Selection Of Endocrinology Subspecialty Trainees: Which Applicant Characteristics Are Associated With Performance During Fellowship Training?

Abstract

Objective To determine which residency characteristics are associated with performance during endocrinology fellowship training as measured by competency-based faculty evaluation scores and faculty global ratings of trainee performance. Method We performed a retrospective review of interview applications from endocrinology fellows who graduated from a single academic institution between 2006 and 2013. Performance measures included competency-based faculty evaluation scores and faculty global ratings. The association between applicant characteristics and measures of performance during fellowship was examined by linear regression. Results The presence of a laudatory comparative statement in the residency program director’s letter of recommendation (LoR) or experience as a chief resident was significantly associated with competency-based faculty evaluation scores (β = 0.22, P = 0.001; and β = 0.24, P = 0.009, respectively) and faculty global ratings (β = 0.85, P = 0.006; and β = 0.96, P = 0.015, respectively). Conclusion The presence of a laudatory comparative statement in the residency program director’s LoR or experience as a chief resident were significantly associated with overall performance during subspecialty fellowship training. Future studies are needed in other cohorts to determine the broader implications of these findings in the application and selection process.

Hand Surgery Fellowship Selection Criteria: A National Fellowship Director Survey

“…Any inferences can only be made using the data from program directors that responded to this survey. Previous research looking at fellowship selection criteria that relied on program director surveys had similar rates of response 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 . The findings here may apply only to U.S. hand surgery fellowship programs and cannot be applied to international programs.…”

“…This is in stark contrast to residency programs where a resident can expect to work with multiple attendings for brief periods at a time. Furthermore, while objective measures seem to correlate well with candidate performance during residency training, some studies show variable and inconsistent relationships between USMLE scores and fellowship performance [ 2 ].…”

“…This is in contrast to the heavy reliance on objective metrics (e.g., United States Medical Licensing Examinations, USMLEs) that have brought them this stage of their careers [10][11][12][13][14][15]. According to the results of our study, one of the key differences in selection criteria between residency program directors and fellowship program directors, appears to be the fact that those ob- jective measures are given minimal importance, and are largely replaced with evaluations of a candidate's interpersonal skills and personal characteristics [1][2][3][4][5][6][7]. This perceived importance of objective measures might be diminished due to the nature of fellowship.…”

“…Previous studies identified selection criteria for subspecialty fellowship programs in fields such as anesthesia, otolaryngology, orthopaedics and obstetrics and gynecology. However, very few studies investigate selection criteria of plastic surgery related fellowships 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 .…”

Postgraduate Selection in Medical Education: A Scoping Review of Current Priorities and Values

“…Manuscripts in this category suggest that there is a combination of measures such as clerkship grades, test scores, and skills simulations that will predict performance on outcome measures such as Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) Milestones or a graduate rank order list (re-ranking at the time of graduation). [16][17][18][19][20][21][22] Manuscripts vary in whether they focus on predictions of success in the specialty overall [20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35] or specifically within training programs. 16,18,19,[36][37][38][39][40][41] Authors of manuscripts in this category describe priority being given to selecting those who will do well during postgraduate training and also focus on avoiding those who will need remediation or be disruptive to program leadership.…”