Emergency medicine residency applicant perceptions of unethical recruiting practices and illegal questioning in the match.
Academic Article
Overview
abstract
OBJECTIVES: The authors hypothesized that unethical recruiting practices and illegal questioning occur during emergency medicine (EM) resident recruitment. The objectives were to estimate the prevalence of specific unethical recruiting practices and illegal questioning by EM programs based on the perceptions of residency applicants and to measure the effect of these perceptions on applicant appraisal of programs. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional survey of all applicants who matched to U.S. EM programs in 2005 and 2006. The survey questionnaire was developed by the study authors and was validated by pretesting on a small group representative of the study population. The survey addressed specific questions regarding program recruiting behaviors and interview questioning. The hyperlink to the secure anonymous online survey questionnaire was distributed to all EM program directors, asking them in turn to forward the hyperlink to their newly matched incoming residency class. All data were calculated with Score method with continuity correction and reported in proportions with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: The authors received 671 survey responses. Among respondents, 56 (8.3%, 95% CI = 6.4% to 10.7%) stated that they were specifically asked to disclose at least one program's position on their rank list by a program representative, and 44 (6.6%, 95% CI = 4.9% to 8.9%) reported that they matched at a program residing lower on their rank list than at least one other program that had informed the applicant they were ranked to match. Furthermore, 201 respondents (30.0%, 95% CI = 26.5% to 33.7%) believed that they were asked at least one illegal question during their interviews, the most common of which was inquiry into their marital status (189 respondents: 28.2%, 95% CI = 24.8% to 31.9%). Respondents were 11 times more likely to move a program to a lower position of preference on their rank order list (12.2%, 95% CI = 9.8% to 15.0%) rather than a higher position (1.1%, 95% CI = 0.5% to 2.3%) as a result of perceiving unethical recruiting behaviors or illegal questioning. CONCLUSIONS: These results demonstrate that among survey respondents, some perceived unethical recruiting behaviors and illegal questioning in the 2005 and 2006 Match. Perceptions of such behaviors appeared to have a negative impact on applicant appraisal of EM residency programs.
