An Analysis of Obstetrics-Gynecology Residency Interview Methods in a Single Institution

Evidence-Based Practices for Interviewing Graduate Medical Education Applicants: A Systematic Review

Background Although the selection interview is a standard admission practice for graduate medical education (GME) programs in the United States, there is a dearth of recent reviews on optimizing the trainee interview process, which has low reliability, high cost, and major risk of bias. Objective To investigate the evidence base for different selection interview practices in GME. Methods We searched 4 literature databases from inception through September 2022. Two investigators independently conducted title/abstract screening, full-text review, data extraction, and quality assessment. Disagreements were mediated by discussion. We used backward reference searching of included articles to identify additional studies. We included studies of different interview methods and excluded literature reviews, non-GME related publications, and studies comparing different applicant populations. We examined study characteristics, applicant and interviewer preferences, and interview format. We evaluated study quality using the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument (MERSQI). Results Of 2192 studies, 39 (2%) met our inclusion criteria. The evidence base was rated as moderately low quality using MERSQI criteria. Applicants reported preferences for several one-on-one interviews lasting 15 to 20 minutes, interviews by current trainees, and interviews including social events with only trainees. Applicants had mixed perceptions of virtual versus in-person interviews and reported that virtual interviews saved costs. The multiple mini interview (MMI) required more applicant and interviewer time than individual interviews but demonstrated construct and predictive validity and was preferred by applicants and interviewers. Conclusions Based on moderately low-quality evidence, using the MMI, training interviewers, and providing applicants with basic program information in advance should be considered for GME selection interviews.

Effect of Holistic Review, Interview Blinding, and Structured Questions in Resident Selection: Can we Predict Who Will Do Well in a Residency Interview?

OBJECTIVE

To examine the Urology residency application process, particularly the interview. Historically, the residency interview has been vulnerable to bias and not determined to be a predictor of future residency performance. Our goal is to determine the relationship between pre-interview metrics and post-interview ranking using best practices for Urology resident selection including holistic review, blinded interviews, and structured behaviorally anchored questions.

METHODS

Applications were assessed on cognitive (Alpha Omega Alpha, class rank, junior year clinical clerkship grades) and non-cognitive attributes (letters of recommendation [LOR], personal statement [PS], demographics, research, personal characteristics) by reviewers blinded to USMLE scores and photograph. Interviewers were blinded to the application other than PS and LORs. Interviews consisted of a structured behaviorally anchored question (SBI) and an unstructured interview (UI). Odds ratios were determined comparing pre-interview and interview impressions.

RESULTS

Fifty-one applicants were included in the analysis. USMLE step 1 score (average 245) was associated with Alpha Omega Alpha, class rank, junior year clinical clerkship, and PS. The UI score was associated with the LOR (P = .04) whereas SBI scores were not (P = .5). Faculty rank was associated with SBI, UI, and overall interview (OI) scores (P < .001). Faculty rank was also associated with LOR. Resident impression of interviewees were associated with faculty interview scores (P = .001) and faculty rank (P < .001).

CONCLUSION

Traditional interviews may be biased toward application materials and may be balanced with behavioral questions. While Step 1 score does not offer additional information over other PI metrics, blinded interviews may offer discriminant validity over a PI rubric.

Best Practices for Reducing Bias in the Interview Process

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Objective measures of residency applicants do not correlate to success within residency. While industry and business utilize standardized interviews with blinding and structured questions, residency programs have yet to uniformly incorporate these techniques. This review focuses on an in-depth evaluation of these practices and how they impact interview formatting and resident selection.

RECENT FINDINGS

Structured interviews use standardized questions that are behaviorally or situationally anchored. This requires careful creation of a scoring rubric and interviewer training, ultimately leading to improved interrater agreements and biases as compared to traditional interviews. Blinded interviews eliminate even further biases, such as halo, horn, and affinity bias. This has also been seen in using multiple interviewers, such as in the multiple mini-interview format, which also contributes to increased diversity in programs. These structured formats can be adopted to the virtual interviews as well. There is growing literature that using structured interviews reduces bias, increases diversity, and recruits successful residents. Further research to measure the extent of incorporating this method into residency interviews will be needed in the future.