Utilization of a Novel Program-Specific Evaluation Tool Results in a Decidedly Different Interview Pool Than...

There are almost twice as many applicants as there are general surgery internships, each utilizing a common application with standard components. These elements are frequently not useful in determining affinity for a program or overall ability, and resultant poor fit may be partially responsible for program attrition. Alternative evaluation instruments would be beneficial to both programs and applicants.

An application review committee comprised of resident representatives, faculty representing all program-affiliated institutions, and program leadership completed a written evaluation developed by a third party (SurgWise Consulting) that specializes in industrial and organizational psychology. The responses were compiled to create a standardized assessment tool. This assessment was sent to applicants who were subsequently ranked according to fit with our program. The pool of applicants was separately evaluated using our traditional application review. Two residents independently graded each applicant on a 5-point Likert scale to evaluate common application elements; applicants were subsequently assigned an overall score.

The assessment was completed by 507 (99%) of 512 qualifying applicants. Separately, 378 applications were reviewed by the traditional method for a total of 756 reviews. Of the 96 applicants identified by the assessment tool to invite for interviews, 22 (23%) qualified for interview invitations according to the traditional review method. The assessment produced 74 applicants that otherwise would not have been interviewed.

Traditional application review strategies have many shortcomings. A competency-based assessment tool in the residency application selection process identifies a pool of applicants not identified by traditional review methods.