The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Selection Criteria for Residency: Results of a National Program Directors Survey
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess the relative importance of criteria used for residency selection in 21 medical specialties given current available data and competitiveness of specialties. METHOD: In 2006, questionnaires were distributed to 2,528 program directors in university hospital or university-affiliated community hospital residency programs across 21 medical specialties. Responses were recorded using a five-point Likert scale of importance. Mean values for each item were calculated within and across all specialties. Mean scores for item responses were used to create rank orders of selection criteria within the specialties. To facilitate comparisons, specialties were grouped according to the percentages of positions filled with U.S. medical school graduates. RESULTS: The overall response rate was 49%. With the data from all specialties pooled, the top five selection criteria were (1) grades in required clerkships, (2) United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1 score, (3) grades in senior electives in specialty, (4) number of honors grades, and (5) USMLE Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) score. CONCLUSIONS: The top academic selection criteria are based on clinical performance, with the exception of USMLE Step 1 score. Indicators that reflect excellence in clinical performance are valued across the specialties by residency program directors regardless of competitiveness within the specialty. USMLE Step 2 CK ranks higher in the less competitive specialties, whereas research experience is more prominent in the most competitive specialties. The Medical Student Performance Evaluation was ranked lowest of all criteria by the program directors.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Teherani, A., Hauer, K. E., Fernandez, A., King, T. E., & Lucey, C. (2018) · Academic Medicine · doi:10.1097/acm.0000000000002323 · Cited by 291
Impact of pass/fail grading on medical students’ well‐being and academic outcomes
Spring, L., Robillard, D., Gehlbach, L., & Moore Simas, T. A. (2011) · Medical Education · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2923.2011.03989.x · Cited by 184
The impact of large scale licensing examinations in highly developed countries: a systematic review
Archer, J., Lynn, N., Coombes, L., Roberts, M., Gale, T., Price, T., & Regan de Bere, S. (2016) · BMC Medical Education · doi:10.1186/s12909-016-0729-7 · Cited by 42
Metadata
- Authors
- Green, M., Jones, P., & Thomas, J. X.
- Venue
- Academic Medicine
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2009-03
- Volume
- 84
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 362-367
- ISSN
- 1040-2446 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2103544212
- Cited by
- 303
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 10.81
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Selection Criteria for Residency: Results of a National Program Directors Survey. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/acm.0b013e3181970c6b
- The paper
- Green, M., Jones, P., & Thomas, J. X. (2009). Selection Criteria for Residency: Results of a National Program Directors Survey. Academic Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1097/acm.0b013e3181970c6b
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.