PS1 - 03: APPLICANT PERCEPTIONS OF NEW SELECTION SYSTEMS FOR SURGICAL TRAINING: SELECTION SCIENCE DOESN’T “SCARE AWAY THE GOOD ONES”
Aimee K Gardner, PhD¹, Brian J Dunkin, MD²; ¹Baylor College of Medicine, ²Houston Methodist Hospital

Traditional screening practices for selecting surgery trainees have been criticized for subjectivity, inefficiency, and inability to predict performance. Selection science prevalent in other industries can improve this process, but may risk negative reactions from applicants unfamiliar with the tools. This study explored the experiences of recent applicants who participated in a newly-developed selection process.

Methods: Applicants to a surgical fellowship completed an online assessment containing 26 situational judgment test (SJT) items and a 108-item personality profile as part of their application package. Those with favorable scores attended an on-site visit which included structured interviews and skills testing. Upon completion of all interviews, but before match results were available, an anonymous, online survey was sent to all applicants. The survey asked about perceptions along dimensions of organizational justice theory, including job relevance, communication, opportunity to perform, consistency, fairness, and ability to gain additional insight about the position requirements pertaining to each assessment phase in which they participated on a 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) scale.

Results: Twenty-one of 51 applicants completed the survey. Those invited for an interview (N=12) had more favorable perceptions about communication (3.50±1.38 versus 2.00±0.82,p<0.05), opportunity to perform (3.33±1.56 versus 1.29±0.49,p<0.01), fairness (4.50±0.80 versus 3.43±1.40,p<0.05) and gaining more insight (4.25±1.22 versus 2.29±1.60,p< 0.01) compared to applicants not invited. Content (4.21±0.86) and consistency (4.79±0.42) means were similar. The majority of interviewed fellows (N=6) agreed that their interview was more organized (83.4%), provided more relevant information (83.4%), incorporated more relevant questions (66.7%), provided more information about the position (66.7%), allowed them to better determine their “fit” (83.4%), and were conducted by more polished (83.4%) and more organized (83.4%) faculty, compared to other programs. The majority of fellows agreed the skills testing was relevant (83.3%), consistent (100%), fair (100%), and a positive experience (66.7%).

Conclusions: A robust selection system gathers critical information from candidates, while providing them opportunities to demonstrate skills and learn more about the program. These results suggest that programs should be prepared for an array of responses to new screening practices, as applicant perceptions are directly related to how well they perform in the selection procedure.