Charles M Maxfield1, Matthew P Thorpe, Terry S Desser, Darel E Heitkamp, Nathan C Hull, Karen S Johnson, Nicholas A Koontz, Gary W Mlady, Timothy J Welch, Lars J Grimm. 1. C.M. Maxfield is vice chair of education, Department of Radiology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina. M.P. Thorpe is a radiology resident, Department of Radiology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina. T.S. Desser is professor, Department of Radiology, Stanford University Medical Center, Stanford, California. D.E. Heitkamp is staff radiologist and associate residency program director, Florida Hospital, Orlando, Florida. N.C. Hull is assistant professor, Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. K.S. Johnson is residency program director, Department of Radiology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina. N.A. Koontz is director of fellowship programs, Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana. G.W. Mlady is chair, Department of Radiology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico. T.J. Welch is associate chair of education, Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. L.J. Grimm is assistant professor, Department of Radiology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate for appearance-based discrimination in the selection of radiology residents. METHOD: A deception study simulating the resident selection process examined the impact of attractiveness and obesity on resident selection. Seventy-four core faculty from 5 academic radiology departments reviewed mock residency applications in September and October 2017. Each application included demographic information and a photograph, representing a prespecified distribution of facial attractiveness and obesity, combined with randomized academic and supporting variables. Reviewers independently scored applications for interview desirability. Reviewer scores and application variables were compared using linear mixed fixed- and random-effects models. RESULTS: Reviewers evaluated 5,447 applications (mean: 74 applications per reviewer). United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 scores were the strongest predictor of reviewer rating (B = 0.35 [standard error (SE) = 0.029]). Applicant facial attractiveness strongly predicted rating (attractive vs unattractive, B = 0.30 [SE = 0.056]; neutral vs unattractive, B = 0.13 [SE = 0.028]). Less influential but still significant predictors included race/ethnicity (B = 0.25 [SE = 0.059]), preclinical class rank (B = 0.25 [SE = 0.040]), clinical clerkship grades (B = 0.23 [SE = 0.034]), Alpha Omega Alpha membership (B = 0.21 [SE = 0.032]), and obesity (vs not obese) (B = -0.14 [SE = 0.024]). CONCLUSIONS: Findings provide preliminary evidence of discrimination against facially unattractive and obese applicants in radiology resident selection. Obesity and attractiveness were as influential in applicant selection for interview as traditional medical school performance metrics. Selection committees should invoke strategies to detect and manage appearance-based bias.
PURPOSE: To evaluate for appearance-based discrimination in the selection of radiology residents. METHOD: A deception study simulating the resident selection process examined the impact of attractiveness and obesity on resident selection. Seventy-four core faculty from 5 academic radiology departments reviewed mock residency applications in September and October 2017. Each application included demographic information and a photograph, representing a prespecified distribution of facial attractiveness and obesity, combined with randomized academic and supporting variables. Reviewers independently scored applications for interview desirability. Reviewer scores and application variables were compared using linear mixed fixed- and random-effects models. RESULTS: Reviewers evaluated 5,447 applications (mean: 74 applications per reviewer). United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 scores were the strongest predictor of reviewer rating (B = 0.35 [standard error (SE) = 0.029]). Applicant facial attractiveness strongly predicted rating (attractive vs unattractive, B = 0.30 [SE = 0.056]; neutral vs unattractive, B = 0.13 [SE = 0.028]). Less influential but still significant predictors included race/ethnicity (B = 0.25 [SE = 0.059]), preclinical class rank (B = 0.25 [SE = 0.040]), clinical clerkship grades (B = 0.23 [SE = 0.034]), Alpha Omega Alpha membership (B = 0.21 [SE = 0.032]), and obesity (vs not obese) (B = -0.14 [SE = 0.024]). CONCLUSIONS: Findings provide preliminary evidence of discrimination against facially unattractive and obese applicants in radiology resident selection. Obesity and attractiveness were as influential in applicant selection for interview as traditional medical school performance metrics. Selection committees should invoke strategies to detect and manage appearance-based bias.
Authors: Terence Jackson; Joseph S Lim; Kei Nagatomo; Muhammad Darwish; Edward E Cho; Houssam Osman; Dhiresh Rohan Jeyarajah Journal: World J Surg Date: 2021-04-19 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Myia S Williams; Alyson K Myers; Kayla D Finuf; Vidhi H Patel; Lyndonna M Marrast; Renee Pekmezaris; Johanna Martinez Journal: J Bus Psychol Date: 2022-06-10
Authors: Christina McCain; Brekel Kemp; Margaret Bishop Baier; Arnold H Zea; Carl Sabottke; Emma R Schachner; Claude Pirtle; Angela McLean; Robert Maupin; Pierre Detiege; Bradley Spieler Journal: Ochsner J Date: 2022
Authors: Lon J Van Winkle; Brian D Schwartz; Alexis Horst; Jensen A Fisher; Nicole Michels; Bradley O Thornock Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-05-02 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Brian D Schwartz; Alexis Horst; Jenifer A Fisher; Nicole Michels; Lon J Van Winkle Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-03-25 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Alexis Horst; Brian D Schwartz; Jenifer A Fisher; Nicole Michels; Lon J Van Winkle Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2019-10-16 Impact factor: 3.390