Validity Evidence for a Residency Admissions Standardized Assessment Letter for Pediatrics

Trends in utilization of standardized letters of recommendation in the 2021-2022 neurosurgery application process

OBJECTIVE

Standardized letters of recommendation (SLORs) were introduced during the 2020-2021 neurosurgery residency application cycle, but suffered from poor interrater reliability and grade inflation. Changes were made to the SLOR template and utilization patterns in response to these shortcomings. The authors examined the second year of SLOR utilization. They hypothesized that grade inflation and interrater reliability would be improved from the first iteration. They also hypothesized that increased numbers of letters by single writers would correlate with broader rating distributions.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study analyzed all SLORs submitted to a single neurosurgery residency program over the 2021-2022 cycle. Data from 7 competency domains and the overall rating were recorded and stratified by academic category of the letter writer. Interrater reliability was evaluated using Krippendorff's alpha. The frequency of letters written was evaluated using the Kruskal-Wallis H test.

RESULTS

Ninety percent of SLORs rated applicants among the top 25%, but there was a significant decrease in the usage of the top 1% and top 2%-5% ratings. Interrater reliability was poor across all competencies. Writers who completed 1 SLOR rated applicants higher and had a narrower range than those who completed multiple SLORs.

CONCLUSIONS

Changes in the format and subsequent utilization patterns of SLORs have slightly decreased grade inflation; however, interrater reliability remains poor. The most wide-ranging evaluators submitted the highest number of SLORs, suggesting that future evaluation and usage of SLORs should emphasize letter-writer characteristics and numbers of SLORs written. Overall, SLORs have been well and broadly accepted with subtle improvements in the second year of utilization.

Reshaping Residency Recruitment: Achieving Alignment Between Applicants and Programs in Surgery

OBJECTIVE

The residency recruitment process has become increasingly challenging for both applicants and program directors, in part, due to the inflation in the number of applications per student. As a result, it has become more daunting for programs to design processes that evaluate applicants holistically. Furthermore, the existing methods used to evaluate and select applicants do not necessarily predict success in residency and may inadvertently lend to gender, racial, and ethnic bias. This narrative review aims to identify innovative tools used in residency recruitment that will allow programs and applicants to better determine concordance of interests and achieve value alignment while supporting improved, objective evaluation of an applicant's unique attributes and experiences.

DESIGN

PubMed was used to conduct a narrative review of recruitment strategies in admission processes of undergraduate and graduate medical education between 1975 and June 2021, using the designated Medical Subject Heading (MeSH0 terms. Inclusion criteria were established surrounding innovative tools to better objectively screen, evaluate, or select applicants. Strategies relying primarily on traditional metrics (United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) scores, Alpha Omega Alpha status, and clerkship grades) were excluded.

RESULTS

Forty-two articles met specific inclusion criteria. Using these articles, a framework was created with two specific aims: (1) to allow applicants and programs to express or assess interest and (2) to foster objective review of unique applicant attributes, skills, experiences, and competencies that align with program mission and values. The following five innovative tools for recruitment were identified: preference signaling, secondary applications, standardized letters of recommendation, situational judgment testing, and surgical simulation.

CONCLUSIONS

As the number of applications continues to rise, strategies must be implemented to allow applicants and institutions to achieve better alignment or "fit," while also giving balanced consideration to all of an applicant's unique characteristics. A more holistic approach to applicant selection is a necessary tool in order to increase diversity and inclusion within the field of surgery.

Attitudes towards and impact of letters of recommendation for anesthesiology residency applicants

Background: This survey aims to identify the relative value and the critical components of anesthesiology letters of recommendation(LORs) from the perspective of Program Directors (PDs) and Associate/Assistant Program Directors (APDs). Knowledge and insights originating from this survey might add to the understanding of the anesthesiology residency selection process and mitigate unintended linguistic biases.Methodology: Anonymous online surveys were sent to anesthesiology PDs/APDs from the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) accredited anesthesiology residency Programs in the USA (US), as listed on the ACGME website and the American Medical Association Fellowship and Residency Electronic Interactive Database (AMA FREIDA) Residency Program Database. The survey authors were blinded to the identity of the respondents.Results: 62 out of 183 (33.8%) invited anesthesiology PDs/APDs completed the survey anonymously. In our survey, LORs are reported as more important in granting an interview than in making the rank list. 64% of respondents prefer narrative LORs. 77.4% of respondents look for specific keywords in LORs. Keywords such as 'top % of students' and 'we are recruiting this candidate' indicate a strong letter of recommendation while keywords such as 'I recommend to your program' or non-superlative descriptions indicate a weak letter of recommendation. Other key components of LORs include the specialty of the letter-writer, according to 84% of respondents, with anesthesiology as the most valuable specialty. Although narrative LORs are preferred, 55.1% of respondents are not satisfied with the content of narrative LORs.Conclusion: LORs containing specific keywords play an important role in the application to anesthesiology residency, particularly when submitted by an anesthesiologist. While narrative LORs are still the preferred format, most of our respondents feel they need improvements. The authors suggest specific LOR improvements including creating formalized LOR training, adding a style guide, and applying comparative scales, with standardized vocabulary in the narrative LOR.

An Examination of Standardized Letters of Recommendation Rating Scales Among Neurosurgical Residency Candidates During the 2020-2021 Application Cycle

BACKGROUND

Letters 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.

OBJECTIVE

To 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.

METHODS

This 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.

RESULTS

One 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).

CONCLUSION

The 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.

Systems-Level Reforms to the US Resident Selection Process: A Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

Calls to reform the US resident selection process are growing, given increasing competition and inefficiencies of the current system. Though numerous reforms have been proposed, they have not been comprehensively cataloged.

OBJECTIVE

This scoping review was conducted to characterize and categorize literature proposing systems-level reforms to the resident selection process.

METHODS

Following Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines, searches of Embase, MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were performed for references published from January 2005 to February 2020. Articles were included if they proposed reforms that were applicable or generalizable to all applicants, medical schools, or residency programs. An inductive approach to qualitative content analysis was used to generate codes and higher-order categories.

RESULTS

Of 10 407 unique references screened, 116 met our inclusion criteria. Qualitative analysis generated 34 codes that were grouped into 14 categories according to the broad stages of resident selection: application submission, application review, interviews, and the Match. The most commonly proposed reforms were implementation of an application cap (n = 28), creation of a standardized program database (n = 21), utilization of standardized letters of evaluation (n = 20), and pre-interview screening (n = 13).

CONCLUSIONS

This scoping review collated and categorized proposed reforms to the resident selection process, developing a common language and framework to facilitate national conversations and change.

Standardization in the MSPE: Key Tensions for Learners, Schools, and Residency Programs

The Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE), which summarizes a medical student's academic and professional undergraduate medical education performance and provides salient information during the residency selection process, faces persistent criticisms regarding heterogeneity and obscurity. Specifically, MSPEs do not always provide the same type or amount of information about students, especially from diverse schools, and important information is not always easy to find or interpret. To address these concerns, a key guiding principle from the Recommendations for Revising the MSPE Task Force of the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) was to achieve "a level of standardization and transparency that facilitates the residency selection process." Benefits of standardizing the MSPE format include clarification of performance benchmarks or metrics, consistency across schools to enhance readability, and improved quality. In medical education, standardization may be an important mechanism to ensure accountability of the system for all learners, including those with varied backgrounds and socioeconomic resources. In this article, members of the aforementioned AAMC MSPE task force explore 5 tensions inherent in the pursuit of standardizing the MSPE: (1) presenting each student's individual characteristics and strengths in a way that is relevant, while also working with a standard format and providing standard content; (2) showcasing school-specific curricular strengths while also demonstrating standard evidence of readiness for internship; (3) defining and achieving the right amount of standardization so that the MSPE provides useful information, adds value to the residency selection process, and is efficient to read and understand; (4) balancing reporting with advocacy; and (5) maintaining standardization over time, especially given the tendency for the MSPE format and content to drift. Ongoing efforts to promote collaboration and trust across the undergraduate to graduate medical education continuum offer promise to reconcile these tensions and promote successful educational outcomes.

Evaluating the Standardized Letter of Recommendation Form in Applicants to Orthopaedic Surgery Residency

INTRODUCTION

A standardized letter of recommendation (SLOR) form for orthopaedic surgery residency programs has recently been adopted for use, but it has not been scientifically evaluated. The purpose of this study is to investigate the usefulness of the SLOR form in the selection process.

METHODS

All SLOR forms submitted to our institution over a single application cycle were extracted and analyzed. The United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 scores, grades in clinical rotations, Alpha Omega Alpha status, and the number of publications were recorded for each applicant. Correlations were calculated with Spearman rho, and inter-rater reliability was evaluated by calculating intraclass correlation coefficients.

RESULTS

One thousand one hundred thirty-seven SLOR forms were analyzed for 513 applicants. There was substantial rank inflation with the SLOR form; the majority (92%) of applicants were rated as either ranked to match or in the top one-third of their rank list. Objective applicant factors such as grades and Step 1 scores demonstrated a very weak to nonexistent correlation with the summative rank (rho 0.07 to 0.13, P ≤ 0.012). Poor inter-rater reliability was observed with the intraclass correlation coefficient ranging from 0.22 to 0.33 (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The usefulness of the SLOR form is limited by the very high ratings observed for all questions, and in particular, the final summative rank. Measures to reduce rank inflation must be implemented to improve the discriminant ability of the SLOR form, and if this cannot be accomplished, perhaps the form should be abandoned.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III Retrospective.

The Emergency Medicine Group Standardized Letter of Evaluation as a Workplace-based Assessment: The Validity Is in the Detail

Introduction

Interest is growing in specialty-specific assessments of student candidates based on clinical clerkship performance to assist in the selection process for postgraduate training. The most established and extensively used is the emergency medicine (EM) Standardized Letter of Evaluation (SLOE), serving as a substitute for the letter of recommendation. Typically developed by a program’s leadership, the group SLOE strives to provide a unified institutional perspective on performance. The group SLOE lacks guidelines to direct its development raising questions regarding the assessments, processes, and standardization programs employ. This study surveys EM programs to gather validity evidence regarding the inputs and processes involved in developing group SLOEs.

Methods

A structured telephone interview was administered to assess the input data and processes employed by United States EM programs when generating group SLOEs.

Results

With 156/178 (87.6%) of Accreditation Council of Graduate Medical Education-approved programs responding, 146 (93.6%) reported developing group SLOEs. Issues identified in development include the following: (1) 84.9% (124/146) of programs limit the consensus process by not employing rigorous methodology; (2) several stakeholder groups (nurses, patients) do not participate in candidate assessment placing final decisions at risk for construct under-representation; and (3) clinical shift assessments don’t reflect the task-specific expertise of each stakeholder group nor has the validity of each been assessed.

Conclusion

Success of the group SLOE in its role as a summative workplace-based assessment is dependent upon valid input data and appropriate processes. This study of current program practices provides specific recommendations that would strengthen the validity arguments for the group SLOE.

Use of Standardized Letters of Recommendation for Orthopaedic Surgery Residency Applications: A Single-Institution Retrospective Review

BACKGROUND

Standardized letters of recommendation (SLORs) were introduced to provide a more objective method of evaluating applicants for orthopaedic surgery residency positions. We sought to establish whether there exists an association between the SLOR summative rank statement (SRS), which is a question that asks the letter-writing authors where they would rank a student relative to other applicants, and success in matching into orthopaedic surgery residency.

METHODS

We reviewed 858 applications to an orthopaedic surgery residency program from 2017 to 2018. Data on 9 assessment categories, SRSs, and written comments in the SLORs were extracted. The match success of applicants was determined by an internet search algorithm. Logistic regression was used to evaluate the association between the SRSs and match success. The Spearman correlation was performed between the SRSs and other variables.

RESULTS

Only 60% of all LORs were SLORs. With 24% of the SLORs, a supplemental letter was used. Median percentile rank ranged from 90% to 100% for the 9 categories in the SLORs. Recommendations of "high rank" or higher were found in 88% of the SRSs. The mean of the SLOR SRSs was associated with match success.

CONCLUSIONS

The mean of the SLOR SRSs was associated with match success. However, the SLOR is not uniformly used. Future efforts should be devoted to improving question design and validity in order to better discriminate among applicants, increase adherence to the rating scale, and quantify the strength of the written comments in the SLOR.

Linguistic analysis of pediatric residency personal statements: gender differences

BACKGROUND

All US residency programs require applicants to submit personal statements. Prior studies showed gender differences in personal statement writing, which has implications for gender bias in the application process, but previous studies have not considered the dual influence of specialty-specific values on personal statement writing by applicants of each gender.

OBJECTIVE

To understand gender differences in pediatric residency personal statements.

METHODS

From 2017 to 2018, we performed linguistic analysis of personal statements written by interviewees at a mid-size US pediatrics residency during two prior academic years. We assessed writing tone, communal language, and agentic language. We performed t-tests to evaluate for gender differences, p < 0.05.

RESULTS

We analyzed personal statements from 85 male and 85 female interviewees. Average word count was 676 words. Personal statements demonstrated analytic writing style with authentic and positive emotional tone. We found no gender differences in communal language for social affiliation (p = 0.31), adjectives (p = 0.49), or orientation (p = 0.48), which deviates from typical gender norms for male language use. Males used agentic language of reward more frequently (p = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

Findings suggest that social language is valued in pediatrics, a predominantly female specialty, regardless of applicant gender. Use of reward language by males is consistent with previous findings. Future studies should evaluate gender differences in residency applications across specialties to advance understanding of the role gender plays in the application process.

Time to Reevaluate the Away Rotation: Improving Return on Investment for Students and Schools

Away rotations are common among senior medical students preparing to apply for residency. For competitive specialties, multiple away rotations may be viewed as a de facto requirement for a strong application. Although away rotations are often valuable learning experiences, a variety of noneducational factors motivate students to enroll, including the need for letters of recommendation, students' uncertainty regarding their strength as applicants, perceived competitiveness of residency applications, and conflicting guidance from advisors.Students who enroll in away rotations often benefit from a novel educational environment, opportunities for career exploration, and the chance to assess "fit" with a program. Yet away rotations also come at a significant cost. Students must deal with the time and expenses of rotating at multiple institutions. The application process for away rotations is expensive, disjointed, and inefficient. Students must work hard to make an impression on host institution faculty, and risk hurting their residency applications with a negative letter of recommendation.To reduce the burden of away rotations, future research should assess the impact of multiple away rotations on success in the Match. Allowing students limited access to letters of recommendation content would allow students and advisors to make informed decisions regarding additional rotations. Students would benefit from greater standardization of the application process for away rotations, with uniform dates, timely acceptances and rejections, and a cap for the number of applications per student. Students can maximize their returns by targeting away rotations that provide the most diverse educational experiences and valuable letters of recommendation.