation for Radiation Oncology Residency Applicants from 2015 to 2019.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Chapman BV
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7591242 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Background: This survey aims to identify the relative value and the critical components of anesthesiology letters of recommendation(LORs) from the perspective of Program Directors (PDs) and Associate/Assistant Program Directors (APDs). Knowledge and insights originating from this survey might add to the understanding of the anesthesiology residency selection process and mitigate unintended linguistic biases.Methodology: Anonymous online surveys were sent to anesthesiology PDs/APDs from the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) accredited anesthesiology residency Programs in the USA (US), as listed on the ACGME website and the American Medical Association Fellowship and Residency Electronic Interactive Database (AMA FREIDA) Residency Program Database. The survey authors were blinded to the identity of the respondents.Results: 62 out of 183 (33.8%) invited anesthesiology PDs/APDs completed the survey anonymously. In our survey, LORs are reported as more important in granting an interview than in making the rank list. 64% of respondents prefer narrative LORs. 77.4% of respondents look for specific keywords in LORs. Keywords such as 'top % of students' and 'we are recruiting this candidate' indicate a strong letter of recommendation while keywords such as 'I recommend to your program' or non-superlative descriptions indicate a weak letter of recommendation. Other key components of LORs include the specialty of the letter-writer, according to 84% of respondents, with anesthesiology as the most valuable specialty. Although narrative LORs are preferred, 55.1% of respondents are not satisfied with the content of narrative LORs.Conclusion: LORs containing specific keywords play an important role in the application to anesthesiology residency, particularly when submitted by an anesthesiologist. While narrative LORs are still the preferred format, most of our respondents feel they need improvements. The authors suggest specific LOR improvements including creating formalized LOR training, adding a style guide, and applying comparative scales, with standardized vocabulary in the narrative LOR.
| S-EPMC8118394 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background. The goals of this project were to evaluate the current perspective on letters of recommendation and to assess the need for, and acceptance of, a more standardized letter of recommendation (LOR). Methods. An eight-question survey was distributed to plastic surgery program directors. A five-point Likert scale was selected as a means of quantifying the participants' responses to the survey. Results. Twenty-eight of 71 program directors (39.4%) completed the survey. The majority of participants felt that current LOR did not offer a realistic way to compare applicants (mean ± SD, 2.9 ± 0.8). While most agreed that increasing the objectivity of LOR would be valuable in comparing applicants (mean ± SD, 4.1 ± 0.9), the overall average response to whether a more standardized letter format would improve the resident selection process remained only slightly better than neutral (mean ± SD, 3.5 ± 1.2). Most of the chairmen supported the notion that familiarity with the author of the LOR strengthened the recommendation (mean ± SD, 4.5 ± 0.6). Conclusion. The majority of plastic surgery program directors would like more objectivity in comparing applicants but are ambivalent about a standardized letter of recommendation.
| S-EPMC3335712 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeMedical students often complete clinical rotations at other institutions (away rotations). This study assesses the number of away rotations undertaken by radiation oncology residency applicants and their value from the applicants' perspective.Methods and materialsA survey was sent to applicants to a single radiation oncology program from 2015 to 2017. Questions addressed away rotation frequency, funding, motivations, barriers, and match results. A χ2 test was used to assess the correlation between number of away rotations and matching to an away program. Binary logistic regression was used to assess factors associated with undertaking >2 away rotations.ResultsThe response rate was 39% (n = 194); 89% of respondents completed ≥1 away rotation (median, 2; interquartile range, 2-3), of whom 39% (n = 67) matched to an away program. The number of away rotations completed did not differ between those who did and did not match (P = .29). Furthermore, the number of away rotations did not correlate with matching at an away program (P = .40). Factors associated with completing more away rotations included male sex and high loan burden (P < .05). Away rotations were perceived as extremely important (71%), with interest in a specific program (44%) and obtaining letters of recommendation (31%) the most common reasons to pursue away rotations. Only 9% (n = 15) of applicants did away rotations because they had no home program. Funding sources included personal savings (29%), family support (26%), and loans (22%). If costs were inconsequential, 67 applicants (35%) noted they would do more away rotations.ConclusionsAway rotations are common and often result in students matching to an away program, although benefits of ≥2 away rotations appear limited and have associated costs. Limiting the number of away rotations in radiation oncology may decrease costs without sacrificing one's chances of matching.
| S-EPMC7381360 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Abstract Objective Application for otolaryngology residency is highly competitive, with letters of recommendation (LORs) and applicant personal statements (PSs) representing important components of the application process. However, their inherently subjective nature predisposes them to potential implicit bias. Otolaryngology has historically been predominated by male physicians and while implicit sex bias has been demonstrated in LORs for application to residency of multiple specialties, data is limited for otolaryngology. Methods LORs and PSs for all otolaryngology applicants to an academic medical center during the 2019–20 and 2020–21 cycles were abstracted. Quantitative analysis was performed using Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count 2015 (LIWC2015), a validated software application designed to analyze various emotional, cognitive, and structural components of written text. Results LORs written for females were found to be written from a perspective of higher expertise and confidence while LORs written for males were associated with a more honest, personal, and disclosing tone. Moreover, LORs written for female applicants were found to reference achievement and “grindstone” terminology more than those written for men. No differences were observed in any word category between PSs written by male and female applicants. Conclusion Minor linguistic differences exist in multiple domains between LORs written for male and female applicants for otolaryngology residency. These tended to favor female applicants, with their letters demonstrating higher clout, achievement, and grindstone scores. This trend was unexpected in this historically predominantly male specialty. While differences were statistically significant, the overall difference in an entire letter of recommendation is likely subtle. Level of Evidence 3. Implicit sex bias has been demonstrated in letters of recommendation for application to residency of multiple specialties; however, data is limited for otolaryngology. Letters of recommendation and personal statements for all otolaryngology applicants to an academic medical center during the 2019–20 and 2020–21 cycles were analyzed using Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count 2015, a validated software application designed to analyze various emotional, cognitive, and structural components of written text. Minor linguistic differences exist in multiple domains between LORs written for male and female applicants for otolaryngology residency.
| S-EPMC9764768 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeMedical students may take a year off during medical school (a "gap year") to strengthen their applications for competitive specialties such as radiation oncology. This can incur significant financial and opportunity costs. We sought to understand the prevalence, nature, and funding of gap years undertaken by radiation oncology applicants.Methods and materialsAn anonymous survey was emailed to all applicants to a single radiation oncology program from 2015 to 2017. Survey questions assessed gap year utilization, funding, motivations, and perceptions. Separately, all 2017 Electronic Residency Application Service (n = 176) applications to this program were reviewed for reference.ResultsThe 2017 cohort had a response rate of 69% (n = 121), with an overall response rate of 39% (n = 194) for applicants between 2015 to 2017. Of non-MD/PhD respondents, 33% (n = 53) reported taking a gap year. The main reason for a gap year (68%) was to produce more publications, and 50% of all respondents viewed a gap year as "important" or "very important" for matching in radiation oncology. Twenty-eight students (53%) reported using personal loans, savings, or family support to cover gap year expenses. Most who took a gap year (83%) viewed funding as "difficult" or "extremely difficult" to obtain. Fewer publications before gap year and more dedicated research time were significant predictors of undertaking a gap year, whereas sex, marital status, dependent status, and financial aid were not significant.ConclusionsResearch productivity is commonly perceived as important for matching in radiation oncology, leading many applicants to take gap years, which are usually supported by personal financial resources. We did not identify statistically significant socioeconomic disparities between applicants that took a gap year and those who did not. However, further study is warranted to determine whether pressure to take a gap year, particularly in the absence of readily available funding sources, deters some potential applicants from pursuing radiation oncology altogether.
| S-EPMC7525797 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionThe persistent lack of racial and ethnic diversity within the field of otolaryngology calls for an analysis of potential bias within the residency application system. Letters of recommendation (LORs) and personal statements (PSs) are the most important subjective application constituents. This subjectivity predisposes these components to implicit bias. In applications to various surgical subspecialties, prior linguistic studies assessing bias in reviews of LOR show race-based differences. Thus far, racial and ethnic linguistic differences in LORs for otolaryngology applicants have not been analyzed in the literature.MethodsLORs and PSs were abstracted from otolaryngology - head and neck surgery applications in the Electronic Residency Application Service for the 2019-20 and 2020-21 application cycles. Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count 2015 was used for quantitative analysis of emotional, cognitive, and structural components of written text.ResultsRace-pair analysis of the 2019-2021 application cycles revealed higher mean "teaching" scores for LORs for Asian, black, Hispanic, and white applicants when compared to applicants who self-identified as Other. White applicants had lower scores for the terms "research" and "analytic" when compared to Asian and black applicants, respectively. Analysis of PSs revealed greater scores for an "authentic" writing style for white versus Asian applicants. White applicants were found to have higher scores for "tone" compared to black applicants.ConclusionMinor racial and ethnic language differences exist in both LORs and PSs. A statistically significant difference was observed among LORs, with the "teaching" term used more frequently for Asian, black, Hispanic, and white applicants compared to self-identified Other individuals. For PSs, statistically significant differences were observed among white applicants, who wrote about themselves using more "authentic" language when compared with Asian applicants and who also had higher scores for "tone" compared to black applicants. Although these differences were statistically significant, the practical impact of the variances is likely small.
| S-EPMC10871677 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundLetters of recommendation are considered one of the most important factors for whether an applicant is selected for an interview for orthopaedic surgery residency programs. Language differences in letters describing men versus women candidates may create differential perceptions by gender. Given the gender imbalance in orthopaedic surgery, we sought to determine whether there are differences in the language of letters of recommendation by applicant gender.Questions/purposes(1) Are there differences in word count and word categories in letters of recommendation describing women and men applicants, regardless of author gender? (2) Is author gender associated with word category differences in letters of recommendation? (3) Do authors of different academic rank use different words to describe women versus men applicants?MethodsUsing a linguistic analysis in a retrospective study, we analyzed all letters of recommendation (2834 letters) written for all 738 applicants with completed Electronic Residency Application Service applications submitted to the Johns Hopkins Orthopaedic Surgery Residency program during the 2018 to 2019 cycle to determine differences in word category use among applicants by gender, authors by gender, and authors by academic rank. Thirty nine validated word categories from the Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count dictionary along with seven additional word categories from previous publications were used in this analysis. The occurrence of words in each word category was divided by the number of words in the letter to obtain a word frequency for each letter. We calculated the mean word category frequency across all letters and analyzed means using non-parametric tests. For comparison of two groups, a p value threshold of 0.05 was used. For comparison of multiple groups, the Bonferroni correction was used to calculate an adjusted p value (p = 0.00058).ResultsLetters of recommendation for women applicants were slightly longer compared with those for men applicants (366 ± 188 versus 339 ± 199 words; p = 0.003). When comparing word category differences by applicant gender, letters for women applicants had slightly more "achieve" words (0.036 ± 0.015 versus 0.035 ± 0.018; p < 0.0001). Letters for men had more use of their first name (0.016 ± 0.013 versus 0.014 ± 0.009; p < 0.0001), and more "young" words (0.001 ± 0.003 versus 0.000 ± 0.001; p < 0.0001) than letters for women applicants. These differences were very small as each 0.001 difference in mean word frequency was equivalent to one more additional word from the word category appearing when comparing three letters for women to three letters for men. For differences in letters by author gender, there were no word category differences between men and women authors. Finally, when looking at author academic rank, letters for men applicants written by professors had slightly more "research" terms (0.011 ± 0.010) than letters written by associate professors (0.010 ± 0.010) or faculty of other rank (0.009 ± 0.011; p < 0.0001), a finding not observed in letters written for women.ConclusionsAlthough there were some minor differences favoring women, language in letters of recommendation to an academic orthopaedic surgery residency program were overall similar between men and women applicants.Clinical relevanceGiven the similarity in language between men and women applicants, increasing women applicants may be a more important factor in addressing the gender gap in orthopaedics.
| S-EPMC7310286 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundLetters of recommendation (LORs) are historically an important, though subjective, component of the neurosurgery residency application process. Standardized LORs (SLORs) were introduced during the 2020 to 2021 application cycle. The intent of SLORs is to allow objective comparison of applicants and to reduce bias.ObjectiveTo examine the utility of SLORs during this application cycle. We hypothesized that "grade inflation" and poor inter-rater reliability, as described by other specialties using SLORs, would limit the utility of SLORs in their current form.MethodsThis cross-sectional study analyzed all SLORs submitted to a single neurosurgery residency program over the 2020 to 2021 cycle. Data from 7 competency domains and the overall rating were recorded and stratified by academic category of letter writer. Inter-rater reliability was evaluated using Krippendorff's alpha.ResultsOne or more SLORs was submitted as part of 298 of 393 applications (76%). Approximately 58.3% of letters written by neurosurgery chairpersons rated a given applicant as being within the top 5% across all competencies. Approximately 44.4% of program director letters similarly rated applicants as amongst the top 5%, while 73.2% and 81.4% of letters by other neurosurgeons and general surgery evaluators, respectively, rated applicants in the top 5%. Inter-rater reliability was poor (<0.33) in all rating categories, including overall (α = 0.18).ConclusionThe utility of the first iteration of SLORs in neurosurgery applications is undermined by significant "grade inflation" and poor inter-rater reliability. Improvements are necessary for SLORs if they are to provide meaningful information in future application cycles.
| S-EPMC8600167 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background?Letters of recommendation (LORs) are an important part of applications for residency and fellowship programs. Despite anecdotal use of a "code" in LORs, research on program director (PD) perceptions of the value of these documents is sparse.Objective?We analyzed PD interpretations of LOR components and discriminated between perceived levels of applicant recommendations.Methods?We conducted a cross-sectional, descriptive study of pediatrics residency and fellowship PDs. We developed a survey asking PDs to rate 3 aspects of LORs: 13 letter features, 10 applicant abilities, and 11 commonly used phrases, using a 5-point Likert scale. The 11 phrases were grouped using principal component analysis. Mean scores of components were analyzed with repeated-measures analysis of variance. Median Likert score differences between groups were analyzed with Mann-Whitney U tests.Results?Our survey had a 43% response rate (468 of 1079). "I give my highest recommendation" was rated the most positive phrase, while "showed improvement" was rated the most negative. Principal component analysis generated 3 groups of phrases with moderate to strong correlation with each other. The mean Likert score for each group from the PD rating was calculated. Positive phrases had a mean (SD) of 4.4 (0.4), neutral phrases 3.4 (0.5), and negative phrases 2.6 (0.6). There was a significant difference among all 3 pairs of mean scores (all P < .001).Conclusions?Commonly used phrases in LORs were interpreted consistently by PDs and influenced their impressions of candidates. Key elements of LORs include distinct phrases depicting different degrees of endorsement.
| S-EPMC6008019 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceDisparities in representation between sexes have been shown at multiple career stages in medicine despite increasing representation in the overall physician workforce.ObjectiveTo assess sex representation of applicants to the Canadian R-1 entry match for postgraduate training programs from 1995 to 2019, comparing distribution between different specialties as well as applied vs matched applicants.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional analysis of aggregate data provided by the Canadian Resident Matching Service between 1995 and 2019 analyzed aggregate data for the Canadian R-1 residency match from 1995 through 2019.ExposuresApplicant sex as reported in the Canadian Resident Matching Service database.Main outcomes and measuresThe sex representation of applicants was compared and the longitudinal trends in sex representation were analyzed by specialty between 1995 and 2019. The sex representation of overall applicants to the Canadian R-1 entry match were compared with matched applicants, and both were stratified by specialty.ResultsA total of 48 424 applicants were identified (26 407 [54.5%] female applicants), of which 41 037 were matched applicants. Using specialty groupings, female applicants were most highly represented in obstetrics and gynecology (1776 of 2090 [85.0%]) and least represented in radiology (658 of 2055 [32.0%]). Within individual subspecialties, female applicants had the lowest representation in neurosurgery (90 of 394 [22.8%]). While female applicants represented an increasing proportion of the overall applicant population between 1995 and 2019 (z = 2.71; P = .007), significant increases were seen in some, but not all, individual specialties. Differences by sex were found among Canadian medical graduate match rates to their top-ranked specialty: female applicants had a lower likelihood of being rejected for family medicine (rejection of male applicants: OR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.39-0.54; P < .001) and psychiatry (OR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.46-0.76; P < .001) and were more likely to be rejected for all-encompassing surgery (acceptance of male applicants: OR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.10-1.28; P < .001).Conclusions and relevanceIncreasing representation of female residency applicants over time was seen in some, but not all, medical specialties in Canada, and sex-based differences in successful match rates were observed in some specialties. The reasons for these disparities require further investigation for corrective strategies to be identified.
| S-EPMC7686870 | biostudies-literature