Video Interviews and Surgical Applicants' Ability to Assess Fit to Residency Programs.

INTRODUCTION: Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the recruitment cycle for the 2021 Match was performed virtually. This Association for Surgical Education (ASE)-sponsored survey set out to study applicants' ability to assess the factors contributing to fit through video interviews. METHODS: An IRB-approved, online, anonymous survey was distributed to surgical applicants at a single academic institution and through the ASE clerkship director distribution list between the rank order list certification deadline and Match Day. Applicants used 5-point Likert-type scales to rate factors for importance to fit and their ease of assessment through video interviewing. A variety of recruitment activities were also rated by applicants for their perceived helpfulness in assessment of fit. RESULTS: One hundred and eighty-three applicants responded to the survey. The three most important factors for applicant fit were how much the program cared, how satisfied residents seem with their program, and how well residents get along. Resident rapport, diversity of the patient population, and quality of the facilities were hardest to assess through video interviews. In general, diversity-related factors were more important to female and non-White applicants, but not more difficult to assess. Interview day and resident-only virtual panels were the most helpful recruitment activities, while virtual campus tours, faculty-only panels, and a program's social media were the least helpful. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides valuable insight into the limitations of virtual recruitment for surgical applicants' perception of fit. These findings and the recommendations herein should be taken into consideration by residency program leadership to ensure successful recruitment of diverse residency classes.

Applicants' perception of fit to residency programmes in the video-interview era: A large multidisciplinary survey.

INTRODUCTION: 'Fit' refers to an applicants' perceived compatibility to a residency programme. A variety of structural, identity-related and relational factors contribute to self-assessments of fit. The 2021 residency recruitment cycle in the USA was performed virtually due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Little is known about how video-interviewing may affect residency applicants' ability to gauge fit. METHODS: A multidisciplinary, anonymous survey was distributed to applicants at a large academic institution between rank order list (ROL) certification deadline and Match Day 2021. Using Likert-type scales, applicants rated factors for importance to 'fit' and their ease of assessment through video-interviewing. Applicants also self-assigned fit scores to the top-ranked programme in their ROL using Likert-type scales with pairs of anchoring statements. RESULTS: Four hundred seventy-three applicants responded to the survey (25.7% response rate). The three most important factors to applicants for assessment of fit (how much the programme seemed to care, how satisfied residents seem with their programme and how well the residents get along) were also the factors with the greatest discrepancy between importance and ease of assessment through video-interviewing. Diversity-related factors were more important to female applicants compared with males and to non-White applicants compared with White applicants. Furthermore, White male applicants self-assigned higher fit scores compared with other demographic groups. CONCLUSION: There is a marked discrepancy between the most important factors to applicants for fit and their ability to assess those factors virtually. Minoritised trainees self-assigned lower fit scores to their top-ranked programme, which should raise concern amongst medical educators and highlights the importance of expanding current diversity, equity and inclusion efforts in academic medicine.