Interviewer bias in selection of anaesthesia Fellows: A single-institution quality assessment study

Fellowships are competitive training posts, often in a subspecialty area. We performed a quality assessment of potential interviewer bias on anaesthesia Fellow selection. After research locality approval, we analysed interview scores for all Fellowship applications to our department over six years. Panel interviewers participated in a structured interview process, asking a series of standardised questions to rate applicants. A mixed model analysis of total applicant rating with crossed effects of applicants and interviewers was used. A total of 94 applicants were interviewed by 27 panel members, with between two and four panel members per interview, giving a total of 329 applicant ratings. The random effect of applicants accounted for 45.8% of total variance in ratings (95% confidence intervals (CI) for intraclass correlation (ICC) 35.8%–57.2%) while interviewer effects accounted for 13.4% of total variance (95% CI for ICC 5.3%–30.0%). We found no evidence of bias for most potential sources after analysing multiple applicant and interviewer factors. After adjusting for interviewer training programme, applicants from other training programmes were rated a mean of 1.87 points lower than Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists (ANZCA) applicants (95% CI 0.62–3.12, P = 0.003) and 1.84 points lower than Royal College of Anaesthetists (RCoA) applicants (95% CI 0.37–3.32, P = 0.014). After adjusting for applicant gender, female clinicians rated applicants 1.12 points higher (95% CI 0.19–2.06, P = 0.019) on average than male clinicians. The observed differences in interview scores amongst male and female clinicians and lower scores in applicants from programmes other than ANZCA/RCoA were small, and require confirmation in independent studies.

Examining the impact of applicant smoking and vaping habits in job interviews

Cigarette and electronic-cigarette users (i.e. vapers) are increasingly stigmatized in both society and the workplace. We examine effects of this stigmatization in the selection process by testing whether interviewers’ negative initial impressions of smokers and vapers extend throughout the interview. We used a dual-process framework of interviewer bias against stigmatized applicants, comprised of Type I-automatic and Type II-systematic processes, and conducted two experiments where US and Canadian participants enacted the role of an interviewer in video-based job interview simulations. Consistent with Type I processes, results show that cigarette smokers, and to lesser extent vapers, were initially rated as less qualified than non-smokers. These initial impressions were not subjected to justification/rationalization during the interview via harder questions asked. However, they served as anchors, also consistent with Type I processes, and impacted final assessments alongside Type II adjustments based on applicants’ response quality. Additionally, using attentional eye tracking data, we found that raters with worse attitudes toward smoking, but not vaping, glanced at stigma cues more frequently, which went on to influence first impressions. These findings provide valuable tests of key components of the dual-process model of interviewer bias, and raise concerns around the devaluation of smokers and vapers in hiring decisions.

Rigor in Qualitative Methods: An Evaluation of Strategies Among Underrepresented Rural Communities

Achieving rigor using selected criteria to determine trustworthiness using qualitative methods has been without critical evaluation. In this article, strategies such as prolonged engagement and thick, rich description; negative case analysis; peer review or briefing; clarifying researcher bias; member checking; and, investigator triangulation and intercoder reliability are evaluated for appropriateness among an African American Appalachian rural population. Achieving rigor using qualitative methods among participants living in rural communities is time intensive requiring attention to quality versus quantity of time spent in interviews, building trusting relationships, an awareness of interviewer bias and assumptions, and appropriately evaluated strategies that enhance validity. Strategies to achieve rigor in qualitative methods should not be used as a one size fits all approach as this practice might actually diminish rigor. Among underrepresented populations, strategies should be adapted or not used at all.

From first impressions to selection decisions

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to investigate how individual interviewers’ dispositional cognitive motivations may influence interview interactions and outcomes. More specifically, this study explores the influence of the need for cognition, need for cognitive closure, and accountability on the relationship between first impressions and selection decisions.Design/methodology/approachIn total, 41 graduate students were assigned the role of interviewers and were tasked to interview 331 undergraduate students at a large Midwestern university. The selection interview was designed to recruit qualified undergraduate students to the MBA program of the university.FindingsFirst impressions significantly influenced selection decisions, but did not influence interviewers’ behaviors. Moreover, multilevel analyses reveal that interviewers’ need for cognition and accountability moderate the relationship between first impression and selection decisions, albeit in different direction. Need for cognition strengthens, whereas accountability weakens the relationship between first impression and selection decision.Research limitations/implicationsA potential interviewer bias is apparent, where interviewers high on need for cognition tend to weight first impressions more in the decision process. However, this bias was not directly observable, since interviewers’ behaviors during the interview were not affected by first impressions.Originality/valueThe present study goes beyond previous research on first impressions in the employment interview, finding that dispositional differences account for the tendency to weigh first impressions in the selection decision.

DSM Borderline Criterion Function Across Age-Groups: A Cross-Sectional Mixed-Method Study

DSM-5 ( Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition) Section II criteria for borderline personality disorder (BPD) lack developmental operationalization. The aim of the current study was to evaluate whether DSM criteria operate similarly across adolescents and adults to determine if developmental adjustment for DSM criteria was needed. Three age cohorts were recruited: adolescents (ages 12-17 years; n = 484), young adults (ages 18-25 years; n = 442), and adults (ages ≥26 years; n = 953). The Child Interview for DSM-IV BPD and the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis II disorders were administered to adolescents and adults, respectively. Item response theory methods were used to evaluate differential item (or criterion) functioning (DIF) of BPD criteria across adolescents and adults. Qualitative analyses were then used to evaluate the potential sources of DIF. Item response theory results demonstrated DIF across adolescents and adults for all DSM BPD criteria. Qualitative analyses suggested that the source of DIF was most likely due to rater/interviewer bias. Results furthermore suggested that behavioral criteria may represent the heterotypic features of BPD, while intra- and interpersonal criteria represent the homotypic features of the disorder. The article concludes with recommendations for developmentally informed guidelines for the assessment of BPD.