Abstract
Introduction
Entry into orthopaedic higher surgical training remains extremely competitive, however little evidence exists regarding the validity of short-listing and interviewing for selection. This paper assesses the relative correlations of short-listing and interview scores in predicting subsequent performance as an orthopaedic trainee.
Methods
We compared data from the selection process (short-listing and interview scores) to subsequent performance during training (academic output and an annual assessment score by Programme Director). Data was prospectively collected from 115 trainees on the South West Thames region of the U.K. during 2000–2010.
Results
We found that trainees achieving an interview score within the top third subsequently produced a higher academic output and had a higher annual assessment score than their peers (MANOVA, p>0.05) see Figure 1.
[Academic output vs interview score rank (thirds)]
The short-listing scores did not correlate with subsequent academic output or annual assessment score see Figure 2.
[Academic output vs shortlist score rank (thirds)]
We found no statistical correlation between the short-listing and interview scores (r2< 0.1).
Discussion
This study provides an evidence base to support the value of interviews by senior surgeons in the selection of trainees. We support the following selection process for orthopaedic trainees: long listing followed by a competitive interview(s) of all remaining candidates
