Faculty Scoring of General Surgery Residency Interviewees: A Comparison of In-Person and Virtual Interview Formats.

OBJECTIVE: With new rules regarding social distancing and non-essential travel bans, we sought to determine if faculty scoring of general surgery applicants would differ between the in-person interview (IPI) and virtual interview (VI) platforms. DESIGN: A single institution, retrospective review comparing faculty evaluation scores of applicant interviewees in the 2019 and 2020 MATCH® application cycles (IPIs) and the 2021 and 2022 application cycle (VIs) was conducted. Faculty scored applicants using a 5-point Likert scale in 7 areas of assessment and assigned each student to 1 of 4 tiers (tier 1 highest). A composite score for the 7 assessments (maximum score 35) was calculated. Mean and composite scores and tiers were compared between VI and IPI cycles and adjusted for within-interviewer correlations. The variance of the 2 groups were also compared. SETTING: Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, an academic, tertiary care hospital. PARTICIPANTS: General Surgery applicants for the 2019 to 2022 MATCH® application cycles. RESULTS: Four hundred forty-one faculty IPI ratings of General Surgery applicants were compared to 531VI ratings. No difference in mean composite scores, individual assessments, or tier ranking. Less variance was identified in the VI group for academic credentials (0.6 vs 0.6, p = 0.01), strength of letters (0.7 vs 0.4, p = 0.005), communication skills (0.4 vs 0.6, p = 0.01), personal qualities (0.2 vs 0.5, p = 0.02), overall sense of fit for program (0.6 vs 0.9, p = 0.01), and tier ranking (0.3 vs 0.4, p = 0.004). CONCLUSIONS: Faculty ratings of General Surgery applicants in the VI format appear to be similar to IPI. However, faculty ratings of VI applicants demonstrated less variability in scores in most assessments. This finding is potentially concerning, as it may suggest an inability of VI to detect subtle differences between applicants as comparted to IPI.

Investigating Gender Differences in Faculty Evaluations by Trainees in a Gender-Balanced General Surgery Program.

PURPOSE: Women account for 21% of faculty positions in general surgery. In fields with lower female representation, female faculty receive lower evaluation scores by trainees compared to male faculty. At 42%, the female faculty representation in our general surgery department doubles the national average. We sought to determine if variations in faculty evaluations would be observed in a more gender-balanced general surgery program. METHODS: Two years of faculty teaching evaluations by residents in a general surgery residency program were collected from the MedHub system. Total 3277 resident evaluations of 26 faculty members (11 female, 15 male) were analyzed. Seven areas (scored 1-7, with 1 = needs improvement and 7 = outstanding) were examined. Chi-square test was used to compare the percentage of male and female faculty members who scored a 6 or 7 in each category, and multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to determine the association of gender with the evaluation score, while adjusting for the number of encounters between the trainee and the faculty member. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between male and female faculty in the "overall" evaluation score, nor in the "practice-based learning" and the "interpersonal and communication skills" categories. Female faculty had statistically significantly higher scores in "patient care", "professionalism," and "systems-based care" categories, whereas male faculty had higher evaluations in the "medical knowledge" category. CONCLUSION: In a general surgery residency program with a relatively gender-balanced faculty, there was no gender difference in the "overall" evaluation of faculty by residents. However, there were gender differences in specific domains. These findings suggest that gender balance in teaching faculty may help eliminate previously observed teaching evaluation bias in the traditionally male dominated fields.