OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of using of asynchronous video interviewing as a screening tool for obstetrics and gynecology residency selection. METHODS: This project was part of a quality-improvement effort to enhance the resident application process. Applications to a single obstetrics and gynecology residency program were scored using standardized criteria. In the 2018 Match, top-scored applicants were invited to in-person interviews, and second-tier applicants were asked to complete a three-question asynchronous video interview. Video interviews were scored and used to invite the remaining applicants for in-person interviews. In the 2019 Match, video interviewing was expanded to all applicants with top application scores, and the video score was used to determine in-person interview invitations. Applicants for 2019 were surveyed on their views regarding video interviewing. RESULTS: Half of the candidates interviewed in person in the 2018 season were screened by the video interview process compared with 82% in the 2019 season. The mean in-person interview score increased from 59.0 in 2017, before screening with asynchronous video interviews, to 62.2 in 2018 (effect size 0.50; 95% CI 0.09-0.90) In 2018, a nonsignificant correlation was seen between the video interview score and rank list percentile (r=0.22, P=.15, n=27) and in-person interview score (r=0.18, P=.12, n=46). United States Medical Licensing Examination step 1 and 2 scores were not correlated with video interview scores in either season. Most (58%) candidates indicated that the asynchronous video interview was an effective way to tell their story; however, only 42% were comfortable with the interview process. CONCLUSION: Video interviewing may have promise as a tool for program directors to use to select candidates from a competitive applicant pool by measuring important noncognitive skills. Acceptance by obstetrics and gynecology applicants was mixed.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of using of asynchronous video interviewing as a screening tool for obstetrics and gynecology residency selection. METHODS: This project was part of a quality-improvement effort to enhance the resident application process. Applications to a single obstetrics and gynecology residency program were scored using standardized criteria. In the 2018 Match, top-scored applicants were invited to in-person interviews, and second-tier applicants were asked to complete a three-question asynchronous video interview. Video interviews were scored and used to invite the remaining applicants for in-person interviews. In the 2019 Match, video interviewing was expanded to all applicants with top application scores, and the video score was used to determine in-person interview invitations. Applicants for 2019 were surveyed on their views regarding video interviewing. RESULTS: Half of the candidates interviewed in person in the 2018 season were screened by the video interview process compared with 82% in the 2019 season. The mean in-person interview score increased from 59.0 in 2017, before screening with asynchronous video interviews, to 62.2 in 2018 (effect size 0.50; 95% CI 0.09-0.90) In 2018, a nonsignificant correlation was seen between the video interview score and rank list percentile (r=0.22, P=.15, n=27) and in-person interview score (r=0.18, P=.12, n=46). United States Medical Licensing Examination step 1 and 2 scores were not correlated with video interview scores in either season. Most (58%) candidates indicated that the asynchronous video interview was an effective way to tell their story; however, only 42% were comfortable with the interview process. CONCLUSION: Video interviewing may have promise as a tool for program directors to use to select candidates from a competitive applicant pool by measuring important noncognitive skills. Acceptance by obstetrics and gynecology applicants was mixed.