视网膜外科奖学金申请人对面对面面试与虚拟面试形式的看法。

Journal of academic ophthalmology (2017) Pub Date : 2023-12-05 eCollection Date: 2023-07-01 DOI:10.1055/s-0043-1777415
Sonya Besagar, Shriji Patel, Lejla Vajzovic, Adrienne W Scott, Xiangyu Ji, Qingxia Chen, Avni Finn
{"title":"视网膜外科奖学金申请人对面对面面试与虚拟面试形式的看法。","authors":"Sonya Besagar, Shriji Patel, Lejla Vajzovic, Adrienne W Scott, Xiangyu Ji, Qingxia Chen, Avni Finn","doi":"10.1055/s-0043-1777415","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Purpose</b>  This article compares applicants' perceptions of and experiences with virtual and in-person interviews for surgical retina fellowship. <b>Methods</b>  A survey was distributed via email to all applicants of three vitreoretinal surgery fellowship programs for the 2021 to 2022 and 2022 to 2023 application cycles. <b>Main Outcome Measures</b>  Participants were surveyed regarding cost; burden of scheduling; number of applications and interviews completed; ability to gain a true feel of the program, location, and preceptor; and number of work and surgical days missed. <b>Results</b>  Of 151 applicants contacted, 36 completed the survey (23.8% response rate). Of the respondents, 25.0% attended only virtual interviews, 19.4% attended mostly virtual interviews, 30.6% attended mostly in-person interviews, and 25.0% attended half virtual and half in-person interviews. Average expenditure was significantly lower for applicants with mostly and completely virtual interviews compared with applicants with mostly in-person and half virtual, half in-person ( <i>p</i>  < 0.001). Applicants with mostly virtual interviews reported a lower ability to gain a true perception of the program and the program location ( <i>p</i>  = 0.003 and <i>p</i>  < 0.001, respectively). There was no difference in burden of scheduling, number of interviews completed, or number of work and surgical days missed. When applicants were asked what type of interview format they would prefer if they could repeat the cycle, those who interviewed mostly in-person largely chose in-person as their preference (72.7%), while participants who interviewed mostly or completely virtually were evenly split between in-person, virtual, and hybrid ( <i>p</i>  = 0.136). <b>Conclusion</b>  As fellowship programs and institutions decide whether they will return to in-person interviews or maintain a virtual interview format in the long term, they must weigh the lower cost of virtual interviews with the improved ability to gain a more accurate perception of the program and location allowed by in-person interviews, as well as potentially greater satisfaction with the in-person format.</p>","PeriodicalId":73579,"journal":{"name":"Journal of academic ophthalmology (2017)","volume":"15 2","pages":"e271-e275"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10697792/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Applicant Perceptions of In-Person versus Virtual Interview Format for Surgical Retina Fellowship.\",\"authors\":\"Sonya Besagar, Shriji Patel, Lejla Vajzovic, Adrienne W Scott, Xiangyu Ji, Qingxia Chen, Avni Finn\",\"doi\":\"10.1055/s-0043-1777415\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Purpose</b>  This article compares applicants' perceptions of and experiences with virtual and in-person interviews for surgical retina fellowship. <b>Methods</b>  A survey was distributed via email to all applicants of three vitreoretinal surgery fellowship programs for the 2021 to 2022 and 2022 to 2023 application cycles. <b>Main Outcome Measures</b>  Participants were surveyed regarding cost; burden of scheduling; number of applications and interviews completed; ability to gain a true feel of the program, location, and preceptor; and number of work and surgical days missed. <b>Results</b>  Of 151 applicants contacted, 36 completed the survey (23.8% response rate). Of the respondents, 25.0% attended only virtual interviews, 19.4% attended mostly virtual interviews, 30.6% attended mostly in-person interviews, and 25.0% attended half virtual and half in-person interviews. Average expenditure was significantly lower for applicants with mostly and completely virtual interviews compared with applicants with mostly in-person and half virtual, half in-person ( <i>p</i>  < 0.001). Applicants with mostly virtual interviews reported a lower ability to gain a true perception of the program and the program location ( <i>p</i>  = 0.003 and <i>p</i>  < 0.001, respectively). There was no difference in burden of scheduling, number of interviews completed, or number of work and surgical days missed. When applicants were asked what type of interview format they would prefer if they could repeat the cycle, those who interviewed mostly in-person largely chose in-person as their preference (72.7%), while participants who interviewed mostly or completely virtually were evenly split between in-person, virtual, and hybrid ( <i>p</i>  = 0.136). <b>Conclusion</b>  As fellowship programs and institutions decide whether they will return to in-person interviews or maintain a virtual interview format in the long term, they must weigh the lower cost of virtual interviews with the improved ability to gain a more accurate perception of the program and location allowed by in-person interviews, as well as potentially greater satisfaction with the in-person format.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":73579,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of academic ophthalmology (2017)\",\"volume\":\"15 2\",\"pages\":\"e271-e275\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10697792/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of academic ophthalmology (2017)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0043-1777415\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/7/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of academic ophthalmology (2017)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0043-1777415","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/7/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:本文比较了视网膜外科奖学金申请人对虚拟面试和面对面面试的看法和经验。方法通过电子邮件对2021 - 2022年和2022 - 2023年三个玻璃体视网膜手术奖学金项目的申请人进行调查。对参与者进行成本调查;调度负担;已完成的申请及面试数目;对课程、地点和导师有真实感受的能力;以及缺勤和手术天数。结果在联系的151名申请人中,36人完成调查,回复率为23.8%。在受访者中,25.0%的人只参加虚拟访谈,19.4%的人主要参加虚拟访谈,30.6%的人主要参加面对面访谈,25.0%的人参加一半虚拟一半面对面访谈。与大部分面试和一半面试和一半面试的申请人相比,大部分面试和完全虚拟面试的申请人的平均支出明显更低(p = 0.003和p = 0.136)。当奖学金项目和机构决定他们是回归面对面面试还是长期保持虚拟面试形式时,他们必须权衡虚拟面试的低成本与面对面面试所允许的获得更准确的项目和地点的能力的提高,以及对面对面面试形式的潜在更高满意度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Applicant Perceptions of In-Person versus Virtual Interview Format for Surgical Retina Fellowship.

Purpose  This article compares applicants' perceptions of and experiences with virtual and in-person interviews for surgical retina fellowship. Methods  A survey was distributed via email to all applicants of three vitreoretinal surgery fellowship programs for the 2021 to 2022 and 2022 to 2023 application cycles. Main Outcome Measures  Participants were surveyed regarding cost; burden of scheduling; number of applications and interviews completed; ability to gain a true feel of the program, location, and preceptor; and number of work and surgical days missed. Results  Of 151 applicants contacted, 36 completed the survey (23.8% response rate). Of the respondents, 25.0% attended only virtual interviews, 19.4% attended mostly virtual interviews, 30.6% attended mostly in-person interviews, and 25.0% attended half virtual and half in-person interviews. Average expenditure was significantly lower for applicants with mostly and completely virtual interviews compared with applicants with mostly in-person and half virtual, half in-person ( p  < 0.001). Applicants with mostly virtual interviews reported a lower ability to gain a true perception of the program and the program location ( p  = 0.003 and p  < 0.001, respectively). There was no difference in burden of scheduling, number of interviews completed, or number of work and surgical days missed. When applicants were asked what type of interview format they would prefer if they could repeat the cycle, those who interviewed mostly in-person largely chose in-person as their preference (72.7%), while participants who interviewed mostly or completely virtually were evenly split between in-person, virtual, and hybrid ( p  = 0.136). Conclusion  As fellowship programs and institutions decide whether they will return to in-person interviews or maintain a virtual interview format in the long term, they must weigh the lower cost of virtual interviews with the improved ability to gain a more accurate perception of the program and location allowed by in-person interviews, as well as potentially greater satisfaction with the in-person format.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
13 weeks
期刊最新文献
Erratum: The Big Data Gap: Asymmetric Information in the Ophthalmology Residency Match Process and the Argument for Transparent Residency Data. Self-Reported Perceptions of Preparedness among Incoming Ophthalmology Residents. The Matthew Effect: Prevalence of Doctor and Physician Parents among Ophthalmology Applicants. Gender Representation on North American Ophthalmology Societies' Governance Boards. The Big Data Gap: Asymmetric Information in the Ophthalmology Residency Match Process and the Argument for Transparent Residency Data.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1