The Aamc Standardized Video Interview

Lessons Learned From the Residency Selection Process

Datos Bibliográficos

ID21613337
AutoresFiona E Gallahue (University of Washington), Nicole M Deiorio (0000-0002-8123-1112, N.M. Deioriois associate dean for student affairs and professor, Department of Emergency Medicine, Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine, Richmond, Virginia.), Andra Blomkalns (A. Blomkalnsis chair, Department of Emergency Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California.), Andra L Blomkalns (0000-0001-5760-6351, Novem (Netherlands)), Steven B Bird (0000-0002-5804-5063, University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School), Dana Dunleavy (0009-0004-1031-887X, Association of American Medical Colleges), Rebecca J Fraser (0000-0002-6014-6672, Association of American Medical Colleges), Rebecca Fraser (R. Fraseris director of admissions and selection research and development, Association of American Medical Colleges, Washington, DC.), B Renee Overton (Association of American Medical Colleges)
Año2020
Volumen95
Número11
Páginas1639-1642
Fecha de publicación2020-11-01
Peer ReviewedSí
Open AccessNo
TipoARTICLE
RevistaAcademic Medicine (JOURNAL)
Identificadores de la revistaISSN: 1040-2446 • E-ISSN: 1938-808X
EditorialOxford University Press (OUP) (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1097/acm.0000000000003573
PMID33112586
OpenAlexW3040689678
IdiomaEN
Referencias citadas9

Calls to change the residency selection process have increased in recent years, with many focusing on the need for holistic review and alternatives to academic metrics. One aspect of applicant performance to consider in holistic review is proficiency in behavioral competencies. The Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) developed the AAMC Standardized Video Interview (SVI), an online, asynchronous video interview that assesses applicants’ knowledge of professionalism and their interpersonal and communication skills. The AAMC worked with the emergency medicine community to pilot the SVI. Data from 4 years of research (Electronic Residency Application Service [ERAS] 2017–2020 cycles) show the SVI is a reliable, valid assessment of these behavioral competencies. It provides information not available in the ERAS application packet, and it does not disadvantage individuals or groups. Yet despite the SVI’s psychometric properties, the AAMC elected not to renew or expand the pilot in residency selection. In this Invited Commentary, the authors share lessons learned from the AAMC SVI project about introducing a new tool for use in residency selection. They recommend that future projects endeavoring to find ways to support holistic review engage all stakeholders from the start; communicate the value of the new tool early and often; make direct comparisons with existing tools; give new tools time and space to succeed; strike a balance between early adopters and broad participation; help stakeholders understand the limitations of what a tool can do; and set clear expectations about both stakeholder input and pricing. They encourage the medical education community to learn from the SVI project and to consider future partnerships with the AAMC or other specialty organizations to develop new tools and approaches that prioritize the community’s needs. Finding solutions to the challenges facing residency selection should be a priority for all stakeholders

Accreditation · Business · Disadvantage · Early adopter · Graduate medical education · Interpersonal communication · Medical education · Political science · Public relations · Stakeholder · Computer Science · Diversity and Career in Medicine · Innovations in Medical Education · Medical Education and Admissions · Medicine · Psychology · Social Psychology · Marketing