During the COVID-19 pandemic, most residency programs shifted to virtual interviews for the 2020-2021 recruitment cycle. In August 2021, the Coalition for Physician Accountability recommended continuing virtual interviews to decrease costs for applicants and programs and to improve accessibility to applicants from lower socioeconomic statuses. Since then, applicants and programs have reported difficulties with the virtual process.
Dr. Robert M. Frederick and his team assessed the perceptions of otolaryngology applicants regarding virtual versus in-person interviews during the 2023-2024 application and residency recruitment cycle, which was the first time many applicants were offered both virtual and in-person interviews. Dr. Frederick presented the findings in a poster presented at the 2025 ACGME Annual Educational Conference, held February 20-22, 2025, in Nashville, Tennessee
Poster Title: Evaluating Applicant Preferences and Perceptions of Virtual versus In-Person Residency Interviews: Insights from the 2023-2024 Otolaryngology Application Cycle
Primary Author: Robert M. Frederick, MD
Co-Authors: Taylor S. Erickson, MD; Steven D. Pletcher, MD; Aileen Dowden, MA; Dana Dunleavy, MA; Eric J. Dobratz, MD
ACGME: Tell us about your academic and professional role.
Dr. Frederick: I am a PGY-3 otolaryngology resident physician.
ACGME: Can you briefly describe your research project for us?
Frederick: The 2023-2024 application cycle was the first year in which otolaryngology residency applicants attended both virtual and in-person interviews in the same year. Through the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC), applicants were emailed a 20+-question survey following Match® Day [the day medical students and residents find out into which residencies or fellowships they were accepted] aimed at assessing their experience with both interview formats to objectively demonstrate which format applicants preferred.
ACGME: What inspired you to do this project?
Frederick: Virtual interviews became a necessity during the COVID-19 pandemic. This format proved advantageous for its cost savings for both programs and applicants, improved geographic reach for applicants, and overall convenience. Despite this, many desired a return to in-person interviews, as applicants reported they had more difficulty standing out, adequately assessing programs’ culture and medical campuses, and determining overall fit via virtual interviews. There was a gap in the literature for objectively demonstrating applicants’ interview format preference.
ACGME: What did you discover?
Frederick: We found that most respondents, 72 percent, preferred in-person interviews with no difference between reported genders. Underrepresented minority applicants did prefer virtual interviews more than expected, but not as much as they preferred the in-person format (69 percent). Additionally, a majority of respondents, 76 percent, favored allowing individual programs to decide their method of interviewing, rather than instituting a specialty-wide mandate of all virtual or all in-person interviews.
ACGME: What was the main takeaway?
Frederick: Overall, applicants to otolaryngology - head and neck surgery programs show greater satisfaction with, and preference for, in-person interviews despite the reduced stress and cost savings associated with virtual interviews. With this information, programs can tailor their recruitment and interview season to align with these applicant preferences as much as possible. It’s also important to note that virtual interviews still play a role for making interview season equitable for all applicants with attention to those from lower socioeconomic statuses. Future research should investigate methods of introducing the optimal mix of in-person and virtual interviews while being cognizant and controlling for any potential biases associated with the different interview formats.
ACGME: Who could benefit from this research?
Frederick: Otolaryngology applicants and residency programs will benefit from this research in upcoming interview seasons as applicants’ preferences will be easier to account for, while programs can work to create a more equitable and enjoyable interview experience. Other specialties should use these methods and findings as a model to apply towards their own disciplines as it is important not to generalize the findings from our smaller specialty to other specialties that differ in size and values, which may lead to different applicant and program preferences.