Skip to main content

Table 2 Study outcomes grouped thematically

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

Author Year published Title Environmental costs Financial costs Opportunity costs Technological issues Body Language Impact on Rank List Study Limitations
Winfield-Dial et al. 2018 Demographic differences between high and low scorers on the standardized video interview Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported
Winfield-Dial et al. 2018 Applicant attitudes towards the standardized video interview—an interim analysis Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported
Humbert et al. 2018 Correlation of the standard video interview score with an established application review process Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported
Naemi et al. 2019 Examining the relationship between the AAMC standardized video interview and step 2 CS subscores Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported
Chukwumah et al. 2010 The use of remote computer audio-video processing to conduct surgical fellowship interviews of deployed physicians Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported
Chandler et al. 2019 Efficacy of videoconference interviews in the pediatric surgery match Not reported Financial cost was a hardship for applicants; video conferencing comes without the cost and inconvenience of travel 90% of applicants reported that the amount of time spent for interviews was a hardship; applicants may appear more fatigued or stressed when interviewing during or after a work day Occasional trouble connecting when the applicants were interviewing from a hospital Not reported Some applicants moved up on rank list following videoconference interview Recall bias; reliability of survey data; applicants may be biased to provide positive responses (controlled for by administering survey after submission of rank lists)
Chung et al. 2019 How well does the standardized video interview score correlate with traditional interview performance? Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Sample size; traditional interviews were not structured (low interrater reliability amongst interviewers)
Brietkpof et al. 2018 One-way video interviewing as a method to augment the residency application Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Positive correlation between one-way interview score and rank list position Not reported
Tiller at al. 2013 Internet-based multiple mini-interviews for candidate selection for graduate entry programs Not reported $50000/year of cost savings for university; substantial cost savings for applicants Virtual interview provided time savings for applicants No significant technical concerns, need for some improvement in audio/visual quality Not reported Not reported Naturalistic study design (can’t control for crossover); low survey response rate
Brietkpof et al. 2019 Use of asynchronous video interviews for selecting obstetrics and gynecology residents Not reported Not reported Delayed in-person interviews by 3 weeks, but this did not have a significant effect on the number of applicants accepting in-person interviews; increased burden of work for program Not reported Not reported Trend towards positive correlation between asynchronous interview sore and rank list position Not reported
Daram et al. 2014 Interview from anywhere: feasibility and utility of web-based videoconference interviews in the gastroenterology fellowship selection process Not reported Web-based videoconference interviewing provided cost savings for applicants Avoiding interview date conflicts; avoiding need to take time off from work Logistics are simple (high-speed Internet, smart phones) Not reported Not reported Small sample size, lack of randomization, selection bias
Deiorio et al. 2019 Applicant reactions to the AAMC standardized video interview during the 2018 application cycle Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Recall bias; limited length of surveys
Hakes et al. 2018 Communication and professionalism: comparing standardized video interview scores to faculty gestalt Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported
Edje et al. 2013 Using Skype as an alternative for residency selection interviews Not reported There are cost savings for both applicants and interviewers There are time savings for applicants and interviewers Voice delay with Skype interviews Lack of physical contact such as a hand shake was more of a concern for interviewers Not reported Not reported
Egan et al. 2019 Standardized video interviews do not correlate to US medical licensing examination step 1 and step 2 scores Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not all applicants from 2017 to 2017 application season were included which may limit generalizability
Gallahue at al. 2019 The AAMC standardized video interview: reactions and use by residency programs during the 2018 application cycle Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported SVI scores may not be useful in determining who to invite for an interview Skewed responses to survey questions; hard to expand on their reactions with surveys (qualitative study may be useful); video usage did not reflect the duration of how long the SVI was viewed for
Healy et al. 2017 Videoconference interviews for an adult reconstruction fellowship: lessons learned Not reported Not reported Reduced time spent on interview for applicants and faculty Not reported Not reported Most applicants were comfortable ranking a program after a videoconference interview Not reported
Hopson et al. 2019 Comparison of the standardized video interview and interview assessments of professionalism and interpersonal communication skills in emergency medicine Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported No standardized interview protocol across programs; no valid scoring system available for professionalism or interpersonal/communication skills
Hopson et al. 2019 The AAMC standardized video interview and the electronic standardized letter of evaluation in emergency medicine: a comparison of performance characteristics Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Did not assess the practical significance of SVI/eSLOE correlations
Husain et al. 2019 The standardized video interview: how does it affect the likelihood to invite for a residency interview Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported SVI score changed the likelihood to invite for an interview in 7% of applicants No standardization of the selection process; faculty reviewers were NOT blinded to the study purpose; limited experience with SVI to begin with; no standardization to how long the reviewers should watch the videos
Lewis et al. 2018 Standardized video interview scores do not correlate with attending evaluations Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported
Willis et al. 2018 Are standardized video interview scores predictive of interview performance? Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Small sample size
Bowers et al. 2019 Standard video interview scores and applicant position on residency program list: a correlation study Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported No correlation between SVI scores and rank list Not reported
Hall et al. 2018 Standard video interview score does not correlate with medical student communication skills Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported
McHugh et al. 2019 Do standardized or traditional interview questions correlate with the standardized video interview? Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported
Staicu et al. 2015 FaceTime face-off: evaluation of video conferencing as a novel pre-interview screen for a PGY-1 pharmacy residency Not reported Video conference interviews reduce applicant travel expenses Minimal time investment required for videoconference interviews Unsuccessful video in 22% of interviews, replaced with telephone interviews Not reported Not reported Not reported
Temple et al. 2014 Streamlining the residency interview process using web-based teleconferencing Not reported Monetary savings from decreased cost for meals for onsite interviews Less time taken away from patient care/clinical activity Few interviews conducted via telephone due to connectivity issues Loss of video connection prevented evaluation of body language which was part of the evaluation Not reported No evaluation of how applicants felt about video interviews; did not confirm identity of applicant
Hall et al. 2019 Standardized video interview scores correlate poorly with faculty and patient ratings Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Small sample size; faculty evaluations group patient care and communication together; inter-rater reliability of faculty evaluations is questionable
Ballejos et al. 2018 An equivalence study of interview platform: does videoconference technology impact medical school acceptance rates of different groups? Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported No significant change in acceptance rate between face-to-face vs. video interview Conducted at single medical school; small sample size interviewed by video; may not be generalizable to other schools that are less diverse/rural
Bird et al. 2019 Innovation in residency selection: the AAMC standardized video interview Not reported Not reported Unintended consequence of SVI may be increase in time required for preparation Not reported Not reported Not reported Other aspects of selection process like LOE, trainee performance outcomes not assessed; unclear if use of non-physician raters reduced the accuracy of SVI scores
Schnapp et al. 2019 Assessing residency applicants' communication and professionalism: standardized video interview scores compared to faculty gestalt Not reported SVI may not remain free Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Small sample size; difficult to differentiate between faculty ratings of 1–25; no formalized protocol on how professionalism/communication should be assessed
Shah et al. 2018 The standardized video interview: how well does the SVI score correlate with traditional interview performance? Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported
Shah et al. 2012 Randomized evaluation of a web-based interview process for urology resident selection Not reported Cost savings for both applicants and programs Less time taken away from school for applicants Poor connection quality in several instances; had to re-connect via skype Not reported Similar distribution of applicants from each interview type on rank list Average travel costs may be unestimated given geographic distribution of applicants; change in rank list position during study period may be secondary to improvement in applicant credentials
Vadi et al. 2016 Comparison of web-based and face-to-face interviews for application to an anesthesiology training program: a pilot study Not reported Video interviews selected due to financial costs in 25% Video interviews selected due to inability to get time off in 9.4% 6.3% and 3.1% reported sub-optimal video and audio quality, respectively Not reported Interview type did not have a significant impact on rank list No randomization to interview type; single-center study; single specialty
Krauss et al. 2018 Correlation between emergency medicine residency applicant’s standardized video interview scores and US medical licensing examination results Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported
Williams et al. 2015 Videoconference interviewing: tips for success Not reported Not reported Not reported Poor video quality reported 17% of applicants Not reported Most applicants felt that videoconference interview was sufficient for them to determine their rank list Virtual interview was limited to 30 min, which may have affected program’s ability to convey aspects of the program
Molina et al. 2020 Virtual interviews for the complex general surgical oncology fellowship: the Dana-Farber/Partners Experience Not reported Virtual interview experience eliminated the burden of associated costs for the program itself with regard to food and drink but also the cost of travel for applicants Decreased inconvenience of travel for applicants with virtual interviews; able to maximize the number of faculty members participating in the selection process with virtual interviews Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported
Sripad 2020 Videoconference interviews for female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery fellowship during a pandemic: the candidate experience Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported
Nutter et al. 2020 Perception of candidates and faculty on maternal fetal medicine fellowship videoconference interviewing Not reported Benefit of videoconference interview is cost savings Benefit of videoconference interview is time savings Not reported Not reported Lack of subjective details from personal interaction Not reported
McAteer et al. 2020 Videoconference interviews: a timely primary care residency selection approach Not reported 55% reduction in costs to the program with initial videoconference interview to screen applicants Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Cost estimate does not account for benefits of potential income generated through increased faculty and resident clinical productivity (owing to fewer in-person interview days); unable to quantify benefit of flexible scheduling with virtual interviews; variation in interview process over the years; poor response rates and non-standardized survey questions
Majumder et al. 2020 Initial experience with a virtual platform for advanced gastrointestinal minimally invasive surgery fellowship interviews Not reported 89% of applicants reported cost savings as a strength of virtual interviewing 45% reported a reduction in missed time and improvement in flexibility of scheduling as a benefit of virtual interviewing 33% of applicants mentioned technical issues Not reported Not reported No comparative control in-person interview group; small sample size; bias for applicants to provide favorable responses
Grova et al. 2020 Direct comparison of in-person versus virtual interviews for complex general surgical oncology fellowship in the COVID-19 era Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Only 54% of applicants in the virtual interview group, compared to 92% from the face-to-face group, felt that the interview experience was sufficient to make a ranking decision Virtual interviews need to improve the applicant’s ability to gain a feel of the culture of a program and to make a ranking decision Single-institution study with limited sample size; recall bias; applicants may be biased toward more favorable responses as survey was administered prior to submission of rank lists
Vining et al. 2020 Virtual surgical fellowship recruitment during COVID-19 and its implications for resident/fellow recruitment in the future Not reported Applicants highlighted cost savings Applicants highlight time savings Faculty expressed ongoing nervousness about technical issues; only one faculty had a temporary technical connectivity problem Not reported Not reported Not reported