Cargando…
Evaluating applicants to a new emergency medicine residency program: subjective assessment of applicant characteristics
BACKGROUND: Because of the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) and the Residency Review Committee (RRC) approval timelines, new residency programs cannot use Electronic Residency Application Service (ERAS) during their first year of applicants. AIM: We sought to identify dif...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer-Verlag
2010
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3047854/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21373291 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12245-010-0209-5 |
_version_ | 1782199083799150592 |
---|---|
author | Groke, Steven F. Madsen, Troy E. Strate, Laura Knapp, Stuart Dawson, Matt Stroud, Susan Hartsell, Stephen Davis, Virgil |
author_facet | Groke, Steven F. Madsen, Troy E. Strate, Laura Knapp, Stuart Dawson, Matt Stroud, Susan Hartsell, Stephen Davis, Virgil |
author_sort | Groke, Steven F. |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Because of the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) and the Residency Review Committee (RRC) approval timelines, new residency programs cannot use Electronic Residency Application Service (ERAS) during their first year of applicants. AIM: We sought to identify differences between program directors’ subjective ratings of applicants from an emergency medicine (EM) residency program’s first year (in which ERAS was not used) to their ratings of applicants the following year in which ERAS was used. METHOD: The University of Utah Emergency Medicine Residency Program received approval from the ACGME in 2004. Applicants for the entering class of 2005 (year 1) did not use ERAS, submitting a separate application, while those applying for the following year (year 2) used ERAS. Residency program directors rated applicants using subjective components of their applications, assigning scores on scales from 0–10 or 0–5 (10 or 5 = highest score) for select components of the application. We retrospectively reviewed and compared these ratings between the 2 years of applicants. RESULTS: A total of 130 and 458 prospective residents applied during year 1 and year 2, respectively. Applicants were similar in average scores for research (1.65 vs. 1.81, scale 0–5, p = 0.329) and volunteer work (5.31 vs. 5.56, scale 0–10, p = 0.357). Year 1 applicants received higher scores for their personal statement (3.21 vs. 2.22, scale 0–5, p < 0.001), letters of recommendation (7.0 vs. 5.94, scale 0–10, p < 0.001), dean’s letter (3.5 vs. 2.7, scale 1–5, p < 0.001), and in their potential contribution to class characteristics (4.64 vs. 3.34, scale 0–10, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: While the number of applicants increased, the use of ERAS in a new residency program did not improve the overall subjective ratings of residency applicants. Year 1 applicants received higher scores for the written components of their applications and in their potential contributions to class characteristics. |
format | Text |
id | pubmed-3047854 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2010 |
publisher | Springer-Verlag |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-30478542011-03-03 Evaluating applicants to a new emergency medicine residency program: subjective assessment of applicant characteristics Groke, Steven F. Madsen, Troy E. Strate, Laura Knapp, Stuart Dawson, Matt Stroud, Susan Hartsell, Stephen Davis, Virgil Int J Emerg Med Original Research Article BACKGROUND: Because of the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) and the Residency Review Committee (RRC) approval timelines, new residency programs cannot use Electronic Residency Application Service (ERAS) during their first year of applicants. AIM: We sought to identify differences between program directors’ subjective ratings of applicants from an emergency medicine (EM) residency program’s first year (in which ERAS was not used) to their ratings of applicants the following year in which ERAS was used. METHOD: The University of Utah Emergency Medicine Residency Program received approval from the ACGME in 2004. Applicants for the entering class of 2005 (year 1) did not use ERAS, submitting a separate application, while those applying for the following year (year 2) used ERAS. Residency program directors rated applicants using subjective components of their applications, assigning scores on scales from 0–10 or 0–5 (10 or 5 = highest score) for select components of the application. We retrospectively reviewed and compared these ratings between the 2 years of applicants. RESULTS: A total of 130 and 458 prospective residents applied during year 1 and year 2, respectively. Applicants were similar in average scores for research (1.65 vs. 1.81, scale 0–5, p = 0.329) and volunteer work (5.31 vs. 5.56, scale 0–10, p = 0.357). Year 1 applicants received higher scores for their personal statement (3.21 vs. 2.22, scale 0–5, p < 0.001), letters of recommendation (7.0 vs. 5.94, scale 0–10, p < 0.001), dean’s letter (3.5 vs. 2.7, scale 1–5, p < 0.001), and in their potential contribution to class characteristics (4.64 vs. 3.34, scale 0–10, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: While the number of applicants increased, the use of ERAS in a new residency program did not improve the overall subjective ratings of residency applicants. Year 1 applicants received higher scores for the written components of their applications and in their potential contributions to class characteristics. Springer-Verlag 2010-08-20 /pmc/articles/PMC3047854/ /pubmed/21373291 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12245-010-0209-5 Text en © Springer-Verlag London Ltd 2010 |
spellingShingle | Original Research Article Groke, Steven F. Madsen, Troy E. Strate, Laura Knapp, Stuart Dawson, Matt Stroud, Susan Hartsell, Stephen Davis, Virgil Evaluating applicants to a new emergency medicine residency program: subjective assessment of applicant characteristics |
title | Evaluating applicants to a new emergency medicine residency program: subjective assessment of applicant characteristics |
title_full | Evaluating applicants to a new emergency medicine residency program: subjective assessment of applicant characteristics |
title_fullStr | Evaluating applicants to a new emergency medicine residency program: subjective assessment of applicant characteristics |
title_full_unstemmed | Evaluating applicants to a new emergency medicine residency program: subjective assessment of applicant characteristics |
title_short | Evaluating applicants to a new emergency medicine residency program: subjective assessment of applicant characteristics |
title_sort | evaluating applicants to a new emergency medicine residency program: subjective assessment of applicant characteristics |
topic | Original Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3047854/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21373291 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12245-010-0209-5 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT grokestevenf evaluatingapplicantstoanewemergencymedicineresidencyprogramsubjectiveassessmentofapplicantcharacteristics AT madsentroye evaluatingapplicantstoanewemergencymedicineresidencyprogramsubjectiveassessmentofapplicantcharacteristics AT stratelaura evaluatingapplicantstoanewemergencymedicineresidencyprogramsubjectiveassessmentofapplicantcharacteristics AT knappstuart evaluatingapplicantstoanewemergencymedicineresidencyprogramsubjectiveassessmentofapplicantcharacteristics AT dawsonmatt evaluatingapplicantstoanewemergencymedicineresidencyprogramsubjectiveassessmentofapplicantcharacteristics AT stroudsusan evaluatingapplicantstoanewemergencymedicineresidencyprogramsubjectiveassessmentofapplicantcharacteristics AT hartsellstephen evaluatingapplicantstoanewemergencymedicineresidencyprogramsubjectiveassessmentofapplicantcharacteristics AT davisvirgil evaluatingapplicantstoanewemergencymedicineresidencyprogramsubjectiveassessmentofapplicantcharacteristics |