Relative importance of the components of the Canadian Residency Matching Service application

Abstract

ObjectiveThe primary goal of this project was to investigate Canadian ophthalmology residency program directors’ and department heads’ perceptions about the relative importance of the various components of the Canadian Residency Matching Service (CaRMS) application package. Secondary goals were: (i) to investigate the perceptions of all program directors and department heads at Queen’s University’s residency programs; and (ii) to compare faculty’s perceptions with the perceptions of medical students at Queen’s University. DesignSurvey. ParticipantsQueen’s University medical students, Queen’s University faculty, and Canadian Ophthalmology faculty participated in this survey. MethodsA validated survey was administered to faculty and students. The study targeted program directors and department heads of 15 Canadian ophthalmology residency programs, 18 residency programs at Queen’s University, as well as 404 medical students at Queen’s University. Qualitative questions were included in the faculty survey. Quantitative data were analyzed with nonparametric tests. Qualitative data were organized according to primary themes. ResultsResponse rates ranged from 64% to 87%. On a scale of 1 to 4 in order of increasing importance, faculty and students respectively assigned the highest scores to the following components: interview performance (3.73, 3.89), electives (3.64, 3.83), reference letters (3.53, 3.74), and personal letter (3.27, 3.58). For all 4 components, student scores were significantly higher than faculty scores. First- and fourth-year medical students’ scores differed significantly in eight areas including research experience and volunteer experience. In both of these components, there were statistical differences between fourth-year student scores and faculty scores, whereas the first-year class had scores that were comparable with faculty scores. Queen’s University faculty and Ophthalmology faculty did not differ significantly. Faculty scores also did not differ significantly based on age or sex. ConclusionsFaculty and students agreed on the most important components of the application, but significant differences were found in their perceptions of the relative importance of other components.