Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39186521›Full record

ArticlePloS one2024

Examining interviewer bias in medical school admissions: The interplay between applicant and interviewer gender and its effects on interview outcomes.

Stefanos A Tsikas, Karina Dauer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Stefanos A TsikasDean of Studies Office, Academic Controlling, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Lower Saxony, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-6642-5456
Karina DauerDean of Studies Office, Academic Controlling, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Lower Saxony, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Selection interviews have long been integral to medical school admissions, yet their limited predictive validity and susceptibility to bias raise concerns. This study delves into potential interviewer bias within the dynamics of interviewee and interviewer gender. We analyze a dataset of 5,200 applicants and over 370 selection committees engaged in semi-structured interviews from 2006 to 2019 at a large German medical school with multiple linear and non-linear regression analyses. Our findings reveal that all-female committees tended to award male candidates, on average, one point more than their female counterparts, significantly enhancing the chances of submission for male applicants despite lower academic grades, which constituted 51% of the selection process points. All-male and mixed-gender committees exhibited similar ratings for both genders. The role of valuing voluntary services emerged prominently: all-male and mixed committees acknowledged women's volunteer work but not men's, while all-female committees demonstrated the opposite pattern. Our results attribute variations in interview outcomes to the absence of standardization, such as insufficient interviewer training, divergent rating strategies, variations in interviewer experience, and imbalances in candidate allocation to selection committees, rather than to a "gender bias", for example by favoritism of males because of their gender.

Indexed as

School Admission CriteriaSchools, MedicalSexismAdultBiasFemaleGermanyHumansInterviews as TopicMaleSex Factors

Identifiers

PMID39186521
PMCPMC11346660

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.