Thurman R Jason, Katz Eric, Carter Wallace, Han Jin, Kayala Eve, McCoin Nicole, Storrow Alan B
Department of Emergency Medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA.
Acad Emerg Med. 2009 Jun;16(6):550-7. doi: 10.1111/j.1553-2712.2009.00413.x. Epub 2009 Apr 21.
The authors hypothesized that unethical recruiting practices and illegal questioning occur during emergency medicine (EM) resident recruitment. The objectives were to estimate the prevalence of specific unethical recruiting practices and illegal questioning by EM programs based on the perceptions of residency applicants and to measure the effect of these perceptions on applicant appraisal of programs.
This was a cross-sectional survey of all applicants who matched to U.S. EM programs in 2005 and 2006. The survey questionnaire was developed by the study authors and was validated by pretesting on a small group representative of the study population. The survey addressed specific questions regarding program recruiting behaviors and interview questioning. The hyperlink to the secure anonymous online survey questionnaire was distributed to all EM program directors, asking them in turn to forward the hyperlink to their newly matched incoming residency class. All data were calculated with Score method with continuity correction and reported in proportions with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
The authors received 671 survey responses. Among respondents, 56 (8.3%, 95% CI = 6.4% to 10.7%) stated that they were specifically asked to disclose at least one program's position on their rank list by a program representative, and 44 (6.6%, 95% CI = 4.9% to 8.9%) reported that they matched at a program residing lower on their rank list than at least one other program that had informed the applicant they were ranked to match. Furthermore, 201 respondents (30.0%, 95% CI = 26.5% to 33.7%) believed that they were asked at least one illegal question during their interviews, the most common of which was inquiry into their marital status (189 respondents: 28.2%, 95% CI = 24.8% to 31.9%). Respondents were 11 times more likely to move a program to a lower position of preference on their rank order list (12.2%, 95% CI = 9.8% to 15.0%) rather than a higher position (1.1%, 95% CI = 0.5% to 2.3%) as a result of perceiving unethical recruiting behaviors or illegal questioning.
These results demonstrate that among survey respondents, some perceived unethical recruiting behaviors and illegal questioning in the 2005 and 2006 Match. Perceptions of such behaviors appeared to have a negative impact on applicant appraisal of EM residency programs.
作者推测在急诊医学(EM)住院医师招聘过程中存在不道德的招聘行为和非法提问。目的是根据住院医师申请人的看法,估计EM项目中特定不道德招聘行为和非法提问的发生率,并衡量这些看法对申请人对项目评价的影响。
这是一项对2005年和2006年匹配到美国EM项目的所有申请人的横断面调查。调查问卷由研究作者编制,并通过在一小群代表研究人群的样本上进行预测试进行了验证。该调查涉及有关项目招聘行为和面试提问的具体问题。安全匿名在线调查问卷的超链接被分发给所有EM项目主任,要求他们依次将超链接转发给他们新匹配的即将入学的住院医师班级。所有数据均采用带连续性校正的Score方法计算,并以95%置信区间(CI)的比例报告。
作者收到了671份调查回复。在受访者中,56人(8.3%,95%CI=6.4%至10.7%)表示,项目代表特别要求他们透露至少一个项目在其排名列表中的位置,44人(6.6%,95%CI=4.9%至8.9%)报告说,他们匹配到的项目在其排名列表中的位置低于至少一个告知申请人他们被排名匹配的其他项目。此外,201名受访者(30.0%,95%CI=26.5%至33.7%)认为他们在面试中至少被问到一个非法问题,其中最常见的是询问他们的婚姻状况(189名受访者:28.2%,95%CI=24.8%至31.9%)。由于察觉到不道德的招聘行为或非法提问,受访者将一个项目在其排名顺序列表中移至较低偏好位置的可能性(12.2%,95%CI=9.8%至15.0%)是移至较高位置(1.1%,95%CI=0.5%至2.3%)的11倍。
这些结果表明,在调查受访者中,一些人在2005年和2006年的招聘中察觉到了不道德的招聘行为和非法提问。对这些行为的看法似乎对申请人对EM住院医师项目的评价产生了负面影响。