1 / 24

The Effect of Interviewer on Rank List: An Imperfect Science Becomes More Imperfect

The Effect of Interviewer on Rank List: An Imperfect Science Becomes More Imperfect. Daniel Vargo, MD Program Director, General Surgery Associate Professor, Dept. of Surgery University of Utah School of Medicine. Disclosures. None. Background. Applicant Selection: Surgery Job Description

mary-mullins
Download Presentation

The Effect of Interviewer on Rank List: An Imperfect Science Becomes More Imperfect

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The Effect of Interviewer on Rank List: An Imperfect Science Becomes More Imperfect Daniel Vargo, MD Program Director, General Surgery Associate Professor, Dept. of Surgery University of Utah School of Medicine

  2. Disclosures • None

  3. Background • Applicant Selection: Surgery • Job Description • Website • “Red Book” • Applications • 526 last year • Nebulous scoring system • Interviews

  4. Background • Interviews • Interviewers not HR trained • Go on “gut feeling” • “I wanted to like/not like this candidate” • Spend interview trying to validate feelings or impressions • Trip up questions • Base opinion on “unusual” things…..

  5. His socks didn’t match his pants Who wears a pants suit to an interview He had this weird look in his eyes

  6. PGY-1 Summative Meeting • Interview Comments vs. Performance • No correlation • Lowest scored intern last two years highest performance

  7. “Six Sigma” Evaluation • Took process apart • Biggest perceived variable • Interviews

  8. Question • How variable are the interviews? • What effect does this variability have on process?

  9. Methods • 5 years data • Interviewers and scores • “Easy Scorers” • “Hard Scorers” • Applicants • Strong • Average • Weak

  10. Methods • Applicant group ranking • Compared with interview panel composition

  11. Results • 30 Interviewers • 303 applicants • 909 interviews

  12. Applicant Distribution Top 10 Appl. >40 Or NR

  13. “HS” “ES”

  14. Interview Scores:All Candidates ES= Easy Scorer HS= Hard Scorer

  15. Scoring: Strong Applicants HS=Hard Scorer P= NS

  16. Scoring: Average Applicants

  17. Scoring: Average Applicants * p<0.05

  18. Results • ≥ 1 HS • Lower interview scores • Lower composite scores • Lower position on rank list • Less likely to be discussed at rank meeting

  19. Assumptions • Candidate pools are equally distributed • Interviewer “toughness” did not vary • Other variables in score calculation consistent

  20. Conclusions • Interviewers do vary in type • Scores effect applicants • Another area of variability to be addressed in the interview process

More Related