Results of the 2008 NRMP Program Director Survey pdf

Figure 1 All Specialties Percentage of Programs Citing Each Factor in Selecting Applicants to Interview Medical School Performance and Test Scores Medical Student Performance Evaluation

Trang 1

www.nrmp.orgDecember 2008

Results of the 2008

NRMP Program Director Survey

Trang 2

Requests for permission to use these data as well as questions about the content of this publication or the National Resident Matching Program data collections may be directed to

Philip Szenas, Director of Research, National Resident Matching Program,

at pszenas@aamc.org

Questions about the NRMP should be directed to Mona Signer, Executive Director, NRMP,

at msigner@aamc.org

Suggested Citation National Resident Matching Program, Data Release and Research Committee: Results of the

2008 NRMP Program Director Survey National Resident Matching Program, Washington, DC

2008

Trang 3

Table of Contents

Introduction 1

All Specialties 2

Charts for Individual Specialties Anesthesiology 9

Dermatology 16

Diagnostic Radiology 23

Emergency Medicine 30

Family Medicine 37

General Surgery 44

Internal Medicine 51

Internal Medicine/Pediatrics 58

Neurology 65

Obstetrics and Gynecology .72

Orthopaedic Surgery 79

Otolaryngology 86

Pathology-Anatomic and Clinical 93

Pediatrics 100

Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 107

Plastic Surgery 114

Psychiatry 121

Radiation Oncology 128

Transitional Year 135

Trang 4

The National Resident Matching Program (NRMP)

conducted a survey of the directors of all programs

participating in the 2008 Main Residency Match The

primary purpose of the survey was to shed light on the

factors that program directors use in both (1) selecting

applicant to interview and (2) ranking applicants for the

Match

The survey was fielded during the 19 days between the

rank order list deadline and Match Week so that program

match outcomes would not influence respondents'

answers

The survey solicited information on:

• The number of applications received, screened, and

reviewed, as well as the number of applicants

interviewed and ranked

• The percentage of interview slots offered prior to the

November 1 release date of the Medical Student

Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter)

• Whether the program typically interviews and ranks

specific applicant groups

• The use of test scores in considering which applicants

This report presents preliminary results on selected items from the survey by specialty The NRMP hopes that program directors, school officials, and applicants find these data useful as they prepare for and participate in the Match.

Number Responding

Response Rate

Trang 5

All Specialties Combined

Trang 6

Figure 1

All Specialties Percentage of Programs Citing Each Factor in Selecting Applicants to Interview

Medical School Performance and Test Scores

Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE)

Grades in required clerkshipsGrades in clerkship in desired specialty

Gaps in medical educationClass ranking/quartileHonors in clinical clerkshipsConsistency of gradesHonors in clerkship in desired specialty

Honors in basic sciences

Department chair in the specialtyColleague in the specialtyClerkship director in the specialty

Other faculty

USMLE/COMLEX Step 1 scoreUSMLE/COMLEX Step 2 scoreUSMLE/COMLEX Step 3 score

Graduate of U.S allopathic medical school

Graduate of highly regarded U.S medical school

Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership

Medical School Performance

Standardized Test Scores

U.S Allopathic Graduates Letters of Recommendation from

Trang 7

Figure 1

(continued)

All Specialties Percentage of Programs Citing Each Factor in Selecting Applicants to Interview

Other life experienceApplicant was flagged with NRMP match violation

Community serviceVisa statusFluency in language spoken by patient population

Perceived commitment to specialtyPersonal prior knowledge of the applicant

Audition elective/rotation within your department

Perceived interest in programAway rotation in your specialty at another institution

Involvement in researchInterest in researchInvolvement in specialty-specific research

Interest in academic career

Personal Statement

Commitment

Research

Trang 8

All Specialties Mean Importance Ratings* of Factors in Applicant Ranking

*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important)

4.0 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.7 3.7 3.6 3.8 2.9

3.9 3.8 3.8 3.5

3.8 3.3

3.2

3.8 3.6 2.3

Grades in clerkship in desired specialty

Grades in required clerkshipsHonors in clerkship in desired specialty

Honors in clinical clerkshipsClass ranking/quartileConsistency of gradesGaps in medical educationHonors in basic sciences

Clerkship director in specialtyColleague in the specialtyChair in the specialty

Other faculty

Mean Rating +/- 1 Standard Deviation

Medical School Performance/Grades

U.S Allopathic Graduates

Standardized Test Scores Letters of Recommendation from

Figure 2

Trang 9

Figure 2

(continued)

All Specialties Mean Importance Ratings* of Factors in Applicant Ranking

Other Factors

4.3 4.3 4.2 4.2 4.1 3.8 4.1 3.7

4.3 3.4

3.1

3.6 3.6 2.5

3.3 3.1 3.0 2.9

2.8 2.8 2.7 2.6

2.6 2.3

Interpersonal skills exhibited during interview

Interactions with faculty during interview

Professional attributes exhibited during interview

Interactions with housestaff during interview

Feedback from current residentsLeadership qualities exhibited during interview

Perceived commitment to specialtyPerceived interest in program

Applicant was flagged with NRMP Match violation

Visa statusFluency in language spoken by patient population

Personal prior knowledge of the applicant

Away rotation in your specialty at another institution

Personal statementOther life experienceVolunteer/extracurricular experiences

Community service

Demonstrated involvement in research

Interest in researchInvolvement in specialty-specific research

Other post-interview contactSecond interview/visit

Mean +/- 1 Standard Deviation

Residency Interview

Research Involvement

Miscellaneous Applicant Considerations

Personal Knowledge of Applicant

Post Interview Contact

Trang 10

Scores Reqired? If Required, Do You Consider Applicants Who

Failed Exam on 1st Attempt?

Scores Reqired? If Required, Do You Consider Applicants

Who Failed Exam on 1st Attempt?

Figure 3 All Specialties Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 Scores When

Considering Which Applicants to Interview

Trang 11

Figure 4 All Specialties Percentage of Program's Interview Slots Offered Prior to the

November 1st MSPE Release Date Percent of Programs

19.1%

12%

3.4% 34.8%

Trang 12

Anesthesiology

Trang 13

Figure AN-1 Anesthesiology Percentage of Programs Citing Each Factor in Selecting Applicants to Interview

Other faculty

Trang 14

Figure AN-1

(continued)

Anesthesiology Percentage of Programs Citing Each Factor in Selecting Applicants to Interview

Commitment

Research

Trang 15

Anesthesiology Mean Importance Ratings* of Factors in Applicant Ranking

3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 4.0 3.9 4.1 3.4

3.8 3.6 3.7 3.4

3.8 3.5 3.5

4.1 4.1 2.6

Other faculty

Figure AN-2

Trang 16

Figure AN-2

(continued)

Anesthesiology Mean Importance Ratings* of Factors in Applicant Ranking

Other Factors

4.2 4.1 4.1 3.9 3.8 3.8

4.4 4.0

4.2 3.3

2.9

4.0 3.9 2.7

3.0 3.0 2.7 2.5

3.1 2.9 3.1 2.9

2.8 2.5

Community service

Trang 17

Figure AN-3 Anesthesiology Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 Scores When

Trang 18

Figure AN-4 Anesthesiology Percentage of Program's Interview Slots Offered Prior to the

21.7%

19.3%

6% 20.5%

Trang 19

Dermatology

Trang 20

Figure DM-1 Dermatology Percentage of Programs Citing Each Factor in Selecting Applicants to Interview

Other faculty

Trang 21

Figure DM-1

(continued)

Dermatology Percentage of Programs Citing Each Factor in Selecting Applicants to Interview

Commitment

Research

Trang 22

Dermatology Mean Importance Ratings* of Factors in Applicant Ranking

4.2 4.1 4.2 3.9 4.1 3.8 3.9 3.4

3.5

4.3 4.2 4.3 3.7

3.8 3.2

3.4

3.8 3.3

2.1

Other faculty

Figure DM-2

Trang 23

Figure DM-2

(continued)

Dermatology Mean Importance Ratings* of Factors in Applicant Ranking

Other Factors

4.0 4.0 3.9 4.0 3.7 3.7

4.2 3.8

3.5 2.7

2.6

3.9 3.6 2.8

3.8 3.3

3.1 3.1

3.3 3.2 3.3 3.5

1.9 1.5

Community service

Trang 24

Figure DM-3 Dermatology Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 Scores When

Trang 25

Figure DM-4 Dermatology Percentage of Program's Interview Slots Offered Prior to the

Trang 26

Diagnostic Radiology

Trang 27

Figure DR-1 Diagnostic Radiology Percentage of Programs Citing Each Factor in Selecting Applicants to Interview

Other faculty

Trang 28

Figure DR-1

(continued)

Diagnostic Radiology Percentage of Programs Citing Each Factor in Selecting Applicants to Interview

Commitment

Research

Trang 29

Diagnostic Radiology Mean Importance Ratings* of Factors in Applicant Ranking

3.8 4.0 3.8 4.1 4.0 4.2 4.0 3.9 3.5

3.8 3.9 3.6 3.8

3.9 3.5 3.7

4.0 3.3

2.4

Other faculty

Figure DR-2

Trang 30

Figure DR-2

(continued)

Diagnostic Radiology Mean Importance Ratings* of Factors in Applicant Ranking

Other Factors

4.2 4.2 4.1 4.2 4.1 3.8 3.9 3.7

4.2 3.5

2.8

3.7 3.5 2.4

3.2 3.0 2.9 2.8

3.2 3.0 3.0 2.7

2.5 2.2

Community service

Trang 31

Figure DR-3 Diagnostic Radiology Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 Scores When

Trang 32

Figure DR-4 Diagnostic Radiology Percentage of Program's Interview Slots Offered Prior to the

Trang 33

Emergency Medicine

Trang 34

Figure EM-1 Emergency Medicine Percentage of Programs Citing Each Factor in Selecting Applicants to Interview

Other faculty

Trang 35

Figure EM-1

(continued)

Emergency Medicine Percentage of Programs Citing Each Factor in Selecting Applicants to Interview

Commitment

Research

Trang 36

Emergency Medicine Mean Importance Ratings* of Factors in Applicant Ranking

4.4 3.9

4.2 3.6

3.8 3.5 3.3 3.7 2.4

4.6 4.1

4.0 3.0

3.7 3.2

3.2

3.4 3.3 2.2

Other faculty

Figure EM-2

Trang 37

Figure EM-2

(continued)

Emergency Medicine Mean Importance Ratings* of Factors in Applicant Ranking

Other Factors

4.2 4.2 4.2 4.1 4.1 3.7 4.0 3.3

4.1 2.9

2.7

3.9 4.2 3.6

2.6

3.2 2.9 2.8

2.7 2.6 2.7 2.5

2.3 2.3

Community service

Trang 38

Figure EM-3 Emergency Medicine Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 Scores When

Trang 39

Figure EM-4 Emergency Medicine Percentage of Program's Interview Slots Offered Prior to the

20.6%

6.2%

0% 24.7%

Trang 40

Family Medicine

Tiêu đề	Results of the 2008 NRMP Program Director Survey
Trường học	National Resident Matching Program
Chuyên ngành	Medical Education
Thể loại	Survey Report
Năm xuất bản	2008
Thành phố	Washington

Định dạng
Số trang	144
Dung lượng	414,7 KB