Expectations versus reality: Understanding the accuracy of impressions made during virtual interviews of pediatric pulmonary fellowship programs

Abstract

Rationale: As a result of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, all pediatric pulmonary fellowship programs conducted virtual interviews for the first time in the Fall of 2020. This study aimed to understand the accuracy of virtual-interview derivedimpressions of fellowship programs, as well as applicant preference for future fellowship interview cycles. Methods: A group of pediatric pulmonary fellows and Program Directors designed a REDCap survey. The survey was distributed to all first-year pediatric pulmonary fellows who participated in the 2020-2021 virtual interview season.Results: 23/52 (44%) of first-year pediatric pulmonary fellows completed the survey. 96% were able to form general impressions about fellowship programs during their virtual interviews. 96% reported that generally their fellowship experience matched their virtual-interview derived-impressions. 17 of the 19 factors applicants use to rank programs had no statistically significant change (p > 0.05) in impression from virtual interview to fellowship experience. The two factors with a statistically significant (p < 0.05) change in impression were patient care related-volume of "bread and butter" pediatric pulmonary patients and volume of tertiary care pediatric pulmonary patients. 87% prefer some form of in-person interview option in future application cycles. A tiered interview format in which applicants are first invited to a virtual interview day followed by an optional in-person second look day was the most popular preference for future interview cycles (48%).Conclusions: Virtual interviews may provide accurate representations of pediatric pulmonary fellowship programs and applicants prefer some type of in-person interview option in future application cycles.

Virtual interviews and equity: The pediatric pulmonary fellow perspective

“…Third, 97% of respondents matched at one of their top two fellowship programs, which may select applicants with a positive outcome and therefore more favorable impression of their interview experience. This is congruent with our prior survey findings 23 and may reflect a high match rate of applicants in this specialty. Lastly, while we asked respondents to compare in-person to VI experiences, we acknowledge that prior interview experiences were medical school and/or residency interviews and are not a direct comparison.…”

“…Study team members previously published survey data from the 2020–2021 applicant cycle describing impressions of fellowship training gained through the VI process and the importance of nineteen factors applicants may use to create rank lists 23,26 . While broad, this previous survey lacked DEI program factors.…”

“…However, we hypothesized that virtual interviewing may still introduce inequities to be addressed, specifically with regard to disparities in access to technology. We hope to build on prior knowledge regarding understanding which VI-associated factors applicants find important for ranking programs, 23,24 including diversity and inclusion aspects of programs. We conducted a comprehensive medical literature review of VIs and equity, implicit bias, and mitigating bias.…”

Pulmonary and Critical Care Fellowship Program Directors’ Perspective on the Virtual Interview Process

“…In a survey of pulmonary and critical care medicine (PCCM) applicants regarding perspectives of the VI, 24% believed that the virtual recruitment process hindered their decision making, whereas 20% believed that the process was superior ( 7 ). Similarly, in a survey of first-year pediatrics pulmonary medicine fellows who were recruited via the VI process, although 96% of respondents agreed that their fellowship experience matched the VI experience, 87% preferred some form of an in-person interview ( 8 ). In a single-organization survey among PCCM aspirants and PCCM attendings, 59% of aspirants and 64% of interviewers favored a hybrid interview model ( 9 ).…”