I Highly Recommend This Candidate: Survey of PGY1 Program Directors Regarding Residency Letter Recommendation Levels

IF 3.5 4区教育学 Q1 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES

American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education Pub Date : 2026-04-01 Epub Date: 2026-03-10 DOI:10.1016/j.ajpe.2026.101964

Derek A. Gaul , Priyanka P. Gannavarapu , Anna Phillips Shaw , Chelsea A. Keedy

{"title":"I Highly Recommend This Candidate: Survey of PGY1 Program Directors Regarding Residency Letter Recommendation Levels","authors":"Derek A. Gaul , Priyanka P. Gannavarapu , Anna Phillips Shaw , Chelsea A. Keedy","doi":"10.1016/j.ajpe.2026.101964","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><div>The impressions of Postgraduate Year 1 (PGY1) residency program directors (RPDs) on the utility of the recommendation concerning admission portion of the Pharmacy Online Residency Centralized Application Service (PhORCAS) letter of recommendation (LOR) for residency candidate applications was evaluated.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>This was a cross-sectional, survey-based study addressed to RPDs of American Society of Health-System Pharmacists (ASHP)–accredited residency programs. A 10-item survey assessing program demographics, current rating scales, and alternative rating scales was administered electronically. The primary outcome was to determine the perceived utility of the level of recommendation scale (PhORCAS recommendation concerning admission) for residency applicants. The secondary outcomes assessed the perceived usability and objectivity of alternative scales.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>The majority of respondents (309/551) indicated the current level of recommendation scale format was only somewhat effective (56%) and that the recommendation level selected by letter writers impacted their ability to assess applications to at least some degree. This included statistically significant distributions of responses regarding the impact of evaluation options (<em>p</em> < .001) and inflation (<em>p</em> < .001). An alternative 5-point scale with associated percentile guidance was chosen by the majority of RPDs as the most useful (65%) and most objective (68%) rating scale. Varying respondent demographics did not significantly affect the perceived usefulness and objectivity of the various rating scales.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>A significant proportion of RPDs find the utility of the current level of recommendation scale limited and may prefer a rating scale with additional points and percentile guidance for both usefulness and objectivity.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":55530,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education","volume":"90 4","pages":"Article 101964"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2026-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002945926010624","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/3/10 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective

The impressions of Postgraduate Year 1 (PGY1) residency program directors (RPDs) on the utility of the recommendation concerning admission portion of the Pharmacy Online Residency Centralized Application Service (PhORCAS) letter of recommendation (LOR) for residency candidate applications was evaluated.

Methods

This was a cross-sectional, survey-based study addressed to RPDs of American Society of Health-System Pharmacists (ASHP)–accredited residency programs. A 10-item survey assessing program demographics, current rating scales, and alternative rating scales was administered electronically. The primary outcome was to determine the perceived utility of the level of recommendation scale (PhORCAS recommendation concerning admission) for residency applicants. The secondary outcomes assessed the perceived usability and objectivity of alternative scales.

Results

The majority of respondents (309/551) indicated the current level of recommendation scale format was only somewhat effective (56%) and that the recommendation level selected by letter writers impacted their ability to assess applications to at least some degree. This included statistically significant distributions of responses regarding the impact of evaluation options (p < .001) and inflation (p < .001). An alternative 5-point scale with associated percentile guidance was chosen by the majority of RPDs as the most useful (65%) and most objective (68%) rating scale. Varying respondent demographics did not significantly affect the perceived usefulness and objectivity of the various rating scales.

Conclusion

A significant proportion of RPDs find the utility of the current level of recommendation scale limited and may prefer a rating scale with additional points and percentile guidance for both usefulness and objectivity.

查看原文本刊更多论文

我强烈推荐这个候选人：PGY1项目主任关于住院医生推荐信水平的调查。

目的：评估研究生一年级（PGY1）住院医师项目主任（rpd）对PhORCAS推荐信（LOR）中关于住院医师候选人申请入学部分的推荐的效用的印象。方法：这是一项横断面，基于调查的研究，针对美国卫生系统药剂师协会（ASHP）认可的住院医师项目的rpd。一个十项调查评估计划人口统计，当前评级量表，和可选的评级量表被电子管理。主要结果是确定推荐等级量表（PhORCAS关于入学的推荐）对住院申请人的感知效用。次要结果评估可选量表的感知可用性和客观性。结果：大多数受访者（309/551）表示，目前的推荐量表格式水平仅在一定程度上有效（56%），并且写信人选择的推荐等级至少在一定程度上影响了他们评估申请的能力。这包括关于评估选项的影响（p < 0.001）和通货膨胀（p < 0.001）的响应的统计显著分布。大多数rpd选择了另一种带有相关百分位数指导的5分制量表作为最有用（65%）和最客观（68%）的评定量表。不同的被调查者人口统计数据对各种评定量表的感知有用性和客观性没有显著影响。结论：相当大比例的rpd认为当前推荐量表的效用有限，他们可能更喜欢一个有额外分数和百分位数指导的有用性和客观性的评分量表。

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

American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education 医学-学科教育

CiteScore

4.30

自引率

15.20%

发文量

114

期刊介绍： The Journal accepts unsolicited manuscripts that have not been published and are not under consideration for publication elsewhere. The Journal only considers material related to pharmaceutical education for publication. Authors must prepare manuscripts to conform to the Journal style (Author Instructions). All manuscripts are subject to peer review and approval by the editor prior to acceptance for publication. Reviewers are assigned by the editor with the advice of the editorial board as needed. Manuscripts are submitted and processed online (Submit a Manuscript) using Editorial Manager, an online manuscript tracking system that facilitates communication between the editorial office, editor, associate editors, reviewers, and authors. After a manuscript is accepted, it is scheduled for publication in an upcoming issue of the Journal. All manuscripts are formatted and copyedited, and returned to the author for review and approval of the changes. Approximately 2 weeks prior to publication, the author receives an electronic proof of the article for final review and approval. Authors are not assessed page charges for publication.