Faculty Members’ Perspective on Virtual Interviews for Medical Residency Matching during the COVID-19 Crisis: A National Survey

During the COVID-19 pandemic, conducting face-to-face medical residency interviews was challenging due to infection prevention precautions, social distancing, and travel restrictions. Virtual interviews were implemented by the Saudi Commission for Health Specialties (SCFHS) as an alternative process for residency matching while striving to maintain the same quality standards. This national survey was conducted to assess the satisfaction and perceptions of faculty members’ virtual interview performance in the assessment for the medical training residency programs. Among the participating 173 faculty members, 34.1% did not have previous experience with video-conferencing. The Zoom application was the most commonly used platform (65.9%). Most (89.6%) of the faculty perceived virtual interviews as “adequate” platforms on which the candidates could express themselves, while almost half of the faculty (53.8%) agreed that virtual interviews allowed them to accurately reach an impression about the candidates. Overall, 73.4% of faculty felt comfortable ranking the virtually interviewed candidates. We conclude that the acceptance of participating faculty members in the first Saudi medical residency training matching cycle virtual interviewing event was well-perceived. This study provides evidence for future application and research of virtual interviews in residency candidates’ assessment, especially after the pandemic crisis resolves.

Accent Bias and Perceptions of Professional Competence in England

Unequal outcomes in professional hiring for individuals from less privileged backgrounds have been widely reported in England. Although accent is one of the most salient signals of such a background, its role in unequal professional outcomes remains underexamined. This paper reports on a large-scale study of contemporary attitudes to accents in England. A large representative sample ( N = 848) of the population in England judged the interview performance and perceived hirability of “candidates” for a trainee solicitor position at a corporate law firm. Candidates were native speakers of one of five English accents stratified by region, ethnicity, and class. The results suggest persistent patterns of bias against certain accents in England, particularly Southern working-class varieties, though moderated by factors such as listener age, content of speech, and listeners’ psychological predispositions. We discuss the role that the observed bias may play in perpetuating social inequality in England and encourage further research on the relationship between accent and social mobility.

Rater Attributions of Malfunctions in Videoconference Interviews

Virtual interviews have become ubiquitous, yet research on the psychological effects of their technological characteristics remains sparse. Many practitioners caution that malfunctions that commonly occur during interviews may negatively influence interviewers’ perceptions of an applicant. This concern is heightened for some groups of applicants, particularly those of certain age groups. Age stereotypes characterize older adults as technologically inept, and per the similarity effect, the dual ages of an applicant and an interviewer likely influence an interviewer’s attributions of a technology malfunction. We explored these propositions by investigating the effects that one such malfunction, an echo, has on raters. This experiment used a 2 (younger applicant vs. older applicant) × 2 (younger rater vs. older rater) × 3 (no echo vs. minor echo vs. severe echo) between-subject design to test hypotheses. Results showed that raters generally made situational attributions of malfunctions. Raters blamed the echo on older applicants slightly more than younger applicants, but attributions did not predict perceptions of interview performance, decisions to hire, or salary recommendations. Malfunctions and age similarity were generally not related to hiring outcomes. These findings advance theories surrounding attributions and age biases while offering no clear evidence that specific age groups are at a disadvantage in virtual interviews.

The Relationship Between Career Adaptability and Job-Search Self-Efficacy of Graduates: The Bifactor Approach

Career adaptability is an important resource for dealing with career transitions such as the transition from university to work. Previous research emphasized the importance of focusing on career adapt-abilities instead only on general career adaptability. The aim of this research was to investigate whether career adaptability can be conceptualized as a bifactor model and whether general and specific dimensions of career adaptability have a relationship with job-search self-efficacy of graduates. In an online cross-sectional study, 667 graduates completed the Career Adapt-Abilities Scale and Job Search Skill and Confidence Scale. The CFA analysis showed that the bifactor model of career adaptability had a good fit where general factor explained most of the items’ variance. The SEM analysis revealed that general career adaptability and the specific factor of confidence positively correlated with job-search and interview performance self-efficacy. Control only correlated with interview performance self-efficacy. Neither concern nor curiosity showed a significant relationship with job-search and interview performance self-efficacy.

DPM Foot and Ankle Fellowship Selection Criteria: Survey of Fellowship Directors

Background A recent increase in podiatric medicine fellowships has occurred as the field continues to progress. Research regarding selection criteria from a fellowship director's perspective for potential fellows is lacking. This study aimed to examine objective and subjective selection criteria that directors consider when selecting applicants for the interview and when ranking prospective fellows after the interview. Methods We electronically surveyed American College of Foot and Ankle Surgeons fellowship directors with preselected criteria for granting applicants an interview and for compiling their ranking list after the interview. A Likert scale from 1 (most important) to 5 (least important) was used to prioritize each criterion, an average rating was calculated, and the results were placed in order of importance. Results The most important selection criteria for granting an interview were quality of residency program (1.985), a written personal statement of reasons for attending that fellowship (2.063), and publications/presentations produced as a resident (2.267). The most important criteria in completing the ranking order after the interview were assessment of applicant's personality (1.111), interview performance (1.173), and expressed interest in program (1.563). Conclusions Knowledge of the selection criteria that fellowship directors seek in applicants can assist those who desire to further their training. The selection criteria that program directors seek differed between being selected for the interview, which combined both objective and subjective criteria, and when compiling their rankings after the interview, which included only subjective criteria. Results show more emphasis on subjective selection criteria when directors select applicants for an interview and when ranking applicants after the interview.

Do Interviews Influence Admission Decisions? An Empirical Analysis From an Institution

Introduction The admission interview is regarded as one of the most significant moments in the process of applying to medical school, but there is limited empirical evidence that supports this claim. Previous analyses have offered what is largely anecdotal evidence of the interview’s importance while also suggesting that there is ample opportunity for ethnic and gender bias to impact interview scores. We also asked what medical schools can learn from comparing the attributes of matriculants and those applicants who rejected offers of acceptance. Materials and Methods This study investigated the association between interview performance and admission committee decisions for applicants applying to the School of Medicine of the USU. The study cohort included all candidates who were invited for an on-site interview at the USU in 2014, 2015, and 2016 (n = 1825). Results Seventeen percent of the variance of the outcome variables—admission committee decisions to accept, place on the alternate list, or reject an applicant—can be explained by considering interview scores alone. Applicant age, race, ethnicity, and gender did not significantly impact interview overall ratings. Matriculants to the USU had similar interview ratings and distribution of gender, race, and ethnicity when compared to those applicants who rejected offers of acceptance. Matriculants were more likely to have previous military experience. Conclusion Our analysis provides some justification for the importance of the interview in the admission process. Applicant demographics (age, race, gender, and ethnicity) were not associated with interview scores. Differences between matriculants to the USU and those who rejected offers of acceptance are small, indicating that the USU continues to build a class body that excels in both cognitive and noncognitive domains.

Cardiovascular, behavioral, and psychological responses to organizational prodiversity messages among racial/ethnic minorities

Despite the widespread assumption that prodiversity values make companies more attractive workplaces for underrepresented groups, few experiments have tested this assumption. Two experiments investigated the impact of prodiversity messages in organizational recruitment materials for racial/ethnic minorities. In Study 1 ( N = 399), racial/ethnic minority MTurk workers imagined applying for a position at a prodiversity (vs. neutral) company, then imagined receiving acceptance or rejection feedback. In Study 2 ( N = 179), Latino men engaged in a realistic hiring simulation while cardiovascular and behavioral responses were recorded. They then received acceptance or rejection feedback. Both experiments found that the presence (vs. absence) of prodiversity messages had no significant effect on anticipated belonging, anticipated fairness, or concerns about discrimination at the company. Study 2 also found that the presence (vs. absence) of prodiversity messages had no effect on interview performance or on cardiovascular responses during the interview. Moreover, following feedback, the presence (vs. absence) of prodiversity messages led participants to attribute their feedback more to illegitimate factors, and to rate themselves as less competent/deserving. Implications for organizations and minority job candidates are discussed.