Applicant Interview Experiences and Postinterview Communication of the 2016 Radiation Oncology Match Cycle

Berriochoa, Camille A.; Ward, Matthew C.; Weller, Michael; Holliday, Emma B.; Kusano, Aaron S.; Thomas, Charles R.; Tendulkar, Rahul D.

doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2016.08.009

Cited by 16 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In a 2016 survey returned by 118 residency applicants to a single radiation oncology department, 84% reported being asked at least once about where else they were interviewing, 51% were asked about marital status, and 22% were asked about plans to have children 17. Eighty‐three percent of applicants wrote thank you notes after their interviews, with 55% reporting fear of being viewed unfavorably if they did not.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ethical violations and discriminatory behavior in the MedPhys Match

Hendrickson

Juang²,

Rodrigues

et al. 2017

J Applied Clin Med Phys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeThe purpose of this survey study is to investigate behaviors in conflict with the ethical standards of the Medical Physics Residency (MedPhys) Match (MPM) process as stated in the MPM rules (a) and with the nondiscrimination regulations of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) (b), in addition to other behaviors that may in other ways erode the fairness of the system.MethodsA survey was sent to all applicants and program directors registered for the 2015 and 2016 MPM. Survey questions asked about application, interview, and postinterview experiences, match results, and overall satisfaction with the process.ResultsThirteen percent of 2015 respondents and 20% of 2016 respondents were asked by at least one program how highly they planned to rank them or which program they would rank first. Thirty‐seven percent of 2015 and 40% of 2016 program directors indicated that candidates communicated to the program their rank intent, with 22.0% in 2015 and 12.5% in 2016 being told that their program would be ranked first. Twenty‐three percent of 2015 respondents indicated being asked by at least one program during the interview about children or plans to have children; including 19% of males and 33% of females. In 2016, these values were 28% overall, 22% male, and 36% female. Fifty‐seven percent of 2015 respondents who were asked this question indicated being uncomfortable or very uncomfortable answering, including 27.3% of males and 88.9% of females. In 2016, 42.9% of all respondents indicated being uncomfortable or very uncomfortable answering, including 10.0% of males and 80.0% of females.ConclusionsIn the first two years of the MPM, there were widespread instances of ethical violations and discriminatory questioning during the interview process. Educating both interviewers and candidates on the MPM rules and general EEOC guidelines should decrease these instances and increase the fairness of the residency selection process.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ethical violations and discriminatory behavior in the MedPhys Match

Hendrickson

Juang²,

Rodrigues

et al. 2017

J Applied Clin Med Phys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The survey questions drew from prior publications on this topic 6,7 and assessed demographic information, inquiries that may have arisen during the interview that violate the NRMP COC, postinterview behavior on behalf of applicants and programs, policies used during postinterview communication, and applicant opinions about these experiences. Questions were initially piloted for clarity among 4 individuals (2 current residents, 1 program coordinator, and 1 program director [PD]); no further testing was done.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…4 However, there remains evidence of interview behavior that violates the spirit of the Match and of ongoing gamesmanship in the postinterview period, with a number of applicants reporting exposure to interview questions about other interview locations, 5 rank preferences, marital status, and plans to have children, [6][7][8] and discomfort when programs contact them following the interview. 9 Besides adding a statement explicitly reminding programs that applicants should not be asked about other interviews, the NRMP does not appear to have adopted any specific policy changes or interventions in response to these data.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Residency Match: Interview Experiences, Postinterview Communication, and Associated Distress

Berriochoa

Reddy

Dorsey

et al. 2018

Journal of Graduate Medical Education

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…[2][3][4] For this reason, the frequency and nature of peri-interview communication between applicants and residency programs has been studied across various specialties. [5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12] Otolaryngology is a highly competitive specialty with a limited number of available residency positions compared to the number of applicants. Therefore, an evaluation of peri-interview communication in the otolaryngology Match is warranted.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Peri‐Interview Communication in the Otolaryngology Residency Match: The Applicant Perspective

Masciello

Malekzadeh

2020

The Laryngoscope

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives/Hypothesis To evaluate peri‐interview communication in the otolaryngology Match from the applicant's perspective. Study Design Cross‐sectional survey study. Methods A survey link was emailed to 401 otolaryngology residency applicants from the 2019 Match cycle. Survey items queried peri‐interview communication practices and applicants' attitudes toward communication in the postinterview period. Data were collected anonymously. Qualitative analysis was performed for descriptive statistics. Responses from female and male participants were compared using Fisher exact tests. Results The survey yielded a 44% (56% male, 44% female) response rate and a 100% completion rate. Of applicants, 18% were told they were ranked to match, and 19% were asked how highly they planned to rank a given program. Interview questions regarding marital status and plans for children were asked to 38% and 12%, respectively. The majority (75%) believe peri‐interview communication should be allowed. Most (65%) participants felt obligated to inform top program(s) of their high rank; however, only 45% of applicants found this to be stressful. Peri‐interview communication may have altered the rank list for 10% of applicants. Of applicants, 96% created their final rank list based on where they most wanted to match rather than where they would most likely match. Conclusions National Resident Matching Program peri‐interview communication violations occur in the otolaryngology Match at similar rates when compared to other specialties. Although peri‐interview communication can cause significant stress, the majority of otolaryngology residency applicants believe peri‐interview communication should be allowed and do not believe it alters applicants' rank lists. Level of Evidence NA Laryngoscope, 131:28–32, 2021

show abstract

Applicant Interview Experiences and Postinterview Communication of the 2016 Radiation Oncology Match Cycle

Cited by 16 publications

References 14 publications

Ethical violations and discriminatory behavior in the MedPhys Match

Ethical violations and discriminatory behavior in the MedPhys Match

The Residency Match: Interview Experiences, Postinterview Communication, and Associated Distress

Peri‐Interview Communication in the Otolaryngology Residency Match: The Applicant Perspective

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About