ArticlePloS one2025
Objective scoring of application forms in obstetrics and gynaecology residency selection: A retrospective cohort study on the optimal number of committee members.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
introductionThe selection of residents for medical specialty programmes is a critical yet resource-intensive process. Although structured evaluation tools, such as standardized application forms, enhance objectivity and reliability, they often require all committee members to assess every candidate, resulting in inefficiencies. This study aimed to determine the optimal number of assessors needed to reliably score application forms of doctors to become resident in obstetrics & gynaecology without compromising selection outcomes.
methodsThis retrospective cohort study analysed data from three residency selection cycles (of the years 2022-2024) in the Northwest region of the Netherlands. Application forms were scored anonymously each year by 15-18 committee members, referred to as assessors, using a structured scoring system. Scores were analysed to identify the point at which adding more assessors no longer significantly impacted candidate rankings. Statistical measures included paired t-tests, correlations, and Cronbach's alpha, and intraclass correlation coefficients to assess internal consistency and reliability.
resultsThe analysis showed that six assessors are sufficient to reliably assess candidates. Correlations between average scores from six assessors and the grand average consistently exceeded 0.9 across all cohorts, and Cronbach's alpha stabilized above 0.85. Significant differences in rankings were observed when increasing assessors from two to six but diminished beyond six. Bland-Altman plots confirmed agreement between scores from six assessors and the overall committee evaluation.
conclusionA structured evaluation process (i.e., using standardized application forms) requiring six assessors per candidate ensures reliable and consistent outcomes while reducing workload. Implementing this approach can enhance efficiency without compromising fairness or objectivity in selection for obstetrics & gynaecology residents. Future research should investigate the applicability of this model to other medical residency programmes internationally, and its impact on long-term performance.
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.