Pediatric, Surgery, and Internal Medicine Program Director Interpretations of Letters of Recommendation

Do certain phrases in letters of recommendation predict success in fellowship performance?

BACKGROUND

Letters of recommendation (LORs) are a valued, yet imperfect tool. Program directors (PDs) score phrases such as give my highest recommendation and top 5 to 10% of students as positive. Although positive phrases are valued by PDs, there is no evidence that these phrases predict performance. We attempt to identify whether 12 specific phrases found in letters of recommendation predict future performance of fellows.

METHODS

LORs were evaluated for 12 select phrases and statements. Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) status, Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) score, and whether the letter writer was personally known to our admission's committee were also categorized. Logistic regressions were performed to evaluate the relationship of the independent variables with fellow performance.

RESULTS

Using multivariate logistic regression, one of the best residents (OR = 4.02, 95% CI (1.0, 15.9), p < 0.05), exceeds expectations (OR = 4.74, 95% CI (1.4, 16.3), p = 0.01), and give my highest recommendation (OR = 3.87, 95% CI (1.3, 11.7), p = 0.02) predicted positive performance. Highly recommend (OR = 0.31, 95% CI (0.1, 1.0), p < 0.05) and top 5 to 10% (OR = 0.05, 95% CI (0.0, 0.6), p = 0.02) predicted negative performance. The remaining phrases did not correlate to fellowship performance.

CONCLUSION

The current LOR evaluation process may place undo importance on phrases that have limited bearing on a candidate's success in training. Training both letter readers and writers to avoid using coded language or avoid assigning improper importance to select phrases may help improve the candidate selection process.

Do Program Directors of Anesthesiology Residency Programs Interpret Narrative Letters of Recommendation as Intended?

Background Letters of recommendation (LORs) are an important part of the application process for medical residency programs with most specialties preferring a narrative format. Given the inherent subjectivity of narrative LORs, the current study sought to determine whether the intended messages of narrative LORs written for applicants to anesthesiology residency programs are accurately interpreted by readers. Methodology Anonymous online surveys were sent via the Qualtrics platform to program directors (PDs) of the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited anesthesiology residency programs in the Mid-Atlantic region as designated by the Electronic Residency Application Service, which consists of the states of New York, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey. Each PD participant received five surveys, each of which was attached to a de-identified LOR that was written by another PD located at an institution in the same region. Both the letter writer and study participants were asked to score LORs on a Likert-like scale. Participants were additionally asked whether the LORs, if received, would influence their decision to either offer an interview to the applicant or to rank the applicant. Finally, participants were asked to note any specific words or phrases within the LORs that they found to be particularly impactful. Results Overall, 10 of 34, 29.41%, PDs responded to the survey. There was a high correlation between the LOR intent and the respondents' assigned rating (Spearman's rho = 0.7973, p < 0.001). Responses were more accurate for "outstanding and excellent" LORs compared to the lower three categories. Results were unaffected after adjusting for respondents' years of experience as PDs. Additionally, 71.6% indicated that the LORs would influence the decision about offering an interview, and 56.5% stated that the LORs would influence a ranking decision. Conclusions Our results indicate that respondents' perception of LORs correlated strongly with the intent of the writer. Additionally, respondents seemed to value LORs for interview and ranking decisions.

Cracking the code: interpreting content and phrases used in maternal-fetal medicine fellowship letters of recommendation

BACKGROUND

Letters of recommendation for Maternal-Fetal Medicine(MFM) fellowship are a critical part of the applicant selection process. However, data regarding best practices for how to write LOR for MFM is limited. Similarly, within letters of recommendation, differences in the "code" or meaning of summative words/phrases used at the end of letters of recommendation are seen between surgery, pediatrics, and medicine. However, data regarding code MFM Letters of recommendation are quite limited.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to describe what Maternal-Fetal Medicine program directors value in letters of recommendation for fellowship applicants and how PDs interpret commonly used summative words/phrases.

STUDY DESIGN

After IRB exemption, subject matter experts developed an e-survey querying the importance of various letters of recommendation "best practices" described by other specialties. Content and face validation were performed prior to dissemination. This cross-sectional survey was administered to MFM program directors in February 2023. The primary outcome was the relative importance of letters of recommendation content areas. Secondary outcomes included the strength of each summative "code" phrase. Descriptive analysis was performed and principal component analysis (PCA) was then used to reduce the list of phrases to their underlying dimensions. Statistical analysis was performed by SPSS 29.0.

RESULTS

Of 104 MFM program directors sent the survey, 70 (67%) responded. MFM program directors reviewed an average of 78 applications (SD, 30) with 60% writing ≥3 letters/year. Ninety-one percent of respondents noted that letters of recommendation are important/very important in shaping impressions of an applicant. Respondents reported the depth of interaction with an applicant, the applicant's specific behavior traits, the applicant's abilities and a summative statement including strength of the recommendation as important content for MFM fellowship letters of recommendation. Letter length, use of bold/italics, and restating the applicant's curriculum vitae were considered not important. Following PCA with varimax rotation, 14 specific phrases used in letters of recommendation were reduced to 5 themes: high qualitative assessments, average qualitative assessments, objective metrics, exceeding expectations and grit. These themes accounted for 64.6% of the variance in the model (KMO 0.7, Bartlett's Test of Sphericity p<.01). Phrases that respondents considered positive included: "Top 5%," "Want to keep," and "highest recommendation," (all mean score≥4.5/5), while "expected level," "showed improvement," and "2nd quartile" were negatively associated code words (all mean score <2.5/5).

CONCLUSION

MFM program directors reported that descriptions of an applicant's abilities, behavior traits, and depth of the writer's interactions with the applicant were all important components of an MFM fellowship letters of recommendation. Letter length, bold/italics, and highlights from the CV were not important. A clear "code" emerged regarding summative phrases included in letters of recommendation. Dissemination of these data might help less experienced letter writers send a clearer message and ensure all letter writers have a shared mental model.

Pearls and pitfalls in letters of recommendation for neurology residency applications

Letters of recommendation are a cornerstone of residency applications. Variability and bias in letters exists across specialties, neurology being no exception. Studies done in other specialty fields assessing nuanced language uncovered key attention points for improvement and mitigation of bias, lessons from which should be applied in the field of neurology. We review common pearls and pitfalls in the letter solicitation, writing and reading process, with suggested best-practices for residency applicants, letter writers, and program faculty reviewers. We advocate for the thoughtful selection of writers, emphasis on highlighting professional skills, and attention to implicit bias. This discussion focuses on recommendations for US advanced or categorical neurology programs, but elements of this guidance may apply more broadly to fellowship and faculty promotion letters as well.

Excellence in medical training: developing talent-not sorting it

Many medical schools have reconsidered or eliminated clerkship grades and honor society memberships. National testing organizations announced plans to eliminate numerical scoring for the United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 in favor of pass/fail results. These changes have led some faculty to wonder: "How will we recognize and reward excellence?" Excellence in undergraduate medical education has long been defined by high grades, top test scores, honor society memberships, and publication records. However, this model of learner excellence is misaligned with how students learn or what society values. This accolade-driven view of excellence is perpetuated by assessments that are based on gestalt impressions influenced by similarity between evaluators and students, and assessments that are often restricted to a limited number of traditional skill domains. To achieve a new model of learner excellence that values the trainee's achievement, growth, and responsiveness to feedback across multiple domains, we must envision a new model of teacher excellence. Such teachers would have a growth mindset toward assessing competencies and learning new competencies. Actualizing true learner excellence will require teachers to change from evaluators who conduct assessments of learning to coaches who do assessment for learning. Schools will also need to establish policies and structures that foster a culture that supports this change. In this new paradigm, a teacher's core duty is to develop talent rather than sort it.

Growth mindset in competency-based medical education

The ongoing adoption of competency-based medical education (CBME) across health professions training draws focus to learner-centred educational design and the importance of fostering a growth mindset in learners, teachers, and educational programs. An emerging body of literature addresses the instructional practices and features of learning environments that foster the skills and strategies necessary for trainees to be partners in their own learning and progression to competence and to develop skills for lifelong learning. Aligned with this emerging area is an interest in Dweck's self theory and the concept of the growth mindset. The growth mindset is an implicit belief held by an individual that intelligence and abilities are changeable, rather than fixed and immutable. In this paper, we present an overview of the growth mindset and how it aligns with the goals of CBME. We describe the challenges associated with shifting away from the fixed mindset of most traditional medical education assumptions and practices and discuss potential solutions and strategies at the individual, relational, and systems levels. Finally, we present future directions for research to better understand the growth mindset in the context of CBME.

A novel faculty development tool for writing a letter of recommendation

Objective

Based on a national survey of program directors we developed a letter of recommendation (LOR) scoring rubric (SR) to assess LORs submitted to a pediatric residency program. The objective was to use the SR to analyze: the consistency of LOR ratings across raters and LOR components that contributed to impression of the LOR and candidate.

Methods

We graded 30 LORs submitted to a pediatric residency program that were evenly distributed based on final rank by our program. The SR contained 3 sections (letter features, phrases, and applicant abilities) and 2 questions about the quality of the LOR (LORQ) and impression of the candidate (IC) after reading the LOR on a 5-point Likert scale. Inter-rater reliability was calculated with intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC(2,1)). Pearson (r) correlations and stepwise multivariate linear regression modeling predicted LORQ and IC. Mean scores of phrases, features, and applicant abilities were analyzed with ANOVA and Bonferroni correction.

Results

Phrases (ICC(2,1) = 0.82, p<0.001)) and features (ICC(2,1) = 0.60, p<0.001)) were rated consistently, while applicant abilities were not (ICC(2,1) = 0.28, p<0.001)). For features, LORQ (R² = 0.75, p<0.001) and IC (R² = 0.58, p<0.001) were best predicated by: writing about candidates’ abilities, strength of recommendation, and depth of interaction with the applicant. For abilities, LORQ (R² = 0.47, p<0.001) and IC (R² = 0.51, p<0.001) were best predicted by: clinical reasoning, leadership, and communication skills (0.2). There were significant differences for phrases and features (p<0.05).

Conclusions

The SR was consistent across raters and correlates with impression of LORQ and IC. This rubric has potential as a faculty development tool for writing LORS.

Focal Length Fluidity: Research Questions in Medical Education Research and Scholarship

Research and scholarship in health professions education has been shaped by intended audience (i.e., producers vs users) and the purpose of research questions (i.e., curiosity driven or service oriented), but these archetypal dichotomies do not represent the breadth of scholarship in the field. Akin to an array of lenses required by scientists to capture images of a black hole, the authors propose the analogy of lenses with different focal lengths to consider how different kinds of research questions can offer insight into health professions research-a microscope, a magnifying glass, binoculars, and telescopes allow us to ask and answer different kinds of research questions. They argue for the relevance of all of the different kinds of research questions (or focal lengths); each provides important insight into a particular phenomenon and contributes to understanding that phenomenon in a different way. The authors propose that research questions can move fluidly across focal lengths. For example, a theoretical question can be made more pragmatic through asking "how" questions ("How can we observe and measure a phenomenon?"), whereas a pragmatic question can be made more theoretic by asking a series of "why" questions ("Why are these findings relevant to larger issues?"). In summary, only through the combination of lenses with different focal lengths, brought to bear through interdisciplinary work, can we fully comprehend important phenomena in health professions education and scholarship-the same way scientists managed to image a black hole.