ArticlePloS one2024
Examining interviewer bias in medical school admissions: The interplay between applicant and interviewer gender and its effects on interview outcomes.
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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Student background, admission routes, and academic success: a structural mediation analysis.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- A Qualitative Study of a New Generation of Irish-Trained Doctors' Views on Selection for Medicine.MedEdPublish (2016) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.