Background: In an effort to avoid numerous problems associated with narrative letters of recommendation, a dermatology standardized letter of recommendation was utilized in the 2014-2015 resident application cycle. Objective: A comparison of the standardized letter of recommendation and narrative letters of recommendation from a single institution and application cycle to determine if the standardized letter of recommendation met its original goals of efficiency, applicant stratification, and validity. Methods: Eight dermatologists assessed all standardized letters of recommendation/narrative letters of recommendation pairs received during the 2014-2015 application cycle. Five readers repeated the analysis two months later. Each letter of recommendation was evaluated based on a seven question survey. Letter analysis and survey completion for each letter was timed. Results: Compared to the narrative letters of recommendation, the standardized letter of recommendation is easier to interpret (p<0.0001), has less exaggeration of applicants' positive traits (p<0.001), and has higher inter-rater and intrarater reliability for determining applicant traits including personality, reliability, work-ethic, and global score. Standardized letters of recommendation are also faster to interpret (p<0.0001) and provide more information about the writer's background or writer-applicant relationship than narrative letters of recommendation (p<0.001). Limitations: This study was completed at a single institution. Conclusions: The standardized letter of recommendation appears to be meeting its initial goals of 1) efficiency, 2) applicant stratification, and 3) validity. (J Clin Aesthet Dermatol. 2016;9(9):36-2.).
Background: In an effort to avoid numerous problems associated with narrative letters of recommendation, a dermatology standardized letter of recommendation was utilized in the 2014-2015 resident application cycle. Objective: A comparison of the standardized letter of recommendation and narrative letters of recommendation from a single institution and application cycle to determine if the standardized letter of recommendation met its original goals of efficiency, applicant stratification, and validity. Methods: Eight dermatologists assessed all standardized letters of recommendation/narrative letters of recommendation pairs received during the 2014-2015 application cycle. Five readers repeated the analysis two months later. Each letter of recommendation was evaluated based on a seven question survey. Letter analysis and survey completion for each letter was timed. Results: Compared to the narrative letters of recommendation, the standardized letter of recommendation is easier to interpret (p<0.0001), has less exaggeration of applicants' positive traits (p<0.001), and has higher inter-rater and intrarater reliability for determining applicant traits including personality, reliability, work-ethic, and global score. Standardized letters of recommendation are also faster to interpret (p<0.0001) and provide more information about the writer's background or writer-applicant relationship than narrative letters of recommendation (p<0.001). Limitations: This study was completed at a single institution. Conclusions: The standardized letter of recommendation appears to be meeting its initial goals of 1) efficiency, 2) applicant stratification, and 3) validity. (J Clin Aesthet Dermatol. 2016;9(9):36-2.).
Authors: Jeffrey N Love; Nicole M Deiorio; Sarah Ronan-Bentle; John M Howell; Christopher I Doty; David R Lane; Cullen Hegarty Journal: Acad Emerg Med Date: 2013-09 Impact factor: 3.451
Authors: Jonathan N Perkins; Conan Liang; Kim McFann; Mona M Abaza; Sven-Olrik Streubel; Jeremy D Prager Journal: Laryngoscope Date: 2012-11-21 Impact factor: 3.325
Authors: Rebecca F Wang; Myron Zhang; Allireza Alloo; Thomas Stasko; Jordan E Miller; Jessica A Kaffenberger Journal: J Clin Aesthet Dermatol Date: 2018-03-01