Predictors of Success in an Orthopaedic Residency

How Prominent Are Gender Bias, Racial Bias, and Score Inflation in Orthopaedic Surgery Residency Recommendation Letters? A Systematic Review

INTRODUCTION

Letters of recommendation are considered an important factor in the holistic ranking of orthopaedic residency applications. The standardized letter of recommendation (SLOR) was introduced in 2017 in response to the inherent bias and limited comparative value of traditional LORs. It includes standardized questions about an applicant's orthopaedic qualifications, designed to enable fair comparisons among candidates. However, disparate and inconsistent findings have made it difficult to draw meaningful conclusions from individual studies on the SLOR and narrative letter of recommendation.

QUESTION/PURPOSES

In this systematic review we asked: (1) What is the distribution of applicant SLOR rating among nine domains and summative scores? (2) Are there applicant characteristics associated with SLOR ratings? (3) Is there gender and racial bias in the SLOR and narrative letter of recommendation?

METHODS

PubMed, EBSCO, and Google Scholar electronic databases were queried on March 20, 2023, to identify all studies evaluating SLOR and narrative letter of recommendations between January 1, 2017, and March 20, 2023. Articles that evaluated orthopaedic SLOR or narrative LORs were included. Systematic reviews, case reports, duplicate studies between databases, and grey literature such as abstracts and articles on preprint servers were excluded. Eight studies including 6179 applicants and 18,987 letters of recommendation were included in the final analysis. The applicant classes ranged from years 2014 to 2020. Two reviewers independently evaluated the quality of the included studies using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) tool for cross-sectional studies. The mean JBI score of included studies was 7.4 out of a maximum of 8, with higher scores indicating better quality. The primary outcome was to determine the distribution of applicant SLOR rankings in their summative score. Summative scores were separated into ranked to match, top one-third, middle one-third, lower one-third, and not a fit. Four studies reported the summative SLOR scores of applicants. Our secondary study goal was to assess applicant characteristics associated with SLOR summative scores and assess any bias present in the SLOR or narrative recommendation. Five studies compared SLOR ratings across applicant characteristics including gender, race, USMLE Step 1 score, USMLE Step 2 score, Alpha Omega Alpha (AΩA) membership, clerkship grades, and publications. Gender and racial bias were also assessed across five studies. Four studies utilized a linguistic analysis software to search letters of recommendation for differences in word category use by gender and race.

RESULTS

Studies consistently found that a higher percentage of candidates were identified in the top percentile blocks than is mathematically possible. For example, the two studies that tallied the proportion of candidates ranking in the top 10% of applicants found that 36% and 42% were rated as being in the top 10%. Similarly, articles found more than 87% of applicants scored in the top one-third. Studies had mixed results, but in general, they suggested that AΩA status, higher Step 1 scores, and more research publications have a slightly positive association with increased SLOR scores. We found no evidence of gender bias against women, and in fact, most studies evaluating word choices found word choices for women candidates generally were stronger. Similarly, no consistent disparities were identified in word categories utilized in SLORs based on applicant race.

CONCLUSION

Most notably, a mathematically impossible proportion of applicants were counted in the top percentiles in letters of recommendation. This compromises readers' abilities to differentiate candidates. Factors like AOA status and research publications displayed a modest positive correlation with SLOR scores. Gender bias against women or candidates from racial minority groups was not evident.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

We suggest that group SLOR authorship, with a consensus assessment by clerkship or residency directors, should be considered. We also recommend the incorporation of mean and SD scores for each letter writer (or group) alongside their letters. Furthermore, studies indicate that submitting all four SLOR letters can substantially improve an applicant's chances of success. We advise students to choose strategically and submit the maximum allowable number of SLORs.

Academic Faculty Demonstrate Weak Agreement in Evaluating Orthopaedic Surgery Residents

Background

As objective metrics fade, subjective elements of orthopaedic surgery applicants carry increasing importance during recruitment. Academic orthopaedic surgeons believe they can select for high-performing orthopaedic residents. However, can they agree? The purpose of this study was (1) to analyze an academic orthopaedic surgery department to determine whether they agree on which residents performed best during residency and; (2) to correlate preresidency and intraresidency factors with postresidency evaluations of resident performance.

Methods

With Institutional Review Board [IRB] approval, an orthopaedic surgery department completed surveys to evaluate residency performance for 10 years of graduated residents (2012-2022). Faculty determined (1) Post-Residency Class Rank (PRCR)-ranked from the highest (1) to lowest performing resident (5) relative to their class based on faculty perspective of performance-and (2) Rank List Score (RLS)-ranked based off the 5-point AOA SLOR used during recruitment interviews. RLS assessed how likely the department would have graduates in the program again based on residency performance. Free marginal Cohen's kappa statistics assessed faculty inter-rater agreement. Preresidency metrics (United States Medical Licensing Exam [USMLE] 1 and 2 scores, research publications, etc) were correlated with Orthopaedic In-Training Exam (OITE) scores, research productivity, American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery (ABOS) scores, and faculty-derived rankings. Linear regressions with forward variable entry (p < 0.05) were used to determine factors associated with excellent resident performance.

Results

Eighteen of 25 faculty members (72%) provided survey responses evaluating 46 residents. Faculty agreed 37% and 38% of the time for PRCR (kappa 0.26) and RLS (kappa 0.23), respectively. Step 2 score was the only preresidency factor significantly associated with PRCR (p = 0.03, r2 = 0.15) and RLS (p = 0.02, r2 = 0.3). The only intraresidency factor significantly correlated with PRCR (p = 0.002, r2 = 0.50) and RLS (p = 0.01, r2 = 0.39) was PGY-4 OITE score.

Conclusions

An academic orthopaedic surgery department is able to come to a consensus on evaluations of residency performance relative to peers in the same year of training (PRCR) and an objective standard (RLS). Step 2 and Post-Graduate Year (PGY)-4 OITE scores were the only preresidency and intraresidency factors with significant association to higher postresidency, faculty-derived performance scores.

Level of Evidence

III.

What Are the Trends in Research Publication Misrepresentation Among Orthopaedic Residency and Fellowship Applicants From 1996 to 2019? A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Because research experience is increasingly important in ranking orthopaedic residency and fellowship applicants, determining the accuracy of candidates reporting their scholarly activity is essential. However, disparate and inconsistent findings have made it difficult to draw meaningful conclusions from individual studies.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

In this systematic review, we asked: (1) What percentage of research publications are misrepresented among orthopaedic residency and fellowship applicants? (2) What percentage of applications contain one or more example of academic misrepresentation? (3) Is research misrepresentation associated with any individual applicant characteristics? (4) What is the publication status of articles listed by applicants as having been submitted to journals?

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. PubMed, EBSCOhost, Medline, and Google Scholar electronic databases were searched on March 10, 2022, to identify all studies that evaluated research misrepresentation in orthopaedic residency and fellowship applications between January 1, 1995, and March 1, 2022. Articles were included if full-text articles in English were available and the study reported on research misrepresentation among orthopaedic residency or fellowship applicants. Studies investigating nonorthopaedic publications, systematic reviews, case studies, duplicate studies among databases, and gray literature were excluded. Two reviewers independently evaluated the quality of included studies using the Methodological Index for Nonrandomized Studies (MINORS) tool. This is a validated assessment tool that grades noncomparative studies from 0 to 16 and studies with control groups from 0 to 24, based on eight criteria related to study design, outcomes assessed, and follow-up. All included articles were noncomparative studies, so the maximum score here was 16, with higher scores indicating better study quality. The mean MINORS score was 13 ± 1 in the studies we included. The final analysis included 10 studies with 5119 applicants. Eight studies evaluated orthopaedic residency applicants and two evaluated fellowship applicants. The applicant classes ranged from 1996 to 2019. Research misrepresentation was defined among studies as nonauthorship of an existing article, claimed authorship of a nonexistent article, or incorrect listing of authorship order for an existing article. Each study's findings and definition of research misrepresentation were considered to allow for a discussion of overall trends. The percentage of misrepresentation was further broken down by the misrepresentation type. Applicant characteristics and destination of submitted articles were also evaluated. Given the potential overlap between applicants among the studies, no pooled analysis was conducted, and results are presented as a narrative summary.

RESULTS

The percentage of overall publication misrepresentation was estimated to range between 1% (13 of 1100) and 21% (27 of 131), with more-recent studies reporting a lower proportion of overall articles misrepresented. Most studies we found claimed that authorship of a nonexistent article was the most common type of misrepresentation. Nonauthorship of an existing article and incorrect authorship order were less common. The percentage of applications with at least one misrepresentation was approximately 20% between 1998 and 2017. Most studies found no applicant characteristics, such as match outcomes, demographic markers, or academic records, that were consistently associated with a higher odds of the candidate misrepresenting his or her research credentials. Finally, approximately half of the articles listed as submitted to journals went on to publication, with one-third going to a different journal with a lower Impact Factor.

CONCLUSIONS

Our systematic review found that the percentage of overall publication misrepresentations among orthopaedic residency and fellowship applicants has generally been low over the past 20 years. However, approximately one-fifth of applications had at least one research misrepresentation, with 2% having multiple misrepresentations on reported publications. There were no consistent applicant characteristics associated with higher odds of research misrepresentation. Additionally, most of the articles listed as submitted to journals for publication were ultimately published.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Although the decrease in overall publication misrepresentation is encouraging, our finding that one-fifth of applicants have research misrepresentation is a cause for concern. In light of a continually evolving application process, orthopaedic residency and fellowship programs must ensure there is integrity related to information that is self-reported by applicants. These findings also serve to encourage faculty members involved in the application screening and decision process to limit biases related to applicant demographics perceived to be associated with a high odds of misrepresentation. Furthermore, governing agencies and program leadership should evaluate methods of verifying unpublished work and provide opportunities for applicants to give publication updates throughout the application cycle.

Academic career outcomes of Orthopedic Research and Education Foundation resident grant recipients

The Orthopedic Research and Education Foundation (OREF) awards resident research grants to orthopedic surgery residents. Outcomes are lacking for OREF resident grant recipients including academic career choice and scholarly productivity. This was a retrospective cohort study of OREF resident grant recipients (2012-2020). The percentage of OREF resident grant recipients selecting an academic career was compared with the percentage of academic orthopedic surgeons in the United States via a χ² test. Two hundred and seventy-six OREF resident grants were issued to 272 orthopedic surgery residents at 73 programs. OREF resident grant recipients were predominantly male (79.0%) and Caucasian (70.2%). OREF resident grant recipients had greater women representation than the national cohort of orthopedic surgery residents (21.0% vs. 16.0%, p = 0.030) with similar proportions of underrepresented racial minorities (29.8% vs. 27.2%, p = 0.351). OREF resident grants consisted of clinical (69.6%) and basic/translational science (30.4%) research and were awarded mostly for sports medicine (25.4%), trauma (18.8%), and adult reconstruction (15.9%) topics. The average h-index was 8.5 ± 9.2 resulting from 29.5 ± 51.2 manuscripts. The majority of OREF resident grant recipients selected an academic career, which was higher than the national benchmark of academic orthopedic surgeons (63.8% vs. 24.4%, p < 0.001). Two OREF resident grant recipients transitioned to National Institutes of Health research funding (0.7%). Multivariable logistical regression demonstrated two independent characteristics associated with pursuit of a future academic career: female sex (p = 0.042) and higher h-index values (p = 0.002). Procurement of OREF resident grants is associated with pursuit of an academic career. Clinical significance: There is great interest in fostering the next generation of orthopedic surgeon scientists. Results from this study demonstrate the association between receipt of an OREF resident research grant and pursuit of a future career in academic orthopedic surgery.

Evaluating the Whole Applicant: Use of Situational Judgment Testing and Personality Testing to Address Disparities in Resident Selection

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Urology program directors are faced with increasing numbers of applications annually, making holistic review of each candidate progressively more difficult. Efforts to streamline evaluation using traditional cognitive metrics have fallen short as these do not predict overall resident performance. Situational judgment tests (SJTs) and personality assessment tools (PATs) have been used in business and industry for decades to evaluate candidates and measure non-cognitive attributes that better predict subsequent performance. The purpose of this review is to describe what these assessments are and the current literature on the use of these metrics in medical education.

RECENT FINDINGS

SJTs relative to PATs have more original research. Data suggests that SJTs decrease bias, increase diversity, and may be predictive of performance in residency. PATs are also emerging with data to support use with ability to assess fit to program and certain traits identified more consistently among high-performing residents and correlation to performance on ACGME milestones. PATs may be more coachable than SJTs. SJTs and PATs are emerging as techniques to supplement the current resident application review process. Early evidence supports their use in undergraduate medical education as does some early preliminary results in graduate medical education.