Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
N.M. Deiorio is associate dean for student affairs and professor, Department of Emergency Medicine, Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine, Richmond, Virginia. Z.J. Jarou is clinical associate, Section of Emergency Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Chicago Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois. A. Alker is a resident, Department of Emergency Medicine, University of California, San Diego School of Medicine, San Diego, California. S.B. Bird is program director, Department of Emergency Medicine, and vice chair for education, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, Massachusetts. J. Druck is associate professor and assistant program director, Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Denver, Colorado. F.E. Gallahue is associate professor and director, Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. K.M. Hiller is professor and director of undergraduate education, Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Arizona College of Medicine-Tucson, Tucson, Arizona. E. Karl is a resident, Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, Nebraska. A.E. Pierce is associate professor, Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas. L. Fletcher is an intern, Association of American Medical Colleges, Washington, DC. D. Dunleavy is director of admissions and selection research and development, Association of American Medical Colleges, Washington, DC.
Published: October 2019
AI Article Synopsis
Article Abstract
Purpose: This study examined applicant reactions to the Association of American Medical Colleges Standardized Video Interview (SVI) during its first year of operational use in emergency medicine (EM) residency program selection to identify strategies to improve applicants' SVI experience and attitudes.
Method: Individuals who self-classified as EM applicants applying in the Electronic Residency Application Service 2018 cycle and who completed the SVI in summer 2017 were invited to participate in 2 surveys. Survey 1, which focused on procedural issues, was administered immediately after SVI completion. Survey 2, which focused on applicants' SVI experience, was administered in fall 2017, after SVI scores were released.
Results: The response rates for surveys 1 and 2 were 82.3% (2,906/3,532) and 58.7% (2,074/3,532), respectively. Applicant reactions varied by aspect of the SVI studied and their SVI total scores. Most applicants were satisfied with most procedural aspects of the SVI, but most applicants were not satisfied with the SVI overall or with their total SVI scores. About 20% to 30% of applicants had neutral opinions about most aspects of the SVI. Negative reactions to the SVI were stronger for applicants who scored lower on the SVI.
Conclusions: Applicants had generally negative reactions to the SVI. Most were skeptical of its ability to assess the target competencies and its potential to add value to the selection process. Applicant acceptance and appreciation of the SVI will be critical to the SVI's acceptance by the graduate medical education community.
