Ophthalmology Resident Selection: Current Trends in Selection Criteria and Improving the Process
Received 31 March 2009; received in revised form 15 July 2009; accepted 27 July 2009. published online 27 January 2010. Corrected Proof
Objective
To document and assess current ophthalmology resident selection practices as well as to initiate discussion on how best to improve the process.
Design
Online survey comprising 56 questions.
Participants
Program directors, chairpersons, or members of the resident selection committee representing 65 United States ophthalmology residency programs accredited by the Accreditation Council on Graduate Medical Education.
Methods
Study participants completed an online, anonymous survey consisting primarily of multiple choice questions, with single or multiple answers.
Main Outcome Measures
Ophthalmology resident selection practices were evaluated and included: screening of applications, interview processes, selection factors, and formation of rank lists; recommendations given to applicants; and respondent satisfaction with the current selection process.
Results
As a group, survey respondents deemed the following factors most important in resident selection: interview performance (95.4%), clinical course grades (93.9%), letters of recommendation (83.1%), and board scores (80%). Statistical analyses deemed that the best predictors of resident performance are interviews, clinical course grades, recommendation letters, and ophthalmology rotation performance.
Conclusions
Ophthalmology resident selection is a relatively subjective process, continuing to rely heavily on cognitive factors. Because these factors are not always indicative of ultimate resident quality, it would be helpful if ophthalmology training programs improved selection practices to discern who most likely will become a successful resident and future ophthalmologist. Long-term studies correlating applicant attributes with residency and postresidency success are needed to recommend guidelines for a more standardized selection process.
Financial Disclosure(s)
The author(s) have no proprietary or commercial interest in any materials discussed in this article.
1Scheie Eye Institute, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
2Wills Eye Institute, Jefferson Medical College, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Correspondence Nicholas J. Volpe, MD, Scheie Eye Institute, Division of Neuro-Ophthalmology, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, 51 North 39th Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104
Manuscript no. 2009-445.
Available online: •••.
The author(s) have no proprietary or commercial interest in any materials discussed in this article.
Supported in part by an unrestricted departmental grant from Research to Prevent Blindness, Inc., New York, New York.
ABSTRACT