On Screen or On Site? Hybrid Interviews for Flexibility Without Added Bias.

BACKGROUND AND

OBJECTIVES

Post-COVID-19, some residency program interviews remained virtual, others returned to in-person, and some allow applicants to choose between a virtual or in-person interview. Concerns exist that this hybrid approach may introduce bias. This study aimed to determine whether this hybrid format influences program rank list position or applicant chance of matching and to explore how programs structure the process.

METHODS

We analyzed de-identified rank list data and interview formats for 1,170 interviews for 91 positions across six programs in a regional network of programs offering a choice of virtual or in-person interviews in the 2023 and 2024 Match. We performed descriptive and bivariant analyses. We also controlled for subinternship participation to assess its impact on rank and match outcomes. Through content analysis of program director survey responses, we explored planning and implementation strategies.

RESULTS

Applicants who interview in person are more likely to be ranked higher (average position 45 vs 49 per 100 ranked; P = 0.022) and to match (10.8% vs 5.5%; P<0.001). However, after excluding subinternship participants, interview format was no longer significantly associated with rank position (average position 47 vs 50 per 100 ranked; P = 0.090). In-person interviewees still had higher match rates (9.0% vs 5.2%, P = 0.017). Six program directors (100%) reported use of a standardized scoring rubric and consistent processes for all interview formats to minimize bias.

CONCLUSIONS

Among programs offering hybrid interviews in a regional network of residency programs, interview format did not appear to influence rank lists after controlling for subinternship at the program; however, those who interview in person are more likely to match.