AAMC 标准化视频面试与急诊电子标准化推荐信：绩效特征比较。

The AAMC Standardized Video Interview and the Electronic Standardized Letter of Evaluation in Emergency Medicine: A Comparison of Performance Characteristics.

机构信息

L.R. Hopson is emergency medicine residency program director and associate professor, Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, Michigan; ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1183-4751. L. Regan is emergency medicine residency program director, vice chair for education, and associate professor, Department of Emergency Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland; ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0390-4243. M.C. Bond is emergency medicine residency program director and associate professor, Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland; ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5527-6758. J. Branzetti is emergency medicine residency program director, Department of Emergency Medicine, New York University School of Medicine, New York, New York; ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2397-0566. E.A. Samuels is assistant professor of emergency medicine, Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island; ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2414-110X. B. Naemi is manager, Admissions and Selection Research, Association of American Medical Colleges, Washington, DC. D. Dunleavy is director, Admissions and Selection Research, Association of American Medical Colleges, Washington, DC. M.A. Gisondi is associate professor and vice chair of education, Department of Emergency Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California; ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6800-3932.

出版信息

Acad Med. 2019 Oct;94(10):1513-1521. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000002889.

DOI:10.1097/ACM.0000000000002889

PMID:31335814

Abstract

PURPOSE

To compare the performance characteristics of the electronic Standardized Letter of Evaluation (eSLOE), a widely used structured assessment of emergency medicine (EM) residency applicants, and the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) Standardized Video Interview (SVI), a new tool designed by the AAMC to assess interpersonal and communication skills and professionalism knowledge.

METHOD

The authors matched EM residency applicants with valid SVI total scores and completed eSLOEs in the 2018 Match application cycle. They examined correlations and group differences for both tools, United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step exam scores, and honor society memberships.

RESULTS

The matched sample included 2,884 applicants. SVI score and eSLOE global assessment ratings demonstrated small positive correlations approaching r = 0.20. eSLOE ratings had higher correlations with measures of academic ability (USMLE scores, academic honor society membership) than did SVI scores. Group differences were minimal for the SVI, with scores slightly favoring women (d = -0.21) and US-MD applicants (d = 0.23-0.42). Group differences in eSLOE ratings were small, favoring women over men (approaching d = -0.20) and white applicants over black applicants (approaching d = 0.40).

CONCLUSIONS

Small positive correlations between SVI score and eSLOE global assessment ratings, alongside varying correlations with academic ability indicators, suggest these are complementary tools. Findings suggest the eSLOE is subject to similar sources and degrees of bias as other common assessments; these group differences were not observed with the SVI. Further examination of both tools is necessary to understand their ability to predict clinical performance.

摘要

目的

比较电子标准化推荐信（eSLOE）和美国医学协会（AAMC）标准化视频面试（SVI）的性能特征，前者是广泛用于评估急诊医学（EM）住院医师申请人的结构化评估，后者是 AAMC 设计的新工具，用于评估人际交往和沟通技巧以及专业知识。

方法

作者在 2018 年匹配周期中，将具有有效 SVI 总分的 EM 住院医师申请人与完成的 eSLOE 相匹配。他们检查了这两种工具、美国医师执照考试（USMLE）分步考试成绩和荣誉学会会员资格的相关性和组间差异。

结果

匹配样本包括 2884 名申请人。SVI 分数和 eSLOE 总体评估评分显示出接近 r = 0.20 的小正相关。与 SVI 分数相比，eSLOE 评分与学术能力（USMLE 分数、学术荣誉学会会员资格）的相关性更高。SVI 的组间差异最小，女性（d = -0.21）和美国 MD 申请人（d = 0.23-0.42）的分数略有优势。eSLOE 评分的组间差异较小，女性比男性（接近 d = -0.20）和白人申请人比黑人申请人（接近 d = 0.40）更有优势。