To Blind or Not to Blind: Evaluating the Impact of Withholding Scores and Grades From Interviewers in General Surgery Resident Recruitment.

Nicole E Brooks, Judith C French, Jeremy M Lipman, Ajita S Prabhu
{"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, Judith C French, Jeremy M Lipman, Ajita S Prabhu","doi":"10.1016/j.jsurg.2025.103463","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Design, setting and participants: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":94109,"journal":{"name":"Journal of surgical education","volume":" ","pages":"103463"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of surgical education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsurg.2025.103463","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

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
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信