Literature DB >> 30247748

An Evaluation of the Program-Specific Paragraph in the Otolaryngology Residency Application.

Katelyn O Stepan1, Vivian F Kaul1, Aaishah R Raquib2,3, Elliott D Kozin2,3, Rosh K Sethi2,3, Benjamin D Malkin1, Stacey T Gray2,3, Marita S Teng1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: The recent addition of mandatory program-specific paragraphs within the personal statement during the otolaryngology match process has been controversial. It is unclear whether applicants customize these paragraphs for programs, or if they are largely uniform across applications. The objective of our study was to assess the degree of variability among program-specific paragraphs. STUDY
DESIGN: Retrospective cohort analysis.
METHODS: An analysis of deidentified program-specific paragraphs of 2016 otolaryngology residency applicants at two institutions was performed. Applicants who applied to both and had program-specific paragraphs were included. Paragraphs were assessed for 24 parameters, including quantitative content analysis. Subjective and objective similarity scores were assigned to each pair, using a five-point scale and Levenshtein distance function respectively. Differences between institutions were calculated using χ2 and two-sided t tests.
RESULTS: Two hundred eight-five applications were reviewed, and 181 applied to both programs and had program-specific paragraphs. The median subjective similarity score among all paragraphs was "mildly similar" (2/5). The mean objective similarity score was 0.59. There were statistical differences between institutions in 13 parameters. One institution garnered more applicants who mentioned interest in research or global surgery (71.3% vs. 57.5%, P = .006; 17.7% vs. 4.4%, P < .0001, respectively), whereas the other attracted mention of clinical aspects and geographical ties (80.0% vs. 45.3%, P < .0001; 72.4% vs. 45.3%, P < .0001, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that applicants tailor program-specific paragraphs to the individual residency programs. These findings may aid programs and students in understanding the role of this new element of the application. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4 Laryngoscope, 2508-2513, 2018.
© 2018 The American Laryngological, Rhinological and Otological Society, Inc.

Keywords:  Personal statement; application; medical student; program-specific paragraph; residency

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30247748     DOI: 10.1002/lary.27553

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Laryngoscope        ISSN: 0023-852X            Impact factor:   3.325


  5 in total

1.  Internal Medicine Residency Program Responses to the Increase of Residency Applications: Differences by Program Type and Characteristics.

Authors:  Michelle L Sweet; Christopher M Williams; Emily Stewart; Saumil M Chudgar; Steven V Angus; Michael Kisielewski; Lisa L Willett
Journal:  J Grad Med Educ       Date:  2019-12

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.  More Is More: Drivers of the Increase in Emergency Medicine Residency Applications.

Authors:  Robert D Huang; Lucienne Lutfy-Clayton; Douglas Franzen; Alexis Pelletier-Bui; David C Gordon; Zachary Jarou; Jim Cranford; Laura R Hopson
Journal:  West J Emerg Med       Date:  2020-12-10

4.  COVID-19: A Driver for Disruptive Innovation of the Emergency Medicine Residency Application Process.

Authors:  Alexis Pelletier-Bui; Doug Franzen; Liza Smith; Laura Hopson; Lucienne Lutfy-Clayton; Kendra Parekh; Mark Olaf; Tom Morrissey; David Gordon; Erin McDonough; Benjamin H Schnapp; Mary Ann Edens; Michael Kiemeney
Journal:  West J Emerg Med       Date:  2020-08-19

5.  COVID-19's Impact on the 2020-2021 Resident Match: A Survey of Otolaryngology Program Directors.

Authors:  David A Kasle; Sina J Torabi; Said Izreig; Rahmatullah W Rahmati; R Peter Manes
Journal:  Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol       Date:  2020-10-22       Impact factor: 1.547

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.