Attitudes towards and impact of letters of recommendation for anesthesiology residency applicants.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Jn Pierre CE
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8118394 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:We aimed to investigate whether implicit linguistic biases exist in letters of recommendation (LORs) for applicants to radiation oncology (RO) residency. LORs (n = 487) written for applicants (n = 125) invited to interview at a single RO residency program from the 2015 to 2019 application cycles were included for analysis. Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) software was used to evaluate LORs for length and a dictionary of predetermined themes. Language was evaluated for gender bias using a publicly available gender bias calculator. Non-parametric tests were used to compare linguistic domain scores. The median number of the LORs per applicant was 4 (range 3-5). No significant differences by applicant gender were detected in LIWC score domains or gender bias calculator (P > 0.05). However, LORs for applicants from racial/ethnic backgrounds underrepresented in medicine were less likely to include standout descriptors (P = 0.008). Male writers were less likely to describe applicant characteristics related to patient care (P < 0.0001) and agentic personality (P = 0.006). LORs written by RO were shorter (P < 0.0001) and included fewer standout descriptors (P = 0.014) but were also more likely to include statements regarding applicant desirability (P = 0.045) and research (P = 0.008). While language was globally male-biased, assistant professors were less likely than associate professors (P = 0.0064) and full professors (P = 0.023) to use male-biased language. Significant linguistic differences were observed in RO residency LORs, suggesting that implicit biases related to both applicants and letter writers may exist. Recognition, and ideally eradication, of such biases are crucial for fair and equitable evaluation of a diverse applicant pool of RO residency candidates.
| S-EPMC7591242 | 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: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: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:BackgroundThe Association of American Medical Colleges has recently issued recommendations for the upcoming 2022-2023 application cycle that residency programs should conduct all interviews for this upcoming application cycle over the web. In light of these recommendations, many students will have limited exposure to anesthesiology programs and will rely on information gleaned digitally. This change means that the aspects of program websites used to provide information, such as size, structure, location, requirements, and contact information, will be crucial in helping prospective residents decide where and how to apply in the future. An evaluation of website usability, which includes initial appearance along with factors that influence its ease of navigation and convenience of use, can thus be applied to anesthesiology residency websites. Areas of need can be targeted to increase web presence and provide effective pathways to exhibit the different attributes of their programs to future applicants.ObjectiveThis study aimed to compile a list of US anesthesiology residency programs and their websites while objectively analyzing the websites using a formally published usability scoring system, as well as to identify positive and negative trends to offer areas of improvement among anesthesiology residency websites.MethodsWe included only 114 US anesthesiology residency program websites in our sample set, since some websites we analyzed showed errors or inconclusive. Website usability was separated into 4 distinct categories for analysis based on methodology outlined in previous literature on both health care website usability and residency website usability. The 4 categories were Accessibility, Marketing, Content Quality, and Technology. Each website was then analyzed and scored based on key components highlighted within the 4 categories. The multiple factors were then graded using a percentage system to create a comprehensive score for each program.ResultsThe highest scoring category was Content Quality (mean 4.7, SD 2.48, SE 0.23). The lowest scoring category was Technology (mean 0.9, SD 0.38, SE 0.04).ConclusionsThrough the application of a health care website usability framework, multiple anesthesiology residency programs were analyzed and scored in the areas of Accessibility, Marketing, Content Quality, and Technology, which allowed us to determine the effectiveness of the usability of these websites to convey information to their end user. Websites must communicate vital information, with usability at the forefront, to continue to grow, especially as the United States faces challenges due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Our recommendation is that anesthesiology programs should strive to improve website usability to increase the ease by which applicants can collect vital information about anesthesiology programs. A few proposed solutions include making changes such as decreasing error pages on websites, migrating away from using in-line cascading style sheets, and improving web page loading speeds to improve the Technology category.
| S-EPMC9634514 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundInterest in global health during postgraduate residency training is increasing across medical specialties, and multiple disciplines have categorized global health training opportunities in their arena. No such cataloging exists for anesthesiology residency programs. The aim of this study was to assess and characterize global health opportunities and the attitudes of program directors (PDs) in U.S. anesthesiology residency programs towards this training.MethodsA cross-sectional 20-question survey on global health opportunities was distributed to 128 ACGME accredited anesthesiology residency program directors via email between October 2015 and January 2016. Descriptive statistics and exploratory inferential analyses were applied. Maximal nonresponse selection bias was estimated.ResultsThe overall response rate was 44%. Of those who responded, 61% reported that their residency program had a global health elective, with a maximal bias estimate of 6.5%. 45% of program directors with no global health elective reported wanting to offer one. 77% of electives have articulated educational goals, but there is substantial heterogeneity in curricula offered. Program director attitudes regarding the value of global health programs differed significantly between those with and without existing programs.ConclusionsThe proportion of U.S. anesthesiology residency programs offering global health electives is similar to that in other medical specialties. There is inconsistency in program structure, goals, curriculum, and funding. Attitudes of program directors differ between programs with and without electives, which may reflect bidirectional influence to be investigated further. Further studies are needed to codify curricula, assess effectiveness, and validate methodologies.
| S-EPMC5689206 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo investigate whether or not gender influences letters of recommendation for cardiothoracic surgery fellowship.MethodsFrom applications to an Accreditation Council Graduate Medical Education cardiothoracic surgery fellowship program between 2016 and 2021, applicant and author characteristics were examined with descriptive statistics, analysis of variance, and Pearson χ2 tests. Linguistic software was used to assess communication differences in letters of recommendation, stratified by author and applicant gender. An additional higher-level analysis was then performed using a generalized estimating equations model to examine linguistic differences among author-applicant gender pairs.ResultsSeven hundred thirty-nine recommendation letters extracted from 196 individual applications were analyzed; 90% (n = 665) of authors were men and 55.8% (n = 412) of authors were cardiothoracic surgeons. Compared with women authors, authors who are men wrote more authentic (P = .01) and informal (P = .03) recommendation letters. When writing for women applicants, authors who are men were more likely to display their own leadership and status (P = .03) and discuss women applicants' social affiliations (P = .01), like occupation of applicant's father or husband. Women authors wrote longer letters (P = .03) and discussed applicants' work (P = .01) more often than authors who are men. They also mentioned leisure activities (P = .03) more often when writing for women applicants.ConclusionsOur work identifies gender-specific differences in letters of recommendation. Women applicants may be disadvantaged because their recommendation letters are significantly more likely to focus on their social ties, leisure activities, and the status of the letter writer. Author and reviewer awareness of gender-biased use of language will aid in improvements to the candidate selection process.
| S-EPMC10592592 | biostudies-literature