Weingarten M S, Erlich F, Nydick R L, Liberatore M J
Division of Vascular Surgery, Crozer-Chester Medical Center, Upland, Pennsylvania 19013, USA.
Acad Med. 1997 May;72(5):400-2. doi: 10.1097/00001888-199705000-00024.
To compare a specific decision-making process-the analytic hierarchy process (AHP)-with the traditional informal selection process in the selection of general surgery residents.
The study focused on 1994 and 1995 applicants for the four positions in the five-year general surgery residency program at the Graduate Hospital in Philadelphia. Three criteria were used: academic performance, personal fit, and surgical appropriateness. The relative importance of each was determined by pairwise comparison. For each hierarchy level, these comparisons were combined into a pairwise comparison matrix, and weights were determined for each criterion and rating category. The rating-category weights for each criterion were scaled so that outstanding received the full criterion weight. Each applicant was interviewed by three committee members and rated with both the AHP system and the traditional 0-10 scoring system. In both cases the rating scores were averaged to create a single score for each applicant. The final ranking list (advocacy ranking) was compiled at a meeting of the entire selection committee, during which each member spoke on behalf of the candidates he or she had interviewed.
Significant Spearman correlations were found between the AHP ranking and the traditional ranking in both years (1994: n = 26, r = .63, p = .0005; 1995: n = 25, r = .061, p = .0012). The AHP ranking was also significantly correlated with the advocacy ranking in 1994 (n = 26, r = .43, p = .0273); however, there was no significant correlation found in 1995. In 1994 the traditional ranking significantly correlated with the advocacy ranking (n = 26, r = .40, p = .0423). This was not the case in 1995, suggesting that the results of the interviewing process had minimal influence on the outcome of the selection process that year.
The findings from this pilot study support the use of the AHP as a viable alternative for the selection of surgical residents. Although the small sample size limits the generalizability of the results, the AHP is a quantitative alternative to the traditional, unwieldy, and subjective selection process. Quantitative assessment and ranking of all aspects of a candidate's attributes and performance allow a program to more closely match a candidate to that particular institution.
在普通外科住院医师选拔中，将一种特定的决策过程——层次分析法（AHP）与传统的非正式选拔过程进行比较。
该研究聚焦于1994年和1995年申请费城研究生医院为期五年的普通外科住院医师项目四个职位的申请人。使用了三个标准：学业成绩、个人匹配度和手术适宜性。通过两两比较确定每个标准的相对重要性。对于每个层次级别，这些比较被组合成一个两两比较矩阵，并为每个标准和评级类别确定权重。对每个标准的评级类别权重进行缩放，以便优秀等级获得该标准的全部权重。每位申请人由三名委员会成员进行面试，并分别使用层次分析法系统和传统的0至10分评分系统进行评分。在这两种情况下，评分分数都进行平均，为每位申请人创建一个单一分数。最终排名列表（推荐排名）在整个选拔委员会的会议上编制，在此期间，每位成员代表他或她面试过的候选人发言。
在这两年中，层次分析法排名与传统排名之间均发现显著的斯皮尔曼相关性（1994年：n = 26，r = 0.63，p = 0.0005；1995年：n = 25，r = 0.61，p = 0.0012）。1994年层次分析法排名与推荐排名也显著相关（n = 26，r = 0.43，p = 0.0273）；然而，1995年未发现显著相关性。1994年传统排名与推荐排名显著相关（n = 26，r = 0.40，p = 0.0423）。1995年情况并非如此，这表明面试过程的结果对该年选拔过程的结果影响极小。
这项初步研究的结果支持将层次分析法用作选拔外科住院医师的一种可行替代方法。尽管样本量较小限制了结果的普遍性，但层次分析法是传统的、繁琐且主观的选拔过程的一种定量替代方法。对候选人属性和表现的所有方面进行定量评估和排名，可使项目更紧密地将候选人与该特定机构进行匹配。
