Validity Evidence for a Residency Admissions Standardized Assessment Letter for Pediatrics.

Construct: This study aims to provide validity evidence for the standardized Assessment Letter for Pediatrics as a measure of competencies expected of a 1st-year pediatrics resident as part of a pediatric residency admissions process. BACKGROUND: The Narrative Letter of Recommendation is a frequently used tool in the residency admissions process even though it has poor interrater reliability, lacks pertinent content, and does not correlate with residency performance. A newer tool, the Standardized Letter, has shown validity evidence for content and interrater reliability in other specialties. We sought to develop and provide validity evidence for the standardized Assessment Letter for Pediatrics. APPROACH: All 2012 and 2013 applicants invited to interview at the University of Geneva Pediatrics Residency Program provided 2 standardized Assessment Letters. Content for the letter was based on CanMEDS roles and ratings of 6 desired competencies and an overall assessment. Validity evidence was gathered for internal structure (Cronbach's alpha and generalizability), response process (interrater reliability with intraclass correlation), relations to other variables (Pearson's correlation coefficient), and consequences (logistic regression to predict admission). RESULTS: One hundred fourteen faculty completed 142 standardized Assessment Letters for 71 applicants. Average overall assessment was 3.0 of 4 (SD = 0.59). Cronbach's alpha was 0.93. The G-coefficient was 0.59. The decision study projected that four Assessment Letters are needed to attain a G-coefficient of 0.73. Applicant variance (28.5%) indicated high applicant differentiation. The Assessment Letter intraclass coefficient was 0.51, 95% confidence interval (CI) [0.43, 0.59]. Assessment Letter scores were correlated with the structured interview (r = .28), 95% CI [0.05, 0.51]; global rating (r = .36), 95% CI [0.13, 0.58]; and admissions decision (r = .25), 95% CI [0.02, 0.46]. Assessment Letter scores did not predict the admissions decision (odds ratio = 1.67, p = .37) after controlling for the unique contribution of the structured interview and global rating scores. CONCLUSION: Validity evidence supports use of the Assessment Letter for Pediatrics; future studies should refine items to improve predictive validity and explore how to best integrate the Assessment Letter into the residency admissions process.

Improving the residency admissions process by integrating a professionalism assessment: a validity and feasibility study.

The purpose of this study was to provide validity and feasibility evidence in measuring professionalism using the Professionalism Mini-Evaluation Exercise (P-MEX) scores as part of a residency admissions process. In 2012 and 2013, three standardized-patient-based P-MEX encounters were administered to applicants invited for an interview at the University of Geneva Pediatrics Residency Program. Validity evidence was gathered for P-MEX content (item analysis); response process (qualitative feedback); internal structure (inter-rater reliability with intraclass correlation and Generalizability); relations to other variables (correlations); and consequences (logistic regression to predict admission). To improve reliability, Kane's formula was used to create an applicant composite score using P-MEX, structured letter of recommendation (SLR), and structured interview (SI) scores. Applicant rank lists using composite scores versus faculty global ratings were compared using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Seventy applicants were assessed. Moderate associations were found between pairwise correlations of P-MEX scores and SLR (r = 0.25, P = .036), SI (r = 0.34, P = .004), and global ratings (r = 0.48, P < .001). Generalizability of the P-MEX using three cases was moderate (G-coefficient = 0.45). P-MEX scores had the greatest correlation with acceptance (r = 0.56, P < .001), were the strongest predictor of acceptance (OR 4.37, P < .001), and increased pseudo R-squared by 0.20 points. Including P-MEX scores increased composite score reliability from 0.51 to 0.74. Rank lists of applicants using composite score versus global rating differed significantly (z = 5.41, P < .001). Validity evidence supports the use of P-MEX scores to improve the reliability of the residency admissions process by improving applicant composite score reliability.