Article

Improving the letter of recommendation

Department of Pediatric Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH, USA.
Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery (Impact Factor: 1.72). 09/2010; 143(3):327-30. DOI: 10.1016/j.otohns.2010.03.017
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The selection of applicants to otolaryngology training programs is a challenging task. Applicants and their evaluators rely on objective and subjective data to facilitate the selection process. Unfortunately, data are often less helpful than either side assumes, suffering from poor validity and reliability in predicting future performance. The traditional resume-based letter of recommendation bears some responsibility in this. It is often a lengthy reiteration of already available objective data and contains nonstandardized, superlative evaluations of personal attributes. As a result, many letters are similar, describing "excellent" candidates who have done well on previous examinations and clerkships. Research has indicated improved reliability and satisfaction as well as decreased time expenditure using standardized letters of recommendation. These letters demonstrate how basic, easy-to-implement improvements can create letters that provide accurate information, separate applicants, and improve the selection process. Consideration should be given to adopting these improvements at the program director and/or educational committee level.

0 Followers
 · 
69 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objectives/Hypothesis:Develop a standardized letter of recommendation (SLOR) for otolaryngology residency application that investigates the qualities desired in residents and the letter writer's experience. Compare this SLOR to narrative letters of recommendation (NLORs). Study Design:Prospective SLOR/NLOR comparison. Methods:The SLOR was sent to an NLOR writer for each applicant. The applicant's NLOR/SLOR pair was blinded and ranked in seven categories by three reviewers. Inter‐rater reliability and NLOR/SLOR rankings were compared. Means of cumulative NLOR and SLOR scores were compared to our departmental rank list. Results:Thirty‐one SLORs (66%) were collected. The SLORs had higher inter‐rater reliability for applicant's qualifications for otolaryngology, global assessment, summary statement, and overall letter ranking. Writer's background, comparison to contemporaries/predecessors, and letter review ease had higher inter‐rater reliability on the NLORs. Mean SLOR rankings were higher for writer's background (P = .0007), comparison of applicant to contemporaries/predecessors (P = .0031), and letter review ease (P P P = .004), whereas means of cumulative NLOR scores did not (P = .18). Means of cumulative NLOR and SLOR scores did not correlate (P = .26). Conclusions:SLORs require little writing time, save reviewing time, and are easier to review compared to NLORs. Our SLOR had higher inter‐rater reliability in four of seven categories and was correlated with our rank list. This tool conveys standardized information in an efficient manner. Laryngoscope, 2013
    The Laryngoscope 01/2013; 123(1). DOI:10.1002/lary.23866 · 2.03 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: Develop a standardized letter of recommendation (SLOR) for otolaryngology residency application that investigates the qualities desired in residents and the letter writer's experience. Compare this SLOR to narrative letters of recommendation (NLORs). STUDY DESIGN: Prospective SLOR/NLOR comparison. METHODS: The SLOR was sent to an NLOR writer for each applicant. The applicant's NLOR/SLOR pair was blinded and ranked in seven categories by three reviewers. Inter-rater reliability and NLOR/SLOR rankings were compared. Means of cumulative NLOR and SLOR scores were compared to our departmental rank list. RESULTS: Thirty-one SLORs (66%) were collected. The SLORs had higher inter-rater reliability for applicant's qualifications for otolaryngology, global assessment, summary statement, and overall letter ranking. Writer's background, comparison to contemporaries/predecessors, and letter review ease had higher inter-rater reliability on the NLORs. Mean SLOR rankings were higher for writer's background (P = .0007), comparison of applicant to contemporaries/predecessors (P = .0031), and letter review ease (P < .0001). Mean SLOR writing time was 4.17 ± 2.18 minutes. Mean ranking time was significantly lower (P < .0001) for the SLORs (39.24 ± 23.45 seconds) compared to the NLORs (70.95 ± 40.14 seconds). Means of cumulative SLOR scores correlated with our rank list (P = .004), whereas means of cumulative NLOR scores did not (P = .18). Means of cumulative NLOR and SLOR scores did not correlate (P = .26). CONCLUSIONS: SLORs require little writing time, save reviewing time, and are easier to review compared to NLORs. Our SLOR had higher inter-rater reliability in four of seven categories and was correlated with our rank list. This tool conveys standardized information in an efficient manner.
    The Laryngoscope 01/2014; 124(1). DOI:10.1002/lary.24431 · 2.03 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To develop a pediatric otolaryngology fellowship selection standardized letter of recommendation (SLOR). SLOR and narrative letter of recommendation (NLOR) comparison study. An SLOR was created to investigate qualities desired in fellows using five content-based categories: writer background, comparison of the applicant to contemporaries and predecessors, applicant's qualifications for pediatric otolaryngology, a global assessment of the applicant, and a summary statement about the applicant. In phase I, the SLORs were completed, including writing time, by the applicant's pediatric otolaryngology chief. In phase II, letters were ranked on Likert-type scales for the content-based categories, reviewer's overall ranking, and ease of review by six otolaryngologists. Reviewers recorded time needed to review each letter. Nineteen SLORs (73%) were collected. Mean writing time was 8.84 ± 3.87 minutes. Interrater reliability was higher on the SLORs in the content-based sections and the overall ranking. Ranking times were lower on the SLORs. Mean and median rankings were higher on the SLORs for writer background, comparison of the applicant to contemporaries and predecessors, applicant's qualifications for pediatric otolaryngology, and ease of review; mean global assessment of the applicant, summary statement about the applicant, and overall rankings were lower on the SLORs. To our knowledge, this is the first inquiry using an SLOR developed for otolaryngology. SLORs are an alternative to NLORs for fellowship selection that offers improved reliability and efficiency. Further investigation using SLORs in otolaryngology residency selection is merited.
    The Laryngoscope 02/2012; 122(2):415-24. DOI:10.1002/lary.22394 · 2.03 Impact Factor

Jeremy D Prager