A Comparison of Holistic Application Review versus Keyword Search for Residency Application Review.

IF 2.8 4区医学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH

Academic Psychiatry Pub Date : 2025-09-08 DOI:10.1007/s40596-025-02216-5

Jessica Obeysekare, Anu Nagar, Neha Hudepohl

{"title":"A Comparison of Holistic Application Review versus Keyword Search for Residency Application Review.","authors":"Jessica Obeysekare, Anu Nagar, Neha Hudepohl","doi":"10.1007/s40596-025-02216-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: Application review is a lengthy time commitment. The objective of this study is to retrospectively compare the list of recommended applicants as generated by two processes: (1) faculty holistic review and (2) keyword search via Thalamus Cortex, residency application management software, to see how much overlap exists between the two strategies.Methods: Faculty at the training program completed the traditional application review performed by manual, holistic review of each eligible application, and submitted scores on their top 10-15 applicants to the program director (PD). The PD and associate program director (APD) input eight keywords into Cortex and sorted the applications by total keyword count.Results: There were 86 applicants selected for interview offers by holistic review, the typical process at this program. A second list of 86 applicants was generated by selecting those receiving the highest number of keywords, taking < 1 h to create. Applicants on both lists were compared; the authors found that 17 (19.8%) applicants appeared on both lists. Within the top ten applicants based on keyword count, three (30%) had been identified through holistic review.Conclusions: Although the keyword process took substantially less time, the percentage agreement is still low. The authors will not move to the keyword method for the next application season; however, they do plan to continue to refine the keywords and compare percent agreement in future years. By closely re-reviewing applicants who score highly on keyword search, this second process can supplement the manual holistic review.","PeriodicalId":7069,"journal":{"name":"Academic Psychiatry","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Academic Psychiatry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40596-025-02216-5","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Application review is a lengthy time commitment. The objective of this study is to retrospectively compare the list of recommended applicants as generated by two processes: (1) faculty holistic review and (2) keyword search via Thalamus Cortex, residency application management software, to see how much overlap exists between the two strategies.

Methods: Faculty at the training program completed the traditional application review performed by manual, holistic review of each eligible application, and submitted scores on their top 10-15 applicants to the program director (PD). The PD and associate program director (APD) input eight keywords into Cortex and sorted the applications by total keyword count.

Results: There were 86 applicants selected for interview offers by holistic review, the typical process at this program. A second list of 86 applicants was generated by selecting those receiving the highest number of keywords, taking < 1 h to create. Applicants on both lists were compared; the authors found that 17 (19.8%) applicants appeared on both lists. Within the top ten applicants based on keyword count, three (30%) had been identified through holistic review.

Conclusions: Although the keyword process took substantially less time, the percentage agreement is still low. The authors will not move to the keyword method for the next application season; however, they do plan to continue to refine the keywords and compare percent agreement in future years. By closely re-reviewing applicants who score highly on keyword search, this second process can supplement the manual holistic review.

查看原文本刊更多论文

住院医师申请整体审查与关键字搜索之比较。

目的：应用程序审查是一个漫长的时间承诺。本研究的目的是回顾性比较两个过程产生的推荐申请人名单：(1)教师整体审查和(2)通过丘脑皮质，住院医师申请管理软件的关键字搜索，看看这两种策略之间存在多少重叠。方法：培训项目的教师通过手工完成传统的申请审查，对每个符合条件的申请进行全面审查，并将前10-15名申请人的分数提交给项目主任（PD）。PD和副项目总监（APD）在Cortex中输入8个关键字，并根据关键字总数对应用程序进行排序。结果：通过全面审查，86名申请者获得了面试机会，这是该项目的典型流程。第二份86名申请者的名单是通过选择那些获得最多关键字的人生成的，得出结论：尽管关键字过程花费的时间大大减少，但一致性的百分比仍然很低。在下一个应用季节，作者不会使用关键字方法；然而，他们确实计划在未来几年继续完善关键词，并比较一致性的百分比。通过对关键词搜索得分高的申请人进行仔细的重新审查，这第二个过程可以补充人工全面审查。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Academic Psychiatry Multiple-

CiteScore

3.60

自引率

20.00%

发文量

157

期刊介绍： Academic Psychiatry is the international journal of the American Association of Chairs of Departments of Psychiatry, American Association of Directors of Psychiatric Residency Training, Association for Academic Psychiatry, and Association of Directors of Medical Student Education in Psychiatry. Academic Psychiatry publishes original, scholarly work in psychiatry and the behavioral sciences that focuses on innovative education, academic leadership, and advocacy. The scope of the journal includes work that furthers knowledge and stimulates evidence-based advances in academic psychiatry in the following domains: education and training, leadership and administration, career and professional development, ethics and professionalism, and health and well-being.