Skip to main content

Table 1 Characteristics of included studies

From: Video-based interviewing in medicine: a scoping review

Author Year published Title City, country Discipline of authors Format of study Sample size Purpose of interview Study design Match cycle Intervention Comparator Replacement for face-to-face interview or adjunct?
Number of interviewers Number of applicants
Winfield-Dial et al. 2018 Demographic differences between high and low scorers on the standardized video interview Chicago, USA Emergency medicine Abstract None 1440 Medical school students applying to residency Cross-sectional study 2018 Standardized video interview (SVI) None Adjunct
Winfield-Dial et al. 2018 Applicant attitudes towards the standardized video interview—an interim analysis Chicago, USA Emergency medicine Abstract None 80 Medical school students applying to residency Cross-sectional study 2018 Standardized video interview (SVI) None Adjunct
Humbert et al. 2018 Correlation of the standard video interview score with an established application review process Indiana, USA Emergency medicine Abstract None 964 Medical school students applying to residency Cross-sectional study 2018 Standardized video interview (SVI) None Adjunct
Naemi et al. 2019 Examining the relationship between the AAMC standardized video interview and step 2 CS subscores Washington, USA Emergency medicine Abstract None 2201 Medical school students applying to residency Cross-sectional study 2017 Standardized video interview (SVI) None Adjunct
Chukwumah et al. 2010 The use of remote computer audio-video processing to conduct surgical fellowship interviews of deployed physicians Cleveland, USA General surgery Abstract None 26 Residents applying to fellowships Cross-sectional study 2011 Skype panel interview None Replacement
Chandler et al. 2019 Efficacy of videoconference interviews in the pediatric surgery match Florida, USA Pediatric surgery Journal article 3 20 Residents applying to fellowships Cross-sectional study 2017 Videoconference interview Initial virtual interview followed by face-to-face interview Adjunct
Chung et al. 2019 How well does the standardized video interview score correlate with traditional interview performance? New York, USA Emergency medicine Journal article None 321 Medical school students applying to residency Cross-sectional study 2018 Standardized video interview (SVI) Face-to-face panel interview Adjunct
Brietkpof et al. 2018 One-way video interviewing as a method to augment the residency application Minnesota, USA Obstetrics and gynecology and orthopedic surgery Abstract None 57 Medical school students applying to residency Cross-sectional study 2017 One-way video interview Face-to-face panel interview Adjunct
Tiller at al. 2013 Internet-based multiple mini-interviews for candidate selection for graduate entry programs Sydney, Australia Faculty of medicine Journal article 78 999 Students applying to medical or dental school Cohort study 2009 - 2011 Skype multiple mini-interviews Face-to-face multiple mini-interview Replacement
Brietkpof et al. 2019 Use of asynchronous video interviews for selecting obstetrics and gynecology residents. Minnesota, USA Obstetrics/gynecology Journal article None 219 Medical school students applying to residency Cross-sectional study 2018 - 2019 Asynchronous video interview Face-to-face panel interview Adjunct
Daram et al. 2014 Interview from anywhere: feasibility and utility of web-based videoconference interviews in the gastroenterology fellowship selection process Mississippi, USA Gastroenterology Journal article None 16 Residents applying to fellowships Cross-sectional study 2013 Facetime panel interview Face-to-face interview Adjunct
Deiorio et al. 2019 Applicant reactions to the AAMC standardized video interview during the 2018 application cycle United States Emergency medicine Journal article None 3532 Medical school students applying to residency Cross-sectional study 2018 Standardized Video Interview (SVI) None Adjunct
Hakes et al. 2018 Communication and professionalism: comparing standardized video interview scores to faculty gestalt Wisconsin, USA Emergency medicine Abstract None 65 Medical school students applying to residency Cross-sectional study 2018 Standardized Video Interview (SVI) None Adjunct
Edje et al. 2013 Using Skype as an alternative for residency selection interviews Ohio, USA Family medicine Journal article 11 19 Medical school students applying to residency Cohort study 2012 Skype panel interview Face-to-face panel interview Adjunct
Egan et al. 2019 Standardized video interviews do not correlate to US medical licensing examination step 1 and step 2 scores New York, USA Emergency medicine Journal article None 1329 Medical school students applying to residency Cross-sectional study 2018 Standardized video interview (SVI) None Adjunct
Gallahue at al. 2019 The AAMC standardized video interview: reactions and use by residency programs during the 2018 application cycle USA Emergency medicine Journal article 125 3532 Medical school students applying to residency Cross-sectional study 2018 Standardized video interview (SVI) None Adjunct
Healy et al. 2017 Videoconference interviews for an adult reconstruction fellowship: lessons learned Massachusetts, USA Orthopedic surgery Journal article Not reported 47 Residents applying to fellowships Cross-sectional study 2015 - 2017 Skype panel interview None Replacement
Hopson et al. 2019 Comparison of the standardized video interview and interview assessments of professionalism and interpersonal communication skills in emergency medicine USA Emergency medicine Journal article 151 773 Medical school students applying to residency Cross-sectional study 2018 Standardized video interview (SVI) None Adjunct
Hopson et al. 2019 The AAMC standardized video interview and the electronic standardized letter of evaluation in emergency medicine: a comparison of performance characteristics USA Emergency medicine Journal article None 2884 Medical school students applying to residency Cross-sectional study 2018 Standardized video interview (SVI) None Adjunct
Husain et al. 2019 The standardized video interview: how does it affect the likelihood to invite for a residency interview? USA Emergency medicine Journal article None 1424 Medical school students applying to residency Cross-sectional study 2018 Standardized video interview (SVI) None Adjunct
Lewis et al. 2018 Standardized video interview scores do not correlate with attending evaluations Massachusetts, USA Emergency medicine Abstract None 24 Medical school students applying to residency Cross-sectional study 2018 Standardized video interview (SVI) None Adjunct
Willis et al. 2018 Are standardized video interview scores predictive of interview performance? New York, USA Emergency medicine Abstract None 57 Medical school students applying to residency Cross--sectional study 2018 Standardized video interview (SVI) None Adjunct
Bowers et al. 2019 Standard video interview scores and applicant position on residency program list: a correlation study Ohio, USA Emergency medicine Abstract None 1003 Medical school students applying to residency Cross-sectional study 2018 Standardized video interview (SVI) None Adjunct
Hall et al. 2018 Standard video interview score does not correlate with medical student communication skills Massachusetts, USA Emergency medicine Abstract None 19 Medical school students applying to residency Cross-sectional study 2018 Standardized video interview (SVI) None Adjunct
McHugh et al. 2019 Do standardized or traditional interview questions correlate with the standardized video interview? USA Emergency medicine Abstract None 98 Medical school students applying to residency Cohort study 2018 Standardized video interview (SVI) None Adjunct
Staicu et al. 2015 FaceTime face-off: evaluation of video conferencing as a novel pre-interview screen for a PGY-1 pharmacy residency New York, USA Pharmacy Abstract None 23 Pharmacy students applying to pharmacy residency Cross-sectional study 2015 Skype/FaceTime panel interview None Adjunct
Temple et al. 2014 Streamlining the residency interview process using web-based teleconferencing Cleveland, USA Pharmacy Journal article None 24 Pharmacy students applying to pharmacy residency Cross-sectional study 2013 Skype panel interview None Adjunct
Hall et al. 2019 Standardized video interview scores correlate poorly with faculty and patient ratings Massachusetts, USA Emergency medicine Journal article 58 36 Medical school students applying to residency Cross-sectional study 2018 Standardized video interview (SVI) None Adjunct
Ballejos et al. 2018 An equivalence study of interview platform: does videoconference technology impact medical school acceptance rates of different groups? New Mexico, USA Family medicine/emergency medicine Journal article None 752 Students applying to medical school Quasi-experimental study 2014 - 2016 Skype panel interview Face-to-face panel interview Replacement
Bird et al. 2019 Innovation in residency selection: the AAMC standardized video interview USA Emergency medicine Journal article None 4387 Medical school students applying to residency Cross-sectional study 2017 - 2018 Standardized video interview (SVI) None Adjunct
Schnapp et al. 2019 Assessing residency applicants’ communication and professionalism: standardized video interview scores compared to faculty gestalt Wisconsin, USA Emergency medicine Journal article None 125 Medical school students applying to residency Cross-sectional study 2018 Standardized video interview (SVI) None Adjunct
Shah et al. 2018 The standardized video interview: how well does the SVI score correlate with traditional interview performance? UA Emergency medicine Abstract None 97 Medical school students applying to residency Cross-sectional study 2018 Standardized video interview (SVI) Face-to-face panel interview Adjunct
Shah et al. 2012 Randomized evaluation of a web-based interview process for urology resident selection New Mexico, USA Urology Journal article 6 33 Medical school students applying to residency Randomized trial 2011 Skype panel interview Face-to-face panel interview Replacement
Vadi et al. 2016 Comparison of web-based and face-to-face interviews for application to an anesthesiology training program: a pilot study California Anesthesia Journal article None 169 Medical school students applying to residency Quasi-experimental study 2015 Skype/FaceTime panel interview Face-to-face panel interview Replacement
Krauss et al. 2018 Correlation between emergency medicine residency applicant’s standardized video interview scores and US medical licensing examination results USA Emergency medicine Abstract None 1329 Medical school students applying to residency Cross-sectional study 2018 Standardized video interview (SVI) None Adjunct
Williams et al. 2015 Videoconference interviewing: tips for success Arizona, USA Internal medicine Journal article None 6 Medical school students applying to residency Cross-sectional study 2014 Skype panel interview None Replacement
Molina et al. 2020 Virtual interviews for the complex general surgical oncology fellowship: the Dana-Farber/Partners Experience Boston, USA Complex general surgical oncology Journal article Not reported Not reported Residents applying to fellowships Cross-sectional study 2020 Zoom panel interview Face-to-face panel interview Replacement
Sripad 2020 Videoconference interviews for female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery fellowship during a pandemic: the candidate experience Rhode Island, USA Female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery Abstract None 14 Residents applying to fellowships Cross-sectional study 2020 Zoom panel interview None Replacement
Nutter et al. 2020 Perception of candidates and faculty on maternal fetal medicine fellowship videoconference interviewing Texas, USA Maternal fetal medicine Abstract Not reported 14 Residents applying to fellowships Cross-sectional study 2018-2019 Videoconference panel interview None Replacement
McAteer et al. 2020 Videoconference interviews: a timely primary care residency selection approach New York, USA Family medicine Journal article Not reported 39 Medical school students applying to residency Cross-sectional study 2011-2020 Skype panel interview None Adjunct
Majumder et al. 2020 Initial experience with a virtual platform for advanced gastrointestinal minimally invasive surgery fellowship interviews Missouri, USA Advanced gastrointestinal minimally invasive surgery Journal article 7 17 Residents applying to fellowships Cross-sectional study 2019-2020 Zoom panel interview None Replacement
Grova et al. 2020 Direct comparison of in-person versus virtual interviews for complex general surgical oncology fellowship in the COVID-19 era North Carolina, USA Complex general surgical oncology Journal article None 23 Residents applying to fellowships Cohort study 2020 Zoom panel interview Face-to-face panel interview Replacement
Vining et al. 2020 Virtual surgical fellowship recruitment during COVID-19 and its implications for resident/fellow recruitment in the future Illinois, USA Complex general surgical oncology Journal article 12 16 Residents applying to fellowships Cross-sectional study 2020 Zoom panel interview None Replacement
Author Interview information Methods
Description Platform Pre-interview information Number of interviewers Primary outcomes Secondary outcomes Type of analysis
Winfield-Dial et al. SVI    N/A Demographic (sex, race/ethnicity, medical school type, age, and step 1 score) differences between those that scored high vs. low on the SVI None Quantitative: chi-squared test
Winfield-Dial et al. SVI    N/A Survey responses on applicants’ thoughts on the added value of the SVI None Quantitative: descriptive
Humbert et al. SVI    N/A Correlation between internally developed composite score and SVI score Correlation between internally developed composite score and SVI score with whether an interview was offered Quantitative: Pearson correlation, point-biserial correlations
Naemi et al. SVI    N/A Correlation between SVI score and step 2 CS exam subscores (CIS, SEP, ICE) None Quantitative: Pearson correlation
Chukwumah et al. One videoconference interview (no further details provided) Skype None Not reported None None None
Chandler et al. Three 20-min interviews; applicants were ranked by each faculty before and after the virtual interview, and all applicants were invited for a face-to-face interview Skype Prior to interview, applicants were sent a detailed information packet outlining the fellowship program, instructions on how to set up a Skype account, and were asked to create their accounts 2 weeks prior 3 different faculty members 15 question survey for applicants and 8 question survey for faculty to assess perceptions regarding ease and convenience of virtual interview, ability to represent oneself, decision if the program and/or applicant is the right fit, and utility as a screening tool and/or substitute for on-site interview Movement on pre-virtual interview rank list to post-virtual interview rank list; cost to applicants from interview process Quantitative: descriptive, Student’s t-test, Fisher’s exact test
Chung et al. SVI    N/A Correlation between SVI score and traditional interview score Variance of traditional interview score with SVI subgroup scores (6–11, 12–17, 18–23, 24–30) Quantitative: linear regression, ANOVA
Brietkpof et al. One-way video interview with 3 questions and max. 3 min per questions Not reported None N/A (videos were reviewed and scored independently by 2 reviewers using a standardized 5-point scale) Correlation between one-way video interview scores and in-person interview scores Applicant satisfaction with one-way video interview Quantitative: correlation, descriptive
Tiller at al. 7-min questions with 2-min change over time; candidates were on their own laptop; interviewers rotated through 9 computer stations in a large room; 5 administrative staff and two IT staff; candidate reads the first line of scenario out loud to confirm they received the correct prompt Skype All applicants started with a meeting with IT 30 min prior to ensure good connectivity One interviewer per station Equivalence between in-person and online MMI (based on applicant scores) Reliability, feasibility, acceptability, and cost-effectiveness of virtual MMI Quantitative: descriptive, ANOVA, Levene’s statistic
Brietkpof et al. Three questions that were developed after a pilot with medical students; applicants were able to view each question for 2 min prior to starting their recording of their answers (3-min response time per questions); applicants were allowed to re-record their answers once if desired Montage Talent None N/A Does video interviewing improve the overall pool of candidates as measured by higher in-person interview scores? Applicant experience captured by survey Quantitative: descriptive; two-tailed t-test, chi-squared test, Pearson correlation, Spearman rank correlation
Daram et al. One video interview Facetime None 1 Survey responses on whether the virtual interview met their expectations Costs associated with interview process Quantitative: descriptive
Deiorio et al. SVI    N/A Survey responses on applicants’ preparation for the SVI and reactions to the procedural aspects of SVI Survey responses on applicants’ perceptions of the SVI experience and future of the selection process Quantitative: descriptive
Hakes et al. SVI    N/A Correlation between SVI scores and faculty gestalt scores None Quantitative: Pearson correlation
Edje et al. Three sequential, 25-min interviews Skype None 2 Cost savings with Skype interview Survey responses on applicants’ and interviewers’ perspectives on Skype interview Quantitative: descriptive
Egan et al. SVI    N/A Correlation between SVI and step 1 and step 2 CK scores Correlation between SVI and step 2 CS scores Quantitative: linear regression, Kruskal-Wallis test, Mann-Whitney U-test
Gallahue at al. SVI    N/A Survey responses of program directors' perceptions on SVI Number of views of each SVI by the program Quantitative: descriptive, Cohen’s h-test, t-tests
Healy et al. One 15–20 min interview Skype Video tour of facility 2–3 Survey responses of applicants’ experience with videoconference interview Faculty opinions Quantitative: descriptive
Hopson et al. SVI    N/A Correlation between SVI and interviewer-scored professionalism and interpersonal communication skills Correlation of SVI and rank list; influence of gender on assessment of professionalism/interpersonal communication skills Quantitative: ANOVA, t-tests
Hopson et al. SVI    N/A Correlation between electronic standardized letter of evaluation (eSLOE) and SVI Correlation between eSLOE/SVI on rotation grades, USMLE scores, honor society memberships Quantitative: Spearman rank correlations, point-biserial correlations, Pearson correlations, Cohen’s d
Husain et al. SVI    N/A Likelihood to invite for interview (LTI) pre-SVI score reviewed, post-SVI score reviewed, and post-SVI video viewed Subgroup analysis by USMLE score and SVI score Quantitative: t-test, ANOVA, linear regression
Lewis et al. SVI    N/A Correlation between SVI scores and attending evaluations of professionalism and patient care/communication performance during EM clerkship None Quantitative: Spearman rank correlations
Willis et al. SVI    N/A Correlation between SVI score and interview score None Quantitative: Spearman rank correlations
Bowers et al. SVI    N/A Correlation between SVI score and position on rank list None Quantitative: correlation
Hall et al. SVI    N/A Correlation between SVI and patient assessment of communication (communication assessment tool) None Quantitative: Spearman’s rank correlation
McHugh et al. SVI    N/A Correlation between traditional interview score, standardized interview score, and SVI score None Quantitative: descriptive, ANOVA
Staicu et al. One 15-min interview with five behavioral-based questions Skype or FaceTime None 3 (residency director, coordinator, and a preceptor) Technical issues, number invited for on-site interview None Quantitative: descriptive
Temple et al. One 20-minu interview; 5 behavioral-based questions; candidates had 5 min to ask questions; total possible score of 30 Skype or FaceTime None 2 (clinical pharmacy specialists or administrator) Description of interview conduct, financial costs, and time spent None Quantitative: descriptive
Hall et al. SVI    N/A Correlation between SVI and faculty evaluations on professionalism and patient care/communication Correlation between SVI and patient reported communication skills (CAT) Quantitative: Spearman’s rank correlation
Ballejos et al. One-on-one semi-structured 30–60 min interview Skype None 1 Medical school acceptance rate using videoconference vs. face-to-face interview Impact of socioeconomic status, self-identified disadvantaged category on acceptance rate Quantitative: descriptive, t-test, chi-squared test
Bird et al. SVI    N/A Demographic differences in SVI score Correlations between SVI scores and other measures (USMLE step scores, honor society memberships, etc.) Quantitative: descriptive, rater reliability, t-test, Pearson correlation, point-biserial correlations, Cohen’s d
Schnapp et al. SVI    N/A Correlation between SVI and faculty gestalt score Correlation between overall interview score and SVI Quantitative: Spearman’s rank correlation
Shah et al. SVI    N/A Correlation between SVI and in-person interview scores None Quantitative: inear regression
Shah et al. One-on-one 15-min interviews Skype Video tour of facilities; opportunity to ask residents questions; brief Skype test call to coordinator 1 week before interview 3–6 different faculty Survey responses of applicant/faculty perspectives on effectiveness of web-based interview Comparison of rank list position between web-based versus on-site interview; financial cost; educational cost Quantitative: descriptive, Mann-Whitney U-test, Fisher’s exact test
Vadi et al. Three/four 10-min interviews with faculty FaceTime or Skype Audio/video version of program overview; video tour of medical center and surrounding communities; google hangout session with current residents; option to schedule an on-campus department tour 6 faculty (number of interviews per interview not clear) Proportion of applicants selected via face-to-face vs. web-based interview Survey responses of applicants’ perspectives of web-based interview Quantitative: Shapiro-Wilk test, t-test, Wilcoxon rank-sum test, chi-square test, Wald test
Krauss et al. SVI    N/A Correlation between USMLE scores and SVI scores None Quantitative: linear regression, Kruskal-Wallis test
Williams et al. One 30-min interview Skype Virtual tour with commentary by chief residents; electronic brochures; resident contact info provided 4 (program director, associate program director, and 2 chief residents) Survey responses from applicants about their experience None Quantitative: descriptive
Molina et al. Five 15-min interviews using break out rooms on Zoom. Program coordinator moved applicants/faculty between breakout rooms on Zoom Zoom 30-min general overview provided by program director; semi-structured fellow’s “room” where current fellows showed a pre-recorded virtual tour of the hospitals, presentation on research opportunities, and topics of interest to prospective fellows 2–4 faculty interviewers per interview “room” Survey responses from applicants on conduct of the virtual interview compared to those from previous year on conduct of face-to-face interview Survey responses from faculty on conduct of virtual interview Quantitative: descriptive
Sripad One 30-min interview Zoom Option to meet current fellows during an informal videoconference the night prior to their interview; applicants were sent a 15-min information video about the program; 15-min introductory presentation by program director on interview day 2–4 faculty/fellows Survey responses from applicants on their experience None Quantitative: descriptive
Nutter et al. One panel interview Not reported Prior to interviews, candidates were provided with a link to a PowerPoint presentation and virtual campus tour; candidates were offered contact information for additional questions and to visit campus at their leisure Five interviewers Survey responses of applicants Survey responses of interviewers Quantitative: descriptive, student t-test, Mann-Whitney U-test
McAteer et al. One-on-one panel interview Skype None 1 Cost and time savings with virtual interview Survey responses of applicants and faculty Quantitative: descriptive
Majumder et al. One-on-one panel interviews Zoom Presentation overview of the program; orientation to Zoom and the use of breakout rooms; informal breakout room with current fellows 5–7 different faculty Survey responses of applicants’ perspectives on the feasibility, appropriateness, and acceptability of virtual interview process Survey responses of faculty's perspective of virtual interview process Quantitative: descriptive
Grova et al. Twelve one-on-one panel interviews Zoom Videoconference information session by program director; breakout room for informal interactions with fellows/faculty 12 different faculty members Survey responses of applicants’ perspective of the interview experience None Quantitative: descriptive, t-tests
Vining et al. Five panel interviews: 10 min with program director, 15 min with institutional leader, three 30-min interviews with faculty Zoom Optional session for applicants to get an overview of the program from program director and to meet staff members who would be points of contact for technical difficulties Program director, institutional leads and three different faculties (total of 13 faculty members participated) Survey responses from applicants Survey responses from faculty Quantitative: descriptive