Search

Objectives: The Standardized Letter of Evaluation (SLOE) is a vital portion of any medical student's emergency medicine (EM) residency application. Prior literature suggests gender bias in EM SLOE comparative ranking, but there is limited understanding of the impact of gender on other SLOE components. The study objective was to evaluate the presence of gender differences in the 7 Qualifications for EM (7QEM), Global Assessment (GA), and anticipated Rank List (RL) position. A secondary objective was to evaluate the gender differences in 7QEM scores and their link to GA and anticipated RL position., Methods: We performed a cross-sectional study using SLOEs from a subset of United States applicants to three EM residency programs during the 2019-2020 application cycle. We collected self-reported demographics, 7QEM scores, GA, and anticipated RL position. We utilized linear regression analyses and repeated measures ANOVA to evaluate if the relationship between the 7QEM scores, GA score, and anticipated RL position was different for men and women., Results: 2103 unique applicants were included (38.6% women, 61.4% men), with 4952 SLOEs meeting inclusion criteria. The average QEM (2.51 vs. 2.39; p  < 0.001), GA (2.68 vs. 2.48; p  < 0.001), and RL (2.68 vs. 2.47; p  < 0.001) scores were statistically higher for women than men. When exploring the relationship between the 7QEM and GA, Ability to communicate a caring nature to patients was not found to be a statistically significant predictor for men, but it was for women. When exploring the relationship between 7QEM and RL, Commitment to EM was not a significant predictor for men, but it was for women., Conclusions: Women scored higher than men on the 7QEM, GA, and anticipated RL position on SLOEs. The 7QEM scores factored differently for men and women., (© 2022 by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.)

Objectives: The standardized letter of evaluation (SLOE) in emergency medicine (EM) is a widely used metric for determining interview invitations and ranking of candidates. Previous research has questioned the validity of certain sections of the SLOE. However, there remains a paucity of literature on the qualifications for EM section, which evaluates seven attributes of applicants. The aim of this study was to determine the correlation between the qualifications questions and grades, global assessment, and anticipated rank list position for EM applicants., Methods: A multi-institutional cross-sectional study was performed using SLOEs from applicants to three geographically distinct U.S. EM residency programs during the 2019-2020 application cycle. We abstracted EM rotation grade, qualifications scores, global assessment, and anticipated rank list position from the SLOEs. A Spearman correlation was calculated between each of the qualifications scores and the applicant's grades, global assessment, and anticipated rank list position in a pairwise fashion., Results: In total, 2,106 unique applicants (4,939 SLOEs) were included. Of the seven qualifications for EM questions, three were moderately to strongly correlated with global assessment and anticipated rank list position: "ability to develop and justify an appropriate differential and a cohesive treatment plan" (ρ = 0.65 and ρ = 0.63, respectively; p < 0.001), "how much guidance do you predict this applicant will need during residency?" (ρ = 0.68 and ρ = 0.68, respectively; p < 0.001), and "what is your prediction of success for the applicant?" (ρ = 0.69 and ρ = 0.69, respectively; p < 0.001). There was no strong correlation between the seven qualifications and grades., Conclusions: There was a moderate to strong correlation between three of seven qualifications for EM questions (ability to develop and justify a differential and develop a cohesive plan, anticipated need for the amount of guidance, and prediction of success) with both global assessment and anticipated rank list position, suggesting that these qualifications may provide the most useful data to residency selection while some of the other factors may not be needed., Competing Interests: The authors have no potential conflicts to disclose., (© 2021 by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.)