Emergency Medicine Residency Applicants’ Perceptions about Being Contacted after Interview Day

Objective: We sought to characterize the experiences and preferences of applicants to emergency medicine (EM) residency programs about being contacted by programs after their interview day but before the rank list submission deadline.Methods: This cross-sectional study surveyed all applicants to an academic EM residency during the 2006-2007 interview cycle. Participation was anonymous and voluntary. We used a Web-based survey software program to administer the survey in February 2007, after rank lists were submitted. Two additional invitations to participate were sent over the next month. The instrument contained multiple-choice and free-text items. This study was submitted to our Institutional Review Board and was exempt from formal review.Results: 240/706 (34%) of applicants completed the survey. 89% (214/240) of respondents reported being contacted by a residency program after their interview but before rank lists were due. Of those contacted, 91% report being contacted by e-mail; 67% by mail; and 55% by phone. 51% of subjects reported that being contacted changed the order of their rank list in at least one case. A majority of contacted applicants felt “happy” (58%) or “excited” (56%) about being contacted, but significant numbers reported feeling “put on the spot” (21%) or “uncomfortable” (17%). A majority felt that it is appropriate for programs to contact applicants after interview day but before the rank lists are submitted, but 39% of contacted subjects responded that contact by phone is either “always inappropriate” or “usually inappropriate.” Regarding perceptions regarding the rules of the match, 80% (165/206) of respondents felt it was appropriate to tell programs where they would be ranked, and 41% (85/206) felt it was appropriate for programs to notify applicants of their place on the program’s rank list.Conclusion: Most EM residency applicants report being contacted by programs after the interview day but before rank lists are submitted. Although applicants feel this practice is appropriate in general, over a third of subjects feel that contact by phone is inappropriate. These findings suggest that residency programs can expect a majority of their applicants to be contacted after an interview at another program, and shed light on how applicants perceive this practice. [West J Emerg Med. 2010; 11(5):474-478.

Applicant Reactions to the AAMC Standardized Video Interview During the 2018 Application Cycle

PURPOSE: This study examined applicant reactions to the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) Standardized Video Interview (SVI) during its first year of operational use in emergency medicine (EM) residency program selection in order to identify strategies to improve applicants\u27 SVI experience and attitudes. METHOD: Individuals who self-classified as EM applicants applying in the Electronic Residency Application Service 2018 cycle and completed the SVI in summer 2017 were invited to participate in two surveys. Survey 1, which focused on procedural issues, was administered immediately after SVI completion. Survey 2, which focused on applicants\u27 SVI experience, was administered in fall 2017, after SVI scores were released. RESULTS: The response rates for surveys 1 and 2 were 82.3% (2,906/3,532) and 58.7% (2,074/3,532), respectively. Applicant reactions varied by aspect of the SVI studied and their SVI total scores. Most applicants were satisfied with most procedural aspects of the SVI, but most applicants were not satisfied with the SVI overall or with their total SVI scores. About 20-30% of applicants had neutral opinions about most aspects of the SVI. Negative reactions to the SVI were stronger for applicants who scored lower on the SVI. CONCLUSIONS: Applicants had generally negative reactions to the SVI. Most were skeptical of its ability to assess the target competencies and its potential to add value to the selection process. Applicant acceptance and appreciation of the SVI will be critical to the SVI\u27s acceptance by the graduate medical education community

The AAMC Standardized Video Interview: Reactions and Use by Residency Programs During the 2018 Application Cycle

PURPOSE: To evaluate how emergency medicine (EM) residency programs perceived and used Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) SVI total scores and videos during the Electronic Residency Application Service (ERAS) 2018 cycle. METHOD: Study 1 (November 2017) used a program director survey to evaluate user reactions to the SVI following the first year of operational use. Study 2 (January 2018) analyzed program usage of SVI video responses using data collected through the AAMC Program Director\u27s Workstation. RESULTS: Results from the survey (125/175 programs, 71% response rate) and video usage analysis suggested programs viewed videos out of curiosity and to understand the range of SVI total scores. Programs were more likely to view videos for attendees of U.S. MD-granting medical schools and applicants with higher United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 scores, but there were no differences by gender or race/ethnicity. More than half of programs that did not use SVI total scores in their selection processes were unsure of how to incorporate them (36/58, 62%) and wanted additional research on utility (33/58, 57%). More than half of programs indicated being at least somewhat likely to use SVI total scores (55/97; 57%) and videos (52/99; 53%) in the future. CONCLUSIONS: Program reactions on the utility and ease of use of SVI total scores were mixed. Survey results indicate programs used the SVI cautiously in their selection processes, consistent with AAMC recommendations. Future surveys of SVI users will help the AAMC gauge improvements in user acceptance and familiarity with the SVI

Factors Applicants Value when Selecting an Emergency Medicine Residency

Objective: Little is known about the factors important to applicants when selecting an emergency medicine residency. We sought to identify which residency-specific criteria applicants value in selecting a training program.Methods: We conducted an anonymous survey of emergency medicine interviewees at our residency. Applicants were asked to rate each of 18 factors on a four-point scale from 1 (“not at all important”) to 4 (“very important”) in their selection of a residency.Results: Of 82 interviewees, 73 (89%) completed the survey. The factors with the top six mean scores were: how happy the residents seemed (3.9), program personality (3.8), faculty enthusiasm (3.7), geographic location (3.6), experience during interview day (3.5), and pediatrics training (3.5).Conclusion: The top three factors deemed most important to emergency medicine applicants are primarily intangibles, while programs have no control over the fourth most important factor, location.[WestJEM. 2009;10:159-162.

Emergency Medicine Residency Applicants’ Perceptions about Being Contacted after Interview Day

Objective: We sought to characterize the experiences and preferences of applicants to emergency medicine (EM) residency programs about being contacted by programs after their interview day but before the rank list submission deadline.Methods: This cross-sectional study surveyed all applicants to an academic EM residency during the 2006-2007 interview cycle. Participation was anonymous and voluntary. We used a Web-based survey software program to administer the survey in February 2007, after rank lists were submitted. Two additional invitations to participate were sent over the next month. The instrument contained multiple-choice and free-text items. This study was submitted to our Institutional Review Board and was exempt from formal review.Results: 240/706 (34%) of applicants completed the survey. 89% (214/240) of respondents reported being contacted by a residency program after their interview but before rank lists were due. Of those contacted, 91% report being contacted by e-mail; 67% by mail; and 55% by phone. 51% of subjects reported that being contacted changed the order of their rank list in at least one case. A majority of contacted applicants felt “happy” (58%) or “excited” (56%) about being contacted, but significant numbers reported feeling “put on the spot” (21%) or “uncomfortable” (17%). A majority felt that it is appropriate for programs to contact applicants after interview day but before the rank lists are submitted, but 39% of contacted subjects responded that contact by phone is either “always inappropriate” or “usually inappropriate.” Regarding perceptions regarding the rules of the match, 80% (165/206) of respondents felt it was appropriate to tell programs where they would be ranked, and 41% (85/206) felt it was appropriate for programs to notify applicants of their place on the program’s rank list.Conclusion: Most EM residency applicants report being contacted by programs after the interview day but before rank lists are submitted. Although applicants feel this practice is appropriate in general, over a third of subjects feel that contact by phone is inappropriate. These findings suggest that residency programs can expect a majority of their applicants to be contacted after an interview at another program, and shed light on how applicants perceive this practice. [West J Emerg Med. 2010; 11(5):474-478.

Factors Applicants Value when Selecting an Emergency Medicine Residency

Objective: Little is known about the factors important to applicants when selecting an emergency medicine residency. We sought to identify which residency-specific criteria applicants value in selecting a training program.Methods: We conducted an anonymous survey of emergency medicine interviewees at our residency. Applicants were asked to rate each of 18 factors on a four-point scale from 1 (“not at all important”) to 4 (“very important”) in their selection of a residency.Results: Of 82 interviewees, 73 (89%) completed the survey. The factors with the top six mean scores were: how happy the residents seemed (3.9), program personality (3.8), faculty enthusiasm (3.7), geographic location (3.6), experience during interview day (3.5), and pediatrics training (3.5).Conclusion: The top three factors deemed most important to emergency medicine applicants are primarily intangibles, while programs have no control over the fourth most important factor, location.[WestJEM. 2009;10:159-162.

Beyond Test Scores and Medical Knowledge: The Standardized Video Interview, an Innovative and Ethical Approach for Holistic Assessment of Applicants

The Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) Standardized Video Interview (SVI) is an asynchronous video interview in which interviewees provide audio/video responses to text-based questions. The SVI contains six questions targeting two Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education competencies: Interpersonal and Communication Skills and (Knowledge of) Professionalism. The SVI evolved from calls in the residency community to consider factors beyond United States Medical Licensing Exam scores and to develop new tools for selecting residents.1 The leading academic societies in emergency medicine (EM) partnered with the AAMC to develop and evaluate the SVI in a longitudinal, multiphased approach