ArticleBMC medical education2022
Evaluation of house staff candidates for program fit: a cohort-based controlled study.
Article in BMC medical education, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Flow in screen-based gamified virtual reality sports: development and validation of a behaviorally anchored proxy rating scale for adolescents with autism spectrum disorder.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Assessing Program Culture in Virtual Fellowship Interviews: Insights From Pulmonary and Critical Care Fellows.Cureus · 2025Article
- Association of Interview and Holistic Review Metrics With Resident Performance-Related Difficulties in an Internal Medicine Residency Program.Journal of graduate medical education · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMedical school academic achievements do not necessarily predict house staff job performance. This study explores a selection mechanism that improves house staff-program fit that enhances the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education Milestones performance ratings.
objectiveTraditionally, house staff were selected primarily on medical school academic performance. To improve residency performance outcomes, the Program designed a theory-driven selection tool to assess house staff candidates on their personal values and goals fit with Program values and goals. It was hypothesized cohort performance ratings will improve because of the intervention.
methodsProspective quasi-experimental cohort design with data from two house staff cohorts at a university-based categorical Internal Medicine Residency Program. The intervention cohort, comprising 45 house staff from 2016 to 2017, was selected using a Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scales (BARS) tool for program fit. The control cohort, comprising 44 house staff from the prior year, was selected using medical school academic achievement scores. House staff performance was evaluated using ACGME Milestones indicators. The mean scores for each category were compared between the intervention and control cohorts using Student's t-tests with Bonferroni correction and Cohen's d for effect size.
resultsThe cohorts were no different in academic performance scores at time of Program entry. The intervention cohort outperformed the control cohort on all 6 dimensions of Milestones by end-PGY1 and 3 of 6 dimensions by mid-PGY3.
conclusionSelecting house staff based on compatibility with Residency Program values and objectives may yield higher job performance because trainees benefit more from a better fit with the training program.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.