Perspectives on virtual interviews-A follow-up study of the Comprehensive Endocrine Surgery Fellowship interview process

The impact of virtual interviews on the Fellowship Council application and main match process

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic led the Fellowship Council (FC) to transition rapidly from in-person to virtual interviews. We investigated the impact of this transition on the FC application and main match process.

METHODS

Five years (2018-2022) of deidentified FC applicant, program, and match rank data were used to assess differences between in-person (2018-2019) and virtual interview (2021-2022) cycles. Data are expressed as mean ± SD and one-way and two-way MANOVA tests were applied.

RESULTS

Trainees applied to an average of 30.4 ± 24.3 programs and ranked an average of 10.7 ± 9.7 programs with a 57% match rate and average rank position of 3.6 ± 3.3. Fellowship programs received an average of 64.9 ± 28.6 applications and ranked an average of 15.4 ± 8.8 applicants with a 95% match rate and average applicant rank position of 3.0 ± 3.4. Applicants who interviewed virtually applied to a greater number of programs (32.7 vs. 27.0; p < 0.001) and ranked a greater number of programs (11.5 vs. 10.0; p = 0.004) with no difference in match rates (58% vs. 55%, p = 0.291). Among matched applicants, there was a significant difference in average rank position (3.20 vs. 4.30, p < 0.001), favoring the in-person cohort. Fellowship programs had more applicants per program (69.2 vs. 57.8; p < 0.001) and ranked more applicants (17.4 vs. 13.3; p < 0.001) during the virtual interview cycles. No difference in either match rates (93% vs. 96%, p = 0.178) or applicant rank position (3.09 vs. 2.93, p = 0.561) was seen between in-person and virtual application cycles.

CONCLUSION

Virtual interviews were associated with an increased number of applications for fellowship and applicants ranked by programs but did not impact match rates of either group. Rank match position declined somewhat for applicants but not for fellowship programs. Virtual interviews offer more opportunities for applicants and a greater number of candidates for fellowship programs with only a slight decrement in fellow match rank position.

Applicant Perceptions of In-Person versus Virtual Interview Format for Surgical Retina Fellowship

Purpose  This article compares applicants' perceptions of and experiences with virtual and in-person interviews for surgical retina fellowship. Methods  A survey was distributed via email to all applicants of three vitreoretinal surgery fellowship programs for the 2021 to 2022 and 2022 to 2023 application cycles. Main Outcome Measures  Participants were surveyed regarding cost; burden of scheduling; number of applications and interviews completed; ability to gain a true feel of the program, location, and preceptor; and number of work and surgical days missed. Results  Of 151 applicants contacted, 36 completed the survey (23.8% response rate). Of the respondents, 25.0% attended only virtual interviews, 19.4% attended mostly virtual interviews, 30.6% attended mostly in-person interviews, and 25.0% attended half virtual and half in-person interviews. Average expenditure was significantly lower for applicants with mostly and completely virtual interviews compared with applicants with mostly in-person and half virtual, half in-person ( p  < 0.001). Applicants with mostly virtual interviews reported a lower ability to gain a true perception of the program and the program location ( p  = 0.003 and p  < 0.001, respectively). There was no difference in burden of scheduling, number of interviews completed, or number of work and surgical days missed. When applicants were asked what type of interview format they would prefer if they could repeat the cycle, those who interviewed mostly in-person largely chose in-person as their preference (72.7%), while participants who interviewed mostly or completely virtually were evenly split between in-person, virtual, and hybrid ( p  = 0.136). Conclusion  As fellowship programs and institutions decide whether they will return to in-person interviews or maintain a virtual interview format in the long term, they must weigh the lower cost of virtual interviews with the improved ability to gain a more accurate perception of the program and location allowed by in-person interviews, as well as potentially greater satisfaction with the in-person format.

Virtual interviewing for graduate medical education recruitment and selection: A BEME systematic review: BEME Guide No. 80

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic caused graduate medical education (GME) programs to pivot to virtual interviews (VIs) for recruitment and selection. This systematic review synthesizes the rapidly expanding evidence base on VIs, providing insights into preferred formats, strengths, and weaknesses.

METHODS

PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, ERIC, PsycINFO, MedEdPublish, and Google Scholar were searched from 1 January 2012 to 21 February 2022. Two authors independently screened titles, abstracts, full texts, performed data extraction, and assessed risk of bias using the Medical Education Research Quality Instrument. Findings were reported according to Best Evidence in Medical Education guidance.

RESULTS

One hundred ten studies were included. The majority (97%) were from North America. Fourteen were conducted before COVID-19 and 96 during the pandemic. Studies involved both medical students applying to residencies (61%) and residents applying to fellowships (39%). Surgical specialties were more represented than other specialties. Applicants preferred VI days that lasted 4-6 h, with three to five individual interviews (15-20 min each), with virtual tours and opportunities to connect with current faculty and trainees. Satisfaction with VIs was high, though both applicants and programs found VIs inferior to in-person interviews for assessing 'fit.' Confidence in ranking applicants and programs was decreased. Stakeholders universally noted significant cost and time savings with VIs, as well as equity gains and reduced carbon footprint due to eliminating travel.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of VIs for GME recruitment and selection has accelerated rapidly. The findings of this review offer early insights that can guide future practice, policy, and research.

Faculty Scoring of General Surgery Residency Interviewees: A Comparison of In-Person and Virtual Interview Formats

OBJECTIVE

With new rules regarding social distancing and non-essential travel bans, we sought to determine if faculty scoring of general surgery applicants would differ between the in-person interview (IPI) and virtual interview (VI) platforms.

DESIGN

A single institution, retrospective review comparing faculty evaluation scores of applicant interviewees in the 2019 and 2020 MATCH® application cycles (IPIs) and the 2021 and 2022 application cycle (VIs) was conducted. Faculty scored applicants using a 5-point Likert scale in 7 areas of assessment and assigned each student to 1 of 4 tiers (tier 1 highest). A composite score for the 7 assessments (maximum score 35) was calculated. Mean and composite scores and tiers were compared between VI and IPI cycles and adjusted for within-interviewer correlations. The variance of the 2 groups were also compared.

SETTING

Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, an academic, tertiary care hospital.

PARTICIPANTS

General Surgery applicants for the 2019 to 2022 MATCH® application cycles.

RESULTS

Four hundred forty-one faculty IPI ratings of General Surgery applicants were compared to 531VI ratings. No difference in mean composite scores, individual assessments, or tier ranking. Less variance was identified in the VI group for academic credentials (0.6 vs 0.6, p = 0.01), strength of letters (0.7 vs 0.4, p = 0.005), communication skills (0.4 vs 0.6, p = 0.01), personal qualities (0.2 vs 0.5, p = 0.02), overall sense of fit for program (0.6 vs 0.9, p = 0.01), and tier ranking (0.3 vs 0.4, p = 0.004).

CONCLUSIONS

Faculty ratings of General Surgery applicants in the VI format appear to be similar to IPI. However, faculty ratings of VI applicants demonstrated less variability in scores in most assessments. This finding is potentially concerning, as it may suggest an inability of VI to detect subtle differences between applicants as comparted to IPI.

Applicants' perception of fit to residency programmes in the video-interview era: A large multidisciplinary survey

INTRODUCTION

'Fit' refers to an applicants' perceived compatibility to a residency programme. A variety of structural, identity-related and relational factors contribute to self-assessments of fit. The 2021 residency recruitment cycle in the USA was performed virtually due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Little is known about how video-interviewing may affect residency applicants' ability to gauge fit.

METHODS

A multidisciplinary, anonymous survey was distributed to applicants at a large academic institution between rank order list (ROL) certification deadline and Match Day 2021. Using Likert-type scales, applicants rated factors for importance to 'fit' and their ease of assessment through video-interviewing. Applicants also self-assigned fit scores to the top-ranked programme in their ROL using Likert-type scales with pairs of anchoring statements.

RESULTS

Four hundred seventy-three applicants responded to the survey (25.7% response rate). The three most important factors to applicants for assessment of fit (how much the programme seemed to care, how satisfied residents seem with their programme and how well the residents get along) were also the factors with the greatest discrepancy between importance and ease of assessment through video-interviewing. Diversity-related factors were more important to female applicants compared with males and to non-White applicants compared with White applicants. Furthermore, White male applicants self-assigned higher fit scores compared with other demographic groups.

CONCLUSION

There is a marked discrepancy between the most important factors to applicants for fit and their ability to assess those factors virtually. Minoritised trainees self-assigned lower fit scores to their top-ranked programme, which should raise concern amongst medical educators and highlights the importance of expanding current diversity, equity and inclusion efforts in academic medicine.