Beyond the USMLE: The STAR Algorithm for Initial Residency Applicant Screening and Interview Selection

Villwock, Jennifer A.; Hamill, Chelsea S.; Sale, Keith A.; Sykes, Kevin J.

doi:10.1016/j.jss.2018.07.057

Cited by 22 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our colleagues at the University of Kansas have already published their algorithm, which provides an objective way at evaluating all parts of a medical student’s application, beyond just the USMLE score. 10 Objective tools such as their proposed STAR algorithm are especially important now to better evaluate an increasing number of applicants and reduce the time and cost necessary to review applications. It may also help limit effects of selection bias and increase the diversity within our specialty.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Implications of Change to USMLE Step 1 Scoring for Otolaryngology Residency Programs

Kalyoussef

Dhanda

Paskhover

2020

Otolaryngol.--head neck surg.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Otolaryngology is a competitive specialty, with 398 US seniors applying to an offered 328 positions in 2019. Recent changes to US Medical Licensing Exam (USMLE) Step 1 scoring raise many questions for both medical student applicants and program directors. Otolaryngologists are known to be collegial and thoughtful physicians. Focusing on other nonstandardized testing scores may help the specialty “reboot” and refocus on recruiting the best people, not just applicants with a high Step 1 score and Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) status.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Implications of Change to USMLE Step 1 Scoring for Otolaryngology Residency Programs

Kalyoussef

Dhanda

Paskhover

2020

Otolaryngol.--head neck surg.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Gender was by far the most frequently examined URM (22/35 articles: 62%), followed by international medical graduates (IMGs) (10/35: 28%). Nine articles reported multiple classes of URM (26%) and single articles considered age [ 36 ], personality [ 54 ], and geography [ 58 ] (each 3%).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Systematic review of specialist selection methods with implications for diversity in the medical workforce

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose There is growing concern that inequities in methods of selection into medical specialties reduce specialist cohort diversity, particularly where measures designed for another purpose are adapted for specialist selection, prioritising reliability over validity. This review examined how empirical measures affect the diversity of specialist selection. The goals were to summarise the groups for which evidence is available, evaluate evidence that measures prioritising reliability over validity contribute to under-representation, and identify novel measures or processes that address under-representation, in order to make recommendations on selection into medical specialties and research required to support diversity. Method In 2020–1, the authors implemented a comprehensive search strategy across 4 electronic databases (Medline, PsychINFO, Scopus, ERIC) covering years 2000–2020, supplemented with hand-search of key journals and reference lists from identified studies. Articles were screened using explicit inclusion and exclusion criteria designed to focus on empirical measures used in medical specialty selection decisions. Results Thirty-five articles were included from 1344 retrieved from databases and hand-searches. In order of prevalence these papers addressed the under-representation of women (21/35), international medical graduates (10/35), and race/ethnicity (9/35). Apart from well-powered studies of selection into general practice training in the UK, the literature was exploratory, retrospective, and relied upon convenience samples with limited follow-up. There was preliminary evidence that bias in the measures used for selection into training might contribute to under-representation of some groups. Conclusions The review did not find convincing evidence that measures prioritising reliability drive under-representation of some groups in medical specialties, although this may be due to limited power analyses. In addition, the review did not identify novel specialist selection methods likely to improve diversity. Nevertheless, significant and divergent efforts are being made to promote the evolution of selection processes that draw on all the diverse qualities required for specialist practice serving diverse populations. More rigorous prospective research across different national frameworks will be needed to clarify whether eliminating or reducing the weighting of reliable pre-selection academic results in selection decisions will increase or decrease diversity, and whether drawing on a broader range of assessments can achieve both reliable and socially desirable outcomes.

show abstract

“…Several objective characteristics, including AOA membership, Step 1 and Step 2, research productivity, additional graduate degree, and attending a top-40 NIH-funded medical school have been associated with increasing an applicants’ chances of matching in various specialties. 6,7,9,34,43-45…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Otolaryngology Applicant Characteristics and Trends: Comparing OTO-HNS with Peer Specialties

Salehi

Heiser

Salehi

et al. 2021

Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: To evaluate the recent Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery (OTO-HNS) applicant characteristics, to identify which applicant characteristics are associated with successful match into OTO-HNS, and to compare OTO-HNS applicant trends and characteristics to that of peer surgical specialties (PS). Materials and Methods: Data were obtained from official reports by the National Residency Matching Program (NRMP) for OTO-HNS, plastic and reconstructive surgery, orthopedic surgery, neurosurgery, and dermatology from 2006 to 2019. Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership, United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) scores, research productivity, graduation from a top-40 NIH-funded U.S. medical school, and additional graduate degree were recorded. Odds ratios (OR) were calculated to evaluate the relationship between applicant qualifications and match success. Results: From 2014 to 2018, the OTO-HNS applicant pool shrunk from 443 to 333, representing the largest drop of all PS. Furthermore, OTO-HNS reported the most unfilled positions and highest match rates in 2017 (n = 14; 92.1%) and 2018 (n = 12; 94.6%) among any PS. Despite recent trends, 2019 NRMP data revealed a 38.74% increase in OTO-HNS applicant numbers compared to 2018. AOA membership (OR, 7.3; P = .030), USMLE Step 2 scores between 241 and 260 (OR, 6.5; P = .009), and research productivity (OR, 5.6; P = .005) significantly increased the odds of matching into OTO-HNS. Conclusions: Despite recent fluctuations in application trends, OTO-HNS continues to successfully match highly qualified applicants, including applicants with AOA membership, high Step 2 scores, and high research productivity. An understanding of the qualifications used to evaluate residency applicants may be helpful to both applicants and residency programs of OTO-HNS.

show abstract

Beyond the USMLE: The STAR Algorithm for Initial Residency Applicant Screening and Interview Selection

Cited by 22 publications

References 12 publications

Implications of Change to USMLE Step 1 Scoring for Otolaryngology Residency Programs

Implications of Change to USMLE Step 1 Scoring for Otolaryngology Residency Programs

Systematic review of specialist selection methods with implications for diversity in the medical workforce

Otolaryngology Applicant Characteristics and Trends: Comparing OTO-HNS with Peer Specialties

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About