How real is a virtual interview? Perspectives of orthopaedic surgery residency directors.

OBJECTIVE: As a result of COVID-19 pandemic, the 2021 US residency MATCH was devoid of the traditional in-person interviews. Herein, we assess the impact of Virtual Interviews (VIs) on resident selection, from the perspectives of Orthopedic Surgery (OS) Program Directors (PDs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A 14-item survey was sent to PDs of ACGME-accredited OS residencies. Questions were designed to assess the pros, cons, and robustness of VIs compared to their antecedent in-person format. RESULTS: Forty-seven PDs responded to our survey. VIs antagonized PDs' ability to assess applicants' fit to program (76.6%), commitment to specialty (64%), and interpersonal skills (68.1%). This led to heavier dependence upon applicants' portfolios (64%). Almost all respondents (97.9%) found VIs to be more cost-efficient, saving a median of $3000 in interview-related expenses. Overall, only 8.5% of PDs were willing to conduct exclusive VIs in future cycles, compared to the majority in favor of dual formats (51.5%) or exclusive in-person interviews (40.4%). CONCLUSIONS: VIs have been an overall success, making most PDs opt for dual interview formats in future cycles. How this technology is further implemented in the future remains to be seen.

Direct Comparison of In-Person Versus Virtual Interviews for Complex General Surgical Oncology Fellowship in the COVID-19 Era.

BACKGROUND: In the era of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), many Complex General Surgical Oncology (CGSO) fellowship programs implemented virtual interviews (VI) during the 2020 interview season. At our institution, we had the unique opportunity to conduct an in-person interview (IPI) prior to the pandemic-related travel restrictions, and a VI after the restrictions were in place. OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to understand how the VI model compares with the traditional IPI approach. METHODS: Online surveys were distributed to both groups, collecting feedback on their interview experience. Responses were evaluated using a two-sample t test assuming equal variances. RESULTS: Twenty-three of 26 (88%) applicants completed the survey. Most applicants reported that the interview gave them a satisfactory understanding of the CGSO fellowship (100% IPI, 92% VI) and the majority in both groups felt that the interview experience allowed them to accurately represent themselves (92% and 82%, respectively). All participants in the IPI group felt they were able to get an adequate understanding of the culture of the program, while only 64% in the VI group agreed with that statement (p = 0.02). IPI applicants were more likely to agree that the interview experience was sufficient to allow them to make a ranking decision (92% vs. 54%; p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: While the VI modality offers several advantages over the IPI, it still falls short in conveying some of the more subjective aspects of the programs, including program culture. Strategies to provide applicants with better insight into these areas during the VI will be important moving forward.

Virtual Interviews for the Independent Plastic Surgery Match: A Modern Convenience or a Modern Misrepresentation?

OBJECTIVE: The virtual interview for residency and fellowship applicants has previously been utilized preliminarily in their respective processes. The COVID-19 pandemic forced many programs to switch to a virtual interview process on short notice. In the independent plastic surgery process, which was underway when the pandemic started, applicants had a heterogeneous experience of in-person and virtual interviews. The purpose of this study was to assess if applicants prefer a virtual interview experience to an in-person interview as well as determine if virtual interview applicants had a different opinion of a program compared to the in-person interview applicants. DESIGN/SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: The 2019 to 2020 applicants who interviewed at the Indiana University Independent Plastic Surgery program were administered an anonymous online survey about their interview experience at our program. RESULTS: Our survey response was 60% (18/30). The in-person interview group (n = 10) rated their overall interview experience higher than the virtual interview group (n = 8) 8.8 vs 7.5 (p = 0.0314). The in-person interview group felt they became more acquainted with the program, the faculty, and the residents more than the virtual group (4.7 vs 3.25, p < 0.0001) (4.3 vs 3.25, p = 0.0194) (4.3 vs 2.75, p < 0.0001). The majority of applicants favored in-person interviews (16/18, 88.9%). The in-person interview group spent significantly more money on their interview at our program compared to the virtual interview group ($587 vs $0, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrated that the virtual interview process was an efficient process for applicants from both a financial and time perspective. However, the virtual interview process left applicants less satisfied with their interview experience. The applicants felt they did not become as acquainted with the program as their in-person counterparts. The virtual interview process may play a large role in residency and fellowship applications in the future, and programs should spend time on how to improve the process.