How real is a virtual interview? Perspectives of orthopaedic surgery residency directors.

OBJECTIVE: As a result of COVID-19 pandemic, the 2021 US residency MATCH was devoid of the traditional in-person interviews. Herein, we assess the impact of Virtual Interviews (VIs) on resident selection, from the perspectives of Orthopedic Surgery (OS) Program Directors (PDs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A 14-item survey was sent to PDs of ACGME-accredited OS residencies. Questions were designed to assess the pros, cons, and robustness of VIs compared to their antecedent in-person format. RESULTS: Forty-seven PDs responded to our survey. VIs antagonized PDs' ability to assess applicants' fit to program (76.6%), commitment to specialty (64%), and interpersonal skills (68.1%). This led to heavier dependence upon applicants' portfolios (64%). Almost all respondents (97.9%) found VIs to be more cost-efficient, saving a median of $3000 in interview-related expenses. Overall, only 8.5% of PDs were willing to conduct exclusive VIs in future cycles, compared to the majority in favor of dual formats (51.5%) or exclusive in-person interviews (40.4%). CONCLUSIONS: VIs have been an overall success, making most PDs opt for dual interview formats in future cycles. How this technology is further implemented in the future remains to be seen.

Impact of the virtual interview format on urology residency interviews: A survey of program directors

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: The COVID-19 pandemic has profoundly changed the 2020-2021 residency application cycle, with the introduction of the virtual interview (VI) format being among the most significant of implemented changes. While employed by all urology residencies this past application cycle, no studies have investigated how VIs have impacted the interview process from programs' perspective. The purpose of this study is to assess the impact of VIs to serve as a guide for programs when determining their interview procedures in future residency application cycles. METHODS: Web-based surveys with questions regarding the VI format's impact on varying aspects of the residency interview process were sent out to program directors (PDs) of ACGME-accredited urology residency programs. Elements of the residency interview process covered in the questions included costs, time commitment, candidate evaluation, technical difficulties, and overall thoughts about the VI format. RESULTS: A total of 38 PDs responded to our survey. All responding PDs agreed or strongly agreed that VIs were less expensive than in-person interviews with an average cost reduction of $3,244 per program. Despite switching to a VI format, only 34% of PDs reported that interviews were less time-consuming than in-person interviews. Regarding the evaluation of candidates, the majority of PDs stated that VIs were detrimental for the assessment of candidates' fit with a program (74%), their personality and communication skills (74%), and their commitment to the specialty as well as their ability to function as a urology resident (68%). Consequentially, 53% of urology residencies relied more heavily on candidates' objective metrics when developing their rank list. Technical difficulties that interfered with interviewing candidates occurred in 5% of interviews. Overall, the majority of programs (53%) stated that VIs were inferior to in-person interviews. Despite their decreased satisfaction with the VI format, 61% of programs were open to hosting virtual and in-person interviews. At the same time, 34% and 5% of the PDs reported that they would prefer to exclusively host in-person or virtual interviews in the 2021-2022 application cycle, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Despite their associated reduction in interview-related costs, VIs are not as reliable as in-person interviews to assess residency candidates for urology residency positions. Despite this, VIs exhibit significant potential upon further refinement of the format. More studies are needed to determine their impact in future application cycles.