Andrew H Lee1, Patrick Young1, Ross Liao1, Paul H Yi2, Douglas Reh3, Simon R Best1. 1. Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A. 2. Department of Radiology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A. 3. Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Greater Baltimore Medical Center, Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Otolaryngology applicants routinely decry conflicting interview dates because this limits the number of interviews that one can attend, despite being offered an interview. Conversely, applicants also perceive that a large number of interviews are offered to a minority of applicants. We sought to verify and quantify the inequality in distribution of interviews attended. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of the National Resident Matching Program (NRMP) 2016 Charting Outcomes in the Match and Electronic Residency Application Service (ERAS) historic specialty data. METHODS: The Gini coefficient, a commonly used indicator of economic inequality, was calculated using data from the 2016 Charting Outcomes in the Match to estimate the distribution of interviews attended. This data was compared to nine other specialties, comprising a wide range of competitiveness and specialty size. RESULTS: 26% (110 of 416) of otolaryngology applicants accounted for half (1,721 of 3,426) of all possible interview positions. The Gini coefficient ranged from 0.43 to 0.84 across 10 specialties, with a higher coefficient indicating higher inequality. The Gini coefficient among otolaryngology applicants was 0.43, indicating lower inequality than most other specialties. When including only applicants who interviewed, the Gini coefficient was 0.23. CONCLUSION: There is an unequal distribution of interview invitations, which likely reflects the reality of asymmetry in applicant competitiveness. Otolaryngology demonstrates the greatest equality in distribution, which may stem from a greater burden of hoarding. The specialty's perceived competitiveness mitigates factors such as cost and time, essentially encouraging more people to take as many interviews as they can. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: NA Laryngoscope, 129:627-633, 2019.
OBJECTIVES: Otolaryngology applicants routinely decry conflicting interview dates because this limits the number of interviews that one can attend, despite being offered an interview. Conversely, applicants also perceive that a large number of interviews are offered to a minority of applicants. We sought to verify and quantify the inequality in distribution of interviews attended. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of the National Resident Matching Program (NRMP) 2016 Charting Outcomes in the Match and Electronic Residency Application Service (ERAS) historic specialty data. METHODS: The Gini coefficient, a commonly used indicator of economic inequality, was calculated using data from the 2016 Charting Outcomes in the Match to estimate the distribution of interviews attended. This data was compared to nine other specialties, comprising a wide range of competitiveness and specialty size. RESULTS: 26% (110 of 416) of otolaryngology applicants accounted for half (1,721 of 3,426) of all possible interview positions. The Gini coefficient ranged from 0.43 to 0.84 across 10 specialties, with a higher coefficient indicating higher inequality. The Gini coefficient among otolaryngology applicants was 0.43, indicating lower inequality than most other specialties. When including only applicants who interviewed, the Gini coefficient was 0.23. CONCLUSION: There is an unequal distribution of interview invitations, which likely reflects the reality of asymmetry in applicant competitiveness. Otolaryngology demonstrates the greatest equality in distribution, which may stem from a greater burden of hoarding. The specialty's perceived competitiveness mitigates factors such as cost and time, essentially encouraging more people to take as many interviews as they can. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: NA Laryngoscope, 129:627-633, 2019.
Authors: Nicholas R Lenze; Angela P Mihalic; Kevin J Kovatch; Marc C Thorne; Robbi A Kupfer Journal: Laryngoscope Date: 2021-09-21 Impact factor: 2.970
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
Authors: Sarah Dooley; Austin J Sim; Shauna R Campbell; Elizabeth B Jeans; Justin D Anderson; Karen Tye; Chelain R Goodman Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2020-10-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Carter J Boyd; Shivani Ananthasekar; Benjamin J Greene; Michael A Harrington; Timothy W King; Soroush Rais-Bahrami; Manoucher Lance Tavana; Pierre B Saadeh Journal: Am Surg Date: 2021-03-12 Impact factor: 0.688
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