Attention: Restrictions on use of AUA, AUAER, and UCF content in third party applications, including artificial intelligence technologies, such as large language models and generative AI.
You are prohibited from using or uploading content you accessed through this website into external applications, bots, software, or websites, including those using artificial intelligence technologies and infrastructure, including deep learning, machine learning and large language models and generative AI.
UPJ Insight: Impact of the Virtual Interview Format on Urology Residency Interviews: A Survey of Program Directors
By: Andrew M. Ferry, BS; Malke Asaad, MD; Rami Elmorsi; Aashish Rajesh, MBBS; Kirsten L. Greene, MD; Wesley A. Mayer, MD; Renata S. Maricevich, MD | Posted on: 01 Apr 2022
Ferry AM, Asaad M, Elmorsi R et al: Impact of the virtual interview format on urology residency interviews: a survey of program directors. Urol Pract 2021; https://doi.org/10.1097/UPJ.0000000000000292.
Study Need and Importance
The COVID-19 pandemic has greatly affected the urology residency application process, with the implementation of the virtual interview (VI) format being the most significant change when compared to prior application cycles. While VIs are cost-effective for applicants, there are limited data detailing the impact that the VI format had on interview logistics and applicant assessment. In this survey-based, cross-sectional study, we seek to assess the impact of the VI format on the urology residency interview process during the COVID-19 pandemic from the viewpoint of program directors (PDs) of urology residency programs.
What We Found
VIs were found to negatively affect programs’ ability to evaluate subjective characteristics of applicants. Additionally, programs relied more heavily on objective applicant metrics when developing their rank list. VIs were also found to be more economical than in-person interviews; however, only a third of our sample found them less time consuming. While PDs reported that in-person interviews were overall better than VIs, 60% intend on offering both in-person and VIs in future application cycles, whereas 31% reported that they would exclusively offer in-person interviews moving forward (see figure).
Limitations
Our study is cross-sectional in nature, and therefore it is unable to assess changes in PDs’ perceptions regarding VIs over time. Responses provided by PDs in this study may not be representative of all urology residency programs as several PDs chose to defer participation in this study. Despite this, the high concordance of our findings suggests that this likely did not skew our observations.
Interpretation for the Specialty
VIs were found to be more economical than in-person interviews; however, they limit urology residency programs’ ability to subjectively assess applicants. While most PDs intend on offering both in-person and VIs moving forward, it remains to be seen how this will be implemented in future application cycles.