Selecting Residents for Predetermined Factors Identified and Thought to be Important for Work Performance and Satisfaction: A Methodology

Objective The medical profession seeks to hire and train individuals who consistently meet and/or exceed both job and cultural expectations. Resident selection is often not structured to meet this goal. The objective of this quality improvement project was to evaluate a classic unscripted interview process (OI) in conjunction with a structured, scripted interview process (SI) developed using an established hiring methodology from industry not yet utilized in health care. Qualitative questions we sought to answer: (1) Can SI be practically applied to the selection of residents? (2) Is there a significant difference in the relative position of applicants between the OI and SI rank lists? (3) Qualitatively, does SI help the evaluation/discussion of the affective domain? Methods Design: Prospective qualitative comparison of OI versus SI. Setting: Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, NH. Participants: Applicants were assessed by OI and SI. SI factors were selected based on a job profile. Interview scripts were created from validated behavioral and attitudinal questions. Online assessments assessed 2 important attributes - adaptability and values. Rank lists were compared for relative rank position of applicants. Feedback from faculty was obtained. Results Fifty-two applicants. Critical attributes were self-management, integrator-synthesizer, versatility, communication, and achievement. Absolute mean difference in rank/applicant was 9.8 (standard deviation 8.9, Range 0-36) positions. Comparing the top 20 candidates of each rank list, 40% of those applicants were only on one list. Faculty felt that applicants were given a greater opportunity to show “who they are.” Conclusions In conjunction with OI, an industry proven methodology was practically applied to define and select for high performance for the authors’ specific institution. Comparing OI and SI resulted in substantial differences in rank lists. This initiative seemed to provide a structure to evaluate values and motivations that are inherently difficult to assess. Faculty felt SI in conjunction with OI gave a greater chance for applicants to show “who they are.”