Council of Emergency Medicine Residency Directors' Standardized Letter of Recommendation: The Program Director's Perspective
Authors:
- Jeffrey N. LoveJLJeffrey N. Love
- Moshe WeizbergMWMoshe Weizberg
- The Slor Task ForceTFThe Slor Task Force
- 1 June 2014
- journal article
- Published by Wiley in Academic Emergency Medicine
- Vol. 21 (6) , 680-687
Abstract
Objectives: The standardized letter of evaluation (SLOE) was created in 1997 to provide residency program directors (PDs) with a summative evaluation that incorporates normative grading (i.e., comparisons to peers applying to emergency medicine [EM] training). Although the standard letter of recommendation (SLOR) has become increasingly popular and important in decision‐making, it has not been studied in the past 12 years. To assess the SLOR's effectiveness and limitations, the perspective of EM PDs was surveyed in this study.Methods: After validation of the questionnaire by 10 retired PDs, the survey was sent to the PD of each of the 159 EM residencies that existed at that time. The survey was circulated via the Council of Emergency Medicine Residency Directors' (CORD) listserv from January 24, 2013, to February 13, 2013. Weekly e‐mail reminders to all PDs served to increase participation.Results: A total of 150 of 159 PDs (94.3%) completed the questionnaire. Nearly all respondents (149 of 150; 99.3%) agreed that the SLOR is an important evaluative tool and should continue to be used. In the application process, 91 of 150 (60.7%) programs require one or more SLORs, and an additional 55 (36.7%) recommend but do not require a SLOR to be considered for interview. When asked to identify the top three factors in deciding who should be interviewed, the SLOR was ranked first (139 of 150; 92.7%), with EM rotation grades ranked second (73 of 150; 48.7%). The factors that were most often identified as the top three that diminish the value of the SLOR in order were 1) “inflated evaluations” (121 of 146; 82.9%), 2) “inconsistency between comments and grades” (106 of 146; 72.6%), and 3) “inadequate perspective on candidate attributes in the written comments” and “inexperienced authors” (60 of 146; 41.1% each).Conclusions: The SLOR appears to be the most important tool in the EM PD's armamentarium for determining which candidates should be interviewed for residency training. Although valuable, the SLOR's potential utility is hampered by a number of factors, the most important of which is inflated evaluations. Focused changes in the SLOR template should be mindful that it appears, in general, to be successful in its intended purpose.Keywords
This publication has 31 references indexed in Scilit:
- Letters of Recommendation: Rating, Writing, and Reading by Clerkship Directors of Internal MedicineTeaching and Learning in Medicine, 2009
- Evaluation of the assessment and grading of medical students on a neurology clerkshipNeurology, 2008
- A More Explicit Grading Scale Decreases Grade Inflation in a Clinical ClerkshipAcademic Emergency Medicine, 2007
- A More Explicit Grading Scale Decreases Grade Inflation in a Clinical ClerkshipAcademic Emergency Medicine, 2007
- Improving the letter of recommendation for pediatric residency applicants: an idea whose time has come?The Journal of Pediatrics, 2003
- Program directorsʼ responses to a survey on variables used to select residents in a time of changeAcademic Medicine, 1999
- Comparing medical school graduates who perform poorly in residency with graduates who perform wellAcademic Medicine, 1993
- Correlations between graduatesʼ performances as first-year residents and their performances as medical studentsAcademic Medicine, 1993
- Evaluation of Resident Applicants by Letters of RecommendationInvestigative Radiology, 1993
- A Prospective Study of Cognitive and Noncognitive Selection Criteria as Predictors of Resident PerformanceInvestigative Radiology, 1990