盲或不盲:评估在普通外科住院医师招聘中保留面试官分数和等级的影响。

IF 2.1 3区 医学 Q1 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES Journal of Surgical Education Pub Date : 2025-12-01 Epub Date: 2025-02-16 DOI:10.1016/j.jsurg.2025.103463
Nicole E. Brooks MD , Judith C. French PhD , Jeremy M. Lipman MD, MHPE , Ajita S. Prabhu MD
{"title":"盲或不盲:评估在普通外科住院医师招聘中保留面试官分数和等级的影响。","authors":"Nicole E. Brooks MD ,&nbsp;Judith C. French PhD ,&nbsp;Jeremy M. Lipman MD, MHPE ,&nbsp;Ajita S. Prabhu MD","doi":"10.1016/j.jsurg.2025.103463","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>OBJECTIVE</h3><div>Compare scoring outcomes between interviewers blinded to scores/grades/MSPE and those with the full applicant file to evaluate the effect of blinding on interview scores and ensure applicants can be confidently evaluated when blinding is used.</div></div><div><h3>DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS</h3><div>Nineteen interviewers were purposively randomized to receive a complete application or file with all information except applicant grades/MSPE/USMLE score(s) of 90 applicants prior to 218 interviews during 2022 to 2023 general surgery recruitment. Blinding was randomly assigned while ensuring blinded and nonblinded interviews for both interviewers and applicants. Two program leaders involved in study implementation were excluded from blinding. All other aspects of the selection process remained unchanged from historic methods. Each applicant had 3 to 4 interviews. Each interview was scored prior to discussion with other faculty using a 10-point scale. Descriptive and univariate statistics analyzed scoring patterns. Qualitative data regarding the experiences of blinded interviewers was analyzed to generate themes.</div></div><div><h3>RESULTS</h3><div>There were no differences in interview scores or difference from the applicants’ mean scores between blinding groups. This remained true for within-applicant analyses and for all but 1 interviewer (95%) for within-interviewer analyses. Between-interviewer score differences were seen for interview scores across all interviewers and when comparing nonblinded vs. nonblinded scores across interviewers, but not when comparing blinded vs. blinded scores across interviewers. Qualitative data support the ability to confidently evaluate interview performance when blinded, frequent practice of “self-blinding” to limit bias even when given scores/grades/MSPE, and belief that scores/grades/MSPE are relevant for screening, but the interview has separate priorities.</div></div><div><h3>CONCLUSIONS</h3><div>Blinding of interviewers to scores/grades/MSPE did not significantly change interview scoring outcomes. Interviewer experiences support the ability to confidently evaluate interview performance when blinded. Given that negative effects of blinding were not found and prior work supports that bias may be mitigated by blinded interviews, we support its use in residency recruitment.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":50033,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Surgical Education","volume":"82 12","pages":"Article 103463"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"To Blind or Not to Blind: Evaluating the Impact of Withholding Scores and Grades From Interviewers in General Surgery Resident Recruitment\",\"authors\":\"Nicole E. Brooks MD ,&nbsp;Judith C. French PhD ,&nbsp;Jeremy M. Lipman MD, MHPE ,&nbsp;Ajita S. Prabhu MD\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jsurg.2025.103463\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>OBJECTIVE</h3><div>Compare scoring outcomes between interviewers blinded to scores/grades/MSPE and those with the full applicant file to evaluate the effect of blinding on interview scores and ensure applicants can be confidently evaluated when blinding is used.</div></div><div><h3>DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS</h3><div>Nineteen interviewers were purposively randomized to receive a complete application or file with all information except applicant grades/MSPE/USMLE score(s) of 90 applicants prior to 218 interviews during 2022 to 2023 general surgery recruitment. Blinding was randomly assigned while ensuring blinded and nonblinded interviews for both interviewers and applicants. Two program leaders involved in study implementation were excluded from blinding. All other aspects of the selection process remained unchanged from historic methods. Each applicant had 3 to 4 interviews. Each interview was scored prior to discussion with other faculty using a 10-point scale. Descriptive and univariate statistics analyzed scoring patterns. Qualitative data regarding the experiences of blinded interviewers was analyzed to generate themes.</div></div><div><h3>RESULTS</h3><div>There were no differences in interview scores or difference from the applicants’ mean scores between blinding groups. This remained true for within-applicant analyses and for all but 1 interviewer (95%) for within-interviewer analyses. Between-interviewer score differences were seen for interview scores across all interviewers and when comparing nonblinded vs. nonblinded scores across interviewers, but not when comparing blinded vs. blinded scores across interviewers. Qualitative data support the ability to confidently evaluate interview performance when blinded, frequent practice of “self-blinding” to limit bias even when given scores/grades/MSPE, and belief that scores/grades/MSPE are relevant for screening, but the interview has separate priorities.</div></div><div><h3>CONCLUSIONS</h3><div>Blinding of interviewers to scores/grades/MSPE did not significantly change interview scoring outcomes. Interviewer experiences support the ability to confidently evaluate interview performance when blinded. Given that negative effects of blinding were not found and prior work supports that bias may be mitigated by blinded interviews, we support its use in residency recruitment.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50033,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Surgical Education\",\"volume\":\"82 12\",\"pages\":\"Article 103463\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Surgical Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1931720425000443\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/2/16 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Surgical Education","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1931720425000443","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/2/16 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:比较分数/等级/MSPE盲法面试者与申请人完整档案的面试者的评分结果,以评估盲法对面试分数的影响,确保在使用盲法时可以自信地评估申请人。设计、设置和参与者:在2022年至2023年普外科招募期间的218次面试中,19名面试者随机接受完整的申请或文件,其中除了90名申请人的申请人等级/MSPE/USMLE分数之外的所有信息。盲法是随机分配的,同时确保面试官和申请人都进行盲法和非盲法面试。参与研究实施的两名项目负责人被排除在盲法之外。选拔过程的所有其他方面与历史方法保持不变。每个申请人都有3到4次面试。在与其他教师讨论之前,每次面试都用10分制进行评分。描述性和单变量统计分析了评分模式。关于盲法采访者的经验定性数据进行分析,以产生主题。结果:盲法组间面试得分无差异,与申请人平均得分无差异。对于内部申请人分析和除了1位面试官(95%)之外的所有面试官分析都是如此。在所有采访者的访谈得分中,以及在采访者之间比较非盲法与非盲法得分时,可以看到采访者之间的得分差异,但在采访者之间比较盲法与盲法得分时,则没有差异。定性数据支持在盲法下自信地评估面试表现的能力,即使给定分数/等级/MSPE,也经常进行“自我盲法”以限制偏见,并且相信分数/等级/MSPE与筛选相关,但面试有单独的优先级。结论:面试官对分数/等级/MSPE的盲法并没有显著改变面试评分结果。面试官的经历支持在盲目的情况下自信地评估面试表现的能力。鉴于没有发现盲法的负面影响,并且先前的工作支持盲法访谈可以减轻偏见,我们支持在住院医师招聘中使用盲法。
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
To Blind or Not to Blind: Evaluating the Impact of Withholding Scores and Grades From Interviewers in General Surgery Resident Recruitment

OBJECTIVE

Compare scoring outcomes between interviewers blinded to scores/grades/MSPE and those with the full applicant file to evaluate the effect of blinding on interview scores and ensure applicants can be confidently evaluated when blinding is used.

DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Nineteen interviewers were purposively randomized to receive a complete application or file with all information except applicant grades/MSPE/USMLE score(s) of 90 applicants prior to 218 interviews during 2022 to 2023 general surgery recruitment. Blinding was randomly assigned while ensuring blinded and nonblinded interviews for both interviewers and applicants. Two program leaders involved in study implementation were excluded from blinding. All other aspects of the selection process remained unchanged from historic methods. Each applicant had 3 to 4 interviews. Each interview was scored prior to discussion with other faculty using a 10-point scale. Descriptive and univariate statistics analyzed scoring patterns. Qualitative data regarding the experiences of blinded interviewers was analyzed to generate themes.

RESULTS

There were no differences in interview scores or difference from the applicants’ mean scores between blinding groups. This remained true for within-applicant analyses and for all but 1 interviewer (95%) for within-interviewer analyses. Between-interviewer score differences were seen for interview scores across all interviewers and when comparing nonblinded vs. nonblinded scores across interviewers, but not when comparing blinded vs. blinded scores across interviewers. Qualitative data support the ability to confidently evaluate interview performance when blinded, frequent practice of “self-blinding” to limit bias even when given scores/grades/MSPE, and belief that scores/grades/MSPE are relevant for screening, but the interview has separate priorities.

CONCLUSIONS

Blinding of interviewers to scores/grades/MSPE did not significantly change interview scoring outcomes. Interviewer experiences support the ability to confidently evaluate interview performance when blinded. Given that negative effects of blinding were not found and prior work supports that bias may be mitigated by blinded interviews, we support its use in residency recruitment.
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
Journal of Surgical Education
Journal of Surgical Education EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES-SURGERY
CiteScore
5.60
自引率
10.30%
发文量
261
审稿时长
48 days
期刊介绍: The Journal of Surgical Education (JSE) is dedicated to advancing the field of surgical education through original research. The journal publishes research articles in all surgical disciplines on topics relative to the education of surgical students, residents, and fellows, as well as practicing surgeons. Our readers look to JSE for timely, innovative research findings from the international surgical education community. As the official journal of the Association of Program Directors in Surgery (APDS), JSE publishes the proceedings of the annual APDS meeting held during Surgery Education Week.
期刊最新文献
Development and Validation of a Rubric for Evaluating Formative Feedback on Non-Technical Skills in General Surgery Residents Using a Modified Delphi Approach Operative Review Conference: A Framework for Surgical Trainee Operative Video Review Centered on Entrustable Professional Activities Ethics Education in Neurosurgery Residency: Program Directors’ Perspectives on Perceived Gaps in the Curriculum A Targeted Curriculum Using Gamification of Topics to Address Knowledge Gaps From the Obstetrics and Gynecology Residency In-service Training Exam A Gamified Wellness Program is Associated With Reduced Emotional Exhaustion in Surgical Residents
×
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学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
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