Literature DB >> 28168889

Current Interview Trail Metrics in the Otolaryngology Match.

Cristina Cabrera-Muffly1, C W David Chang2, Liana Puscas3.   

Abstract

Objectives To identify how applicants to otolaryngology residency determine how to apply to, interview with, and rank programs on the interview trail and to determine the extent of the financial burden of the otolaryngology interview trail. Study Design Web-based survey distributed in March and April 2016. Setting Otolaryngology residency applicants throughout the United States. Subjects and Methods Applicants to otolaryngology residency during the 2016 match cycle and current otolaryngology residents were surveyed. Results Median number of applications, interview offers, interviews attended, and programs ranked was not different during the 2016 match and the previous 5 match years. The most important factor affecting the number of applications was the need to apply widely to ensure sufficient interview offers. The most common reason for declining an interview offer was scheduling conflict. Applicants during the 2016 match spent a median of $5400 applying and interviewing for otolaryngology residency. Conclusions Median number of applications, interview offers, interviews attended, and programs ranked has not changed. The most cited reason for applying to many programs was to increase the chances of matching, but this is not statistically likely to increase match success. We advocate for continued attempts to make the otolaryngology match process more transparent for both applicants and resident selection committees, but recognize that applicants are likely to continue to overapply for otolaryngology residency positions.

Entities:  

Keywords:  education; interviews; match; otolaryngology; residency

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28168889     DOI: 10.1177/0194599817690723

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg        ISSN: 0194-5998            Impact factor:   3.497


  5 in total

1.  I dream of Gini: Quantifying inequality in otolaryngology residency interviews.

Authors:  Andrew H Lee; Patrick Young; Ross Liao; Paul H Yi; Douglas Reh; Simon R Best
Journal:  Laryngoscope       Date:  2018-11-08       Impact factor: 3.325

Review 2.  Systems-Level Reforms to the US Resident Selection Process: A Scoping Review.

Authors:  Ryley K Zastrow; Jesse Burk-Rafel; Daniel A London
Journal:  J Grad Med Educ       Date:  2021-06-14

3.  Letter to the Editor: Virtual Residency Training Interviews in the Age of COVID-19 and Beyond.

Authors:  Fadi Al Saiegh; Ritam Ghosh; Anthony Stefanelli; Omaditya Khanna; Ellina Hattar-Medina; Michelle Hoffman; Karim Hafazalla; Victor Sabourin; Christopher Farrell; Stavropoula Tjoumakaris; Pascal Jabbour; Ashwini D Sharan; Robert H Rosenwasser
Journal:  World Neurosurg       Date:  2020-10-06       Impact factor: 2.104

4.  Predictors of otolaryngology applicant success using the Texas STAR database.

Authors:  Nicholas R Lenze; Angela P Mihalic; Christine E DeMason; Rupali N Shah; Robert A Buckmire; Brian D Thorp; Charles S Ebert; Adam M Zanation
Journal:  Laryngoscope Investig Otolaryngol       Date:  2021-03-10

5.  Virtual Interviewing in the Era of COVID-19: A Preliminary Analysis of Otolaryngology Residency Program Costs.

Authors:  Andrew Yousef; Benjamin Bernard; Deborah Watson
Journal:  OTO Open       Date:  2022-09-27
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.