Allison H Ferris1, Anne G Pereira2, Steven V Angus3, Richard I Kopelman4. 1. Charles E. Schmidt College of Medicine, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, FL, USA. ferrisa@health.fau.edu. 2. University of Minnesota Medical School, Minneapolis, MN, USA. 3. University of Connecticut School of Medicine, Farmington, CT, USA. 4. Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: With rising applications to internal medicine programs and pending changes in United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 score reporting, program directors desire transparent data for comparing applicants. The Department of Medicine Letters of Recommendation (DOM LORs) are frequently used to assess applicants and have the potential to provide clearly defined data on performance including stratification of a medical school class. Despite published guidelines on the expected content of the DOM LOR, these LORs do not always meet that need. OBJECTIVES: To better understand the degree to which DOM LORs comply with published guidelines. METHODS: We reviewed DOM LORs from 146 of 155 LCME-accredited medical schools in the 2019 Match cycle, assessing for compliance with published guidelines. RESULTS: Adherence to the recommendation for DOM LORs to provide a final characterization of performance relative to peers was low (68/146, 47%). Of those that provided a final characterization, 19/68 (28%) provided a quantitative measure, and 49/68 (72%) provided a qualitative descriptor. Only 17/49 (35%) with qualitative terms described those terms, and thirteen distinct qualitative scales were identified. Ranking systems varied, with seven different titles given to highest performers. Explanations about determination of ranking groups were provided in 12% of cases. CONCLUSIONS: Adherence to published guidelines for DOM LORs varies but is generally low. For program directors desiring transparent data to use in application review, clearly defined data on student performance, stratification groupings, and common language across schools could improve the utility of DOM LORs.
BACKGROUND: With rising applications to internal medicine programs and pending changes in United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 score reporting, program directors desire transparent data for comparing applicants. The Department of Medicine Letters of Recommendation (DOM LORs) are frequently used to assess applicants and have the potential to provide clearly defined data on performance including stratification of a medical school class. Despite published guidelines on the expected content of the DOM LOR, these LORs do not always meet that need. OBJECTIVES: To better understand the degree to which DOM LORs comply with published guidelines. METHODS: We reviewed DOM LORs from 146 of 155 LCME-accredited medical schools in the 2019 Match cycle, assessing for compliance with published guidelines. RESULTS: Adherence to the recommendation for DOM LORs to provide a final characterization of performance relative to peers was low (68/146, 47%). Of those that provided a final characterization, 19/68 (28%) provided a quantitative measure, and 49/68 (72%) provided a qualitative descriptor. Only 17/49 (35%) with qualitative terms described those terms, and thirteen distinct qualitative scales were identified. Ranking systems varied, with seven different titles given to highest performers. Explanations about determination of ranking groups were provided in 12% of cases. CONCLUSIONS: Adherence to published guidelines for DOM LORs varies but is generally low. For program directors desiring transparent data to use in application review, clearly defined data on student performance, stratification groupings, and common language across schools could improve the utility of DOM LORs.
Authors: Jason Hom; Ilana Richman; Philip Hall; Neera Ahuja; Stephanie Harman; Robert Harrington; Ronald Witteles Journal: Acad Med Date: 2016-11 Impact factor: 6.893
Authors: Alan H Kominsky; Paul C Bryson; Michael S Benninger; William S Tierney Journal: Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Date: 2016-01-12 Impact factor: 3.497
Authors: Mary E Westerman; Chelsea Boe; Raevti Bole; Norman S Turner; Steven H Rose; Matthew T Gettman; R Houston Thompson Journal: Acad Med Date: 2019-12 Impact factor: 6.893
Authors: Lauren Hook; Aitua C Salami; Tenesha Diaz; Kara E Friend; Alisan Fathalizadeh; Amit R T Joshi Journal: J Surg Educ Date: 2018-07-29 Impact factor: 2.891
Authors: Valerie J Lang; Brian M Aboff; Donald R Bordley; Stephanie Call; Kent J Dezee; Sara B Fazio; Matthew Fitz; Paul A Hemmer; Lia S Logio; Diane B Wayne Journal: Am J Med Date: 2013-05 Impact factor: 4.965
Authors: Megan Boysen Osborn; James Mattson; Justin Yanuck; Craig Anderson; Ara Tekian; John Christian Fox; Ilene B Harris Journal: Acad Med Date: 2016-11 Impact factor: 6.893
Authors: Anne G Pereira; Paul R Chelminski; Shobhina G Chheda; Steven V Angus; Jeffrey Becker; Saumil M Chudgar; Mark A Levine; Laura Rees Willet; T Robert Vu Journal: Am J Med Date: 2016-05-03 Impact factor: 4.965
Authors: Steven V Angus; Christopher M Williams; Emily A Stewart; Michelle Sweet; Michael Kisielewski; Lisa L Willett Journal: Acad Med Date: 2020-04 Impact factor: 6.893
Authors: Megan Boysen-Osborn; Justin Yanuck; James Mattson; Shannon Toohey; Alisa Wray; Warren Wiechmann; Shadi Lahham; Mark I Langdorf Journal: West J Emerg Med Date: 2016-11-29