Steven J Katz1. 1. University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: While gender bias in medicine, including physician training, has been well described, less is known about gender bias in the selection process for post graduate residency training programs. This analysis reviews the potential role of gender on resident selection for an internal medicine residency program. METHODS: File review and interview overall and component scores were analyzed based on the gender of the applicant. File review scores were further analyzed based on the reviewer's gender. RESULTS: Women applicants scored higher than men applicants on their file review. There were no differences in any one component score except for leadership in art. Women file reviewers scored applicants higher than men file reviewers, but there was no difference between gender scores. There was no difference in overall or component interview scores between men or women applicants. Scoring did not impact the expected rank performance of applicants based on gender at any stage of the selection process. CONCLUSIONS: While higher scores were observed in women applicants upon their file review, and women reviewers provided higher file review scores, this did not appear to impact the expected number of women and men applicants at each stage of the applicant process. This suggests a potential lack of gender bias at these stages of applicant selection.
BACKGROUND: While gender bias in medicine, including physician training, has been well described, less is known about gender bias in the selection process for post graduate residency training programs. This analysis reviews the potential role of gender on resident selection for an internal medicine residency program. METHODS: File review and interview overall and component scores were analyzed based on the gender of the applicant. File review scores were further analyzed based on the reviewer's gender. RESULTS: Women applicants scored higher than men applicants on their file review. There were no differences in any one component score except for leadership in art. Women file reviewers scored applicants higher than men file reviewers, but there was no difference between gender scores. There was no difference in overall or component interview scores between men or women applicants. Scoring did not impact the expected rank performance of applicants based on gender at any stage of the selection process. CONCLUSIONS: While higher scores were observed in women applicants upon their file review, and women reviewers provided higher file review scores, this did not appear to impact the expected number of women and men applicants at each stage of the applicant process. This suggests a potential lack of gender bias at these stages of applicant selection.
Authors: Florence E Turrentine; Caitlin N Dreisbach; Amanda R St Ivany; John B Hanks; Anneke T Schroen Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2019-01-08 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Shari L Meyerson; David D Odell; Joseph B Zwischenberger; Mary Schuller; Reed G Williams; Jordan D Bohnen; Gary L Dunnington; Laura Torbeck; John T Mullen; Samuel P Mandell; Michael A Choti; Eugene Foley; Chandrakanth Are; Edward Auyang; Jeffrey Chipman; Jennifer Choi; Andreas H Meier; Douglas S Smink; Kyla P Terhune; Paul E Wise; Nathaniel Soper; Keith Lillemoe; Jonathan P Fryer; Brian C George Journal: Surgery Date: 2019-07-17 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: Lindsay E Kuo; Heather G Lyu; Molly P Jarman; Nelya Melnitchouk; Gerard M Doherty; Douglas S Smink; Nancy L Cho Journal: JAMA Surg Date: 2020-09-02 Impact factor: 14.766
Authors: Fei Lin; Soo Kyung Oh; Lynn K Gordon; Stacy L Pineles; Jamie B Rosenberg; Irena Tsui Journal: BMC Med Educ Date: 2019-12-30 Impact factor: 2.463