Orthopaedic Resident-Selection Criteria

Bernstein, Adam; Jazrawi, Laith M.; Elbeshbeshy, Basil; Valle, Craig J. Della; Zuckerman, Joseph D.

doi:10.2106/00004623-200211000-00026

Cited by 123 publications

(165 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

154

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This finding is consistent with prior studies. 10,12,17,22 Perhaps this is related to the finding by several studies showing that program leadership (i.e., PDs and clerkship directors) tend to be the most discriminating SLOR authors. 17,18 Conversely, PDs in this study reported that "inexperienced letter writers" were a commonly reported factor diminishing the value of a SLOR.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 74%

Council of Emergency Medicine Residency Directors' Standardized Letter of Recommendation: The Program Director's Perspective

Love

Smith

Weizberg

et al. 2014

Academic Emergency Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: The standardized letter of evaluation (SLOE) was created in 1997 to provide residency program directors (PDs) with a summative evaluation that incorporates normative grading (i.e., comparisons to peers applying to emergency medicine [EM] training). Although the standard letter of recommendation (SLOR) has become increasingly popular and important in decision-making, it has not been studied in the past 12 years. To assess the SLOR's effectiveness and limitations, the perspective of EM PDs was surveyed in this study.Methods: After validation of the questionnaire by 10 retired PDs, the survey was sent to the PD of each of the 159 EM residencies that existed at that time. The survey was circulated via the Council of Emergency Medicine Residency Directors' (CORD) listserv from January 24, 2013, to February 13, 2013. Weekly e-mail reminders to all PDs served to increase participation.Results: A total of 150 of 159 PDs (94.3%) completed the questionnaire. Nearly all respondents (149 of 150; 99.3%) agreed that the SLOR is an important evaluative tool and should continue to be used. In the application process, 91 of 150 (60.7%) programs require one or more SLORs, and an additional 55 (36.7%) recommend but do not require a SLOR to be considered for interview. When asked to identify the top three factors in deciding who should be interviewed, the SLOR was ranked first (139 of 150; 92.7%), with EM rotation grades ranked second (73 of 150; 48.7%). The factors that were most often identified as the top three that diminish the value of the SLOR in order were 1) "inflated evaluations" (121 of 146; 82.9%), 2) "inconsistency between comments and grades" (106 of 146; 72.6%), and 3) "inadequate perspective on candidate attributes in the written comments" and "inexperienced authors" (60 of 146; 41.1% each). Conclusions:The SLOR appears to be the most important tool in the EM PD's armamentarium for determining which candidates should be interviewed for residency training. Although valuable, the SLOR's potential utility is hampered by a number of factors, the most important of which is inflated evaluations. Focused changes in the SLOR template should be mindful that it appears, in general, to be successful in its intended purpose.ACADEMIC EMERGENCY MEDICINE 2014;21:680-687 © 2014 by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine P rior studies have shown that traditional narrative letters of recommendation (NLOR) suffer from a number of significant limitations. Such letters do not predict future performance.1,2 They often repeat cognitive merits of the applicant and do not specifically address noncognitive domains that may be more predictive of performance as a resident. 2,3 The information that is provided is not comparative and is often

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 74%

Council of Emergency Medicine Residency Directors' Standardized Letter of Recommendation: The Program Director's Perspective

Love

Smith

Weizberg

et al. 2014

Academic Emergency Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Preresidency selection factors were chosen for each of the 60 residents consistent with previously published studies [4,9,15,16,25,26]. Selection criteria included: (1) USMLE Step 1 score; (2) USMLE Step 2 score; (3) Medical College Admission Test (MCAT) score; (4) number of clerkship honors; (5) number of letters of recommendation; (6) number of away rotations; (7) AOA membership; (8) completed subinternship at our institution; and (9) number of publications/abstracts.…”

Section: Input Measures: Preresidency Selection Factorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although these traits might still be ranked highly by most program directors today as well, their association with success as an orthopaedic resident has not consistently been borne out by the existing data. In some studies, associations have been found between resident performance and USMLE Step 1 scores, Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) medical honor society induction, and third-and fourth-year medical school clerkship grades, but these have not been found to be significant in other followup studies [4,11,13,14,17,31]. Furthermore, the preresidency criteria in some studies have been found to be associated with faculty evaluations only and, in others, to American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery (ABOS) Part I scores [9,16,25].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Does Residency Selection Criteria Predict Performance in Orthopaedic Surgery Residency?

Raman

Alrabaa

Sood

et al. 2016

Clinical Orthopaedics &Amp; Related Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background More than 1000 candidates applied for orthopaedic residency positions in 2014, and the competition is intense; approximately one-third of the candidates failed to secure a position in the match. However, the criteria used in the selection process often are subjective and studies have differed in terms of which criteria predict either objective measures or subjective ratings of resident performance by faculty. Questions/purposes Do preresidency selection factors serve as predictors of success in residency? Specifically, we asked which preresidency selection factors are associated or correlated with (1) objective measures of resident knowledge and performance; and (2) subjective ratings by faculty. Methods Charts of 60 orthopaedic residents from our institution were reviewed. Preresidency selection criteria examined included United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1 and Step 2 scores, Medical College Admission Test (MCAT) scores, number of clinical clerkship honors, number of letters of recommendation, number of away rotations, Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) honor medical society membership, fourthyear subinternship at our institution, and number of publications. Resident performance was assessed using objective measures including American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery (ABOS) Part I scores and Orthopaedics InTraining Exam (OITE) scores and subjective ratings by faculty including global evaluation scores and faculty rankings of residents. We tested associations between preresidency criteria and the subsequent objective and subjective metrics using linear correlation analysis and Mann-Whitney tests when appropriate. Results Objective measures of resident performance namely, ABOS Part I scores, had a moderate linear correlation with the USMLE Step 2 scores (r = 0.55, p \ 0.001) and number of clinical honors received in medical school (r = 0.45, p \ 0.001). OITE scores had a weak linear correlation with the number of clinical honors (r = 0.35, p = 0.009) and USMLE Step 2 scores (r = 0.29, p = 0.02). With regards to subjective outcomes, AOA membership was associated with higher scores on the global evaluation (p = 0.005). AOA membership also correlated with higher global evaluation scores (r = 0.60, p = 0.005) with the strongest correlation existing between AOA membership and the ''interpersonal and communication skills

show abstract

“…The degree of influence lower academic performance ultimately has on students' ability to match to their residency of choice likely depends on multiple factors such as the competitiveness of the residency, the perceived likelihood that the candidate will pursue further research, the candidate's number of publications, and how the residency selection committee values the intangible benefits of the research experience. Although we could find no publication specifically addressing residency program directors' interest in M.D.-Ph.D. graduates, we were struck by the low value assigned to research experience 30 and publications 25,28,30 by surveyed program directors across a variety of specialty domains. However, M. D.-Ph.D. graduates, especially those of Medical Scientist Training Programs (MSTP), typically pursue fellowship and or postdoctoral research training and have successful, productive research careers.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prolonged Delays for Research Training in Medical School are Associated with Poorer Subsequent Clinical Knowledge

et al. 2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND:Complementary degree programs and research training are important alternative tracks in medical school that typically interrupt the traditional MD curriculum. OBJECTIVE:Examine effects of such a break on clinical knowledge after reentry into the MD curriculum. DESIGN:Retrospective cohort study. PARTICIPANTS:Three hundred and two graduates of Mayo Medical School. MAIN MEASUREMENTS:Compared years of delay between the second and third years of medical school with third year clerkship grades, National Board of Medical Examiner's (NBME) Subject Examinations, and United States Medical License Exam (USMLE)Step 2.MAIN RESULTS: 258, 13, and 31 students spent 0, 1, or ≥3 years pursing research between the second and third year. Baseline measures of knowledge before matriculation and before the third year were similar between groups. Whereas a 1-year delay had no significant effect, a ≥3-year delay was associated with fewer clerkship honors and lower NBME Medicine, Pediatrics, and Psychiatry percentiles compared to no delay (all p<.05). Students with a ≥3-year delay had a 77% reduction in the odds of honors in Medicine. For each year of delay beyond 3, students' third-year NBME Medicine, Neurology, Obstetrics and Gynecology, and Psychiatry scores decreased as did USMLE Step 2 scores (r=−.38 to −.50, p<.05).CONCLUSIONS: Delays of ≥3 years between the second and third years of medical school are associated with lower grades and scores on clinical knowledge tests. Further research is needed to determine the optimal timing of research training and develop effective interventions to facilitate reentry into the medical school curriculum.

show abstract

Orthopaedic Resident-Selection Criteria

Cited by 123 publications

References 25 publications

Council of Emergency Medicine Residency Directors' Standardized Letter of Recommendation: The Program Director's Perspective

Council of Emergency Medicine Residency Directors' Standardized Letter of Recommendation: The Program Director's Perspective

Does Residency Selection Criteria Predict Performance in Orthopaedic Surgery Residency?

Prolonged Delays for Research Training in Medical School are Associated with Poorer Subsequent Clinical Knowledge

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About