Organic or organised: an interaction analysis to identify how interactional practices influence participation in group decision meetings for residency selection

Does Masked Interviewing Encourage Holistic Review in Residency Selection? A Mixed-Methods Study

Problem: Medical educators increasingly champion holistic review. However, in U.S. residency selection, holistic review has been difficult to implement, hindered by a reliance on standardized academic criteria such as board scores. Masking faculty interviewers to applicants' academic files is a potential means of promoting holistic residency selection by increasing the interview's ability to make a discrete contribution to evaluation. However, little research has directly analyzed the effects of masking on how residency selection committees evaluate applicants. This mixed-methods study examined how masking interviews altered residency selection in an anesthesiology program at a large U.S. academic medical center. Intervention: During the 2019-2020 residency selection season in the University of Pennsylvania's Department of Anesthesiology & Critical Care, we masked interviewers to the major academic components of candidates' application files (board scores, transcripts, letters) on approximately half of interview days. The intent of the masking intervention was to mitigate the tendency of interviewers to form predispositions about candidates based on standardized academic criteria and thereby allow the interview to make a more independent contribution to candidate evaluation. Context: Our examination of the masking intervention used a concurrent, partially mixed, equal-status mixed-methods design guided by a pragmatist approach. We audio-recorded selection committee meetings and qualitatively analyzed them to explore how masking affected the process of candidate evaluation. We also collected independent candidate ratings from interviewers and consensus committee ratings and statistically compared ratings of candidates interviewed on masked days to ratings from conventional days. Impact: In conventional committee meetings, interviewers focused on how to reconcile academic metrics and interviews, and their evaluations of interviews were framed according to predispositions about candidates formed through perusal of application files. In masked meetings, members instead spent considerable effort evaluating candidates' "fit" and whether they came off as tactful. Masked interviewers gave halting opinions of candidates and sometimes pushed for committee leaders to reveal academic information, leading to masking breaches. Higher USMLE Step 1 score and higher medical school ranking were statistically associated with more favorable consensus rating. We found no significant differences in rating outcomes between masked and conventional interview days. Lessons learned: Elimination of academic metrics during the residency interview phase does not straightforwardly promote holistic review. While critical reflection among medical educators about the fairness and utility of such metrics has been productive, research and intervention should focus on the more proximate topic of how programs apply academic and other criteria to evaluate applicants.

The role of the interview in residency selection: A mixed-methods study

CONTEXT

Residency programmes invest considerable time and resources in candidate interviews as a result of their perceived ability to reveal important social traits. However, studies examining the ability of interviews to predict resident performance have shown mixed findings, and the role of the interview in candidate evaluation remains unclear. This mixed-methods study, conducted in an anaesthesiology residency programme at a large academic medical centre, examined how interviews contributed to candidate assessment and whether the addition of behavioural questions to interviews altered their role in the evaluation process.

METHODS

During the 2018-2019 residency selection season in the Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care at the University of Pennsylvania, independent ratings for each interviewee were collected from faculty interviewers. Consensus ratings subsequently established by committee were also collected. Committee meetings were audiorecorded and transcribed for qualitative analysis. Behavioural questions were integrated into half of interview days. Ratings of candidates interviewed on behavioural question days were compared statistically with those of candidates interviewed on non-behavioural question days.

RESULTS

Qualitative analysis showed that interviewers heavily emphasised candidates' application files in evaluating the interviews. Interviewers focused on candidates' academic records and favoured candidates whose interview behaviours were consistent with their applications and whose applications demonstrated similarities to interviewers' traits. The addition of behavioural questions demonstrated little ability to alter these dynamics. Quantitatively, there were no significant differences in candidate rating outcomes between behavioural and non-behavioural interviewing days, whereas a higher medical school rating and higher score on the United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 were associated with a more favourable consensus rating.

CONCLUSIONS

Residency candidates' application files predisposed interviewers' experience and evaluation of interviews, preventing the interviews from providing discrete assessments of interpersonal qualities, even when behavioural questions were included. In the continued effort to perform well-rounded assessments of residency candidates, further research and reflection on the role of interviewing in evaluation are necessary.