• The Laryngoscope · Jan 2013

    Standardized letter of recommendation for otolaryngology residency selection.

    • Jonathan N Perkins, Conan Liang, Kim McFann, Mona M Abaza, Sven-Olrik Streubel, and Jeremy D Prager.
    • Department of Pediatric Otolaryngology, Children's Hospital Colorado, Aurora, Colorado 80045, USA.
    • Laryngoscope. 2013 Jan 1; 123 (1): 123-33.

    Objectives/HypothesisDevelop a standardized letter of recommendation (SLOR) for otolaryngology residency application that investigates the qualities desired in residents and the letter writer's experience. Compare this SLOR to narrative letters of recommendation (NLORs).Study DesignProspective SLOR/NLOR comparison.MethodsThe SLOR was sent to an NLOR writer for each applicant. The applicant's NLOR/SLOR pair was blinded and ranked in seven categories by three reviewers. Inter-rater reliability and NLOR/SLOR rankings were compared. Means of cumulative NLOR and SLOR scores were compared to our departmental rank list.ResultsThirty-one SLORs (66%) were collected. The SLORs had higher inter-rater reliability for applicant's qualifications for otolaryngology, global assessment, summary statement, and overall letter ranking. Writer's background, comparison to contemporaries/predecessors, and letter review ease had higher inter-rater reliability on the NLORs. Mean SLOR rankings were higher for writer's background (P = .0007), comparison of applicant to contemporaries/predecessors (P = .0031), and letter review ease (P < .0001). Mean SLOR writing time was 4.17 ± 2.18 minutes. Mean ranking time was significantly lower (P < .0001) for the SLORs (39.24 ± 23.45 seconds) compared to the NLORs (70.95 ± 40.14 seconds). Means of cumulative SLOR scores correlated with our rank list (P = .004), whereas means of cumulative NLOR scores did not (P = .18). Means of cumulative NLOR and SLOR scores did not correlate (P = .26).ConclusionsSLORs require little writing time, save reviewing time, and are easier to review compared to NLORs. Our SLOR had higher inter-rater reliability in four of seven categories and was correlated with our rank list. This tool conveys standardized information in an efficient manner.Copyright © 2012 The American Laryngological, Rhinological, and Otological Society, Inc.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…