A Standardized Letter of Recommendation for Residency Application

Keim, Samuel M.; Rein, Judith A.; Chisholm, Carey D.; Dyne, Pamela L.; Hendey, Gregory W.; Jourıles, Nicholas; King, Randall W.; Schrading, Walter A.; Salomone, Joseph A.; Swart, G. T.; Wightman, John M.

doi:10.1111/j.1553-2712.1999.tb00117.x

Cited by 112 publications

(111 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

108

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…[23][24][25][26][27] One of the primary driving forces behind the development of the SLOR was to limit "clerkship grade and adjective inflation," which was believed to be "rampant" at the time. 5,11 A recurrent theme throughout in the first SLOR Task Force study was that grade inflation is the primary limitation of the SLOR. 18 This study further reinforces this concern, as the lack of meaningful comparisons to other applicants was rated as the single greatest factor in diminishing the value of the SLOR (Table 2).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…1,[4][5][6] In addition, interpretation is highly variable, as demonstrated by a low interobserver reliability. 7,8 These letters are time-consuming to read and provide an inflated evaluation, with one study documenting that 75% of candidates were rated "above average."…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…5 Early studies on the CORD SLOR proved that it was popular with residency program directors (PDs). 5 In addition, work by Girzadas et al 6 demonstrated significant improvement in efficiency of evaluation and interrater reliability over the NLOR. Based on this success, several other specialties including pediatrics, plastic surgery, and otolaryngology have entertained the possibility of creating their own SLOR.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Council of Emergency Medicine Residency Directors' Standardized Letter of Recommendation: The Program Director's Perspective

Love

Smith

Weizberg

et al. 2014

Academic Emergency Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: The standardized letter of evaluation (SLOE) was created in 1997 to provide residency program directors (PDs) with a summative evaluation that incorporates normative grading (i.e., comparisons to peers applying to emergency medicine [EM] training). Although the standard letter of recommendation (SLOR) has become increasingly popular and important in decision-making, it has not been studied in the past 12 years. To assess the SLOR's effectiveness and limitations, the perspective of EM PDs was surveyed in this study.Methods: After validation of the questionnaire by 10 retired PDs, the survey was sent to the PD of each of the 159 EM residencies that existed at that time. The survey was circulated via the Council of Emergency Medicine Residency Directors' (CORD) listserv from January 24, 2013, to February 13, 2013. Weekly e-mail reminders to all PDs served to increase participation.Results: A total of 150 of 159 PDs (94.3%) completed the questionnaire. Nearly all respondents (149 of 150; 99.3%) agreed that the SLOR is an important evaluative tool and should continue to be used. In the application process, 91 of 150 (60.7%) programs require one or more SLORs, and an additional 55 (36.7%) recommend but do not require a SLOR to be considered for interview. When asked to identify the top three factors in deciding who should be interviewed, the SLOR was ranked first (139 of 150; 92.7%), with EM rotation grades ranked second (73 of 150; 48.7%). The factors that were most often identified as the top three that diminish the value of the SLOR in order were 1) "inflated evaluations" (121 of 146; 82.9%), 2) "inconsistency between comments and grades" (106 of 146; 72.6%), and 3) "inadequate perspective on candidate attributes in the written comments" and "inexperienced authors" (60 of 146; 41.1% each). Conclusions:The SLOR appears to be the most important tool in the EM PD's armamentarium for determining which candidates should be interviewed for residency training. Although valuable, the SLOR's potential utility is hampered by a number of factors, the most important of which is inflated evaluations. Focused changes in the SLOR template should be mindful that it appears, in general, to be successful in its intended purpose.ACADEMIC EMERGENCY MEDICINE 2014;21:680-687 © 2014 by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine P rior studies have shown that traditional narrative letters of recommendation (NLOR) suffer from a number of significant limitations. Such letters do not predict future performance.1,2 They often repeat cognitive merits of the applicant and do not specifically address noncognitive domains that may be more predictive of performance as a resident. 2,3 The information that is provided is not comparative and is often

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Council of Emergency Medicine Residency Directors' Standardized Letter of Recommendation: The Program Director's Perspective

Love

Smith

Weizberg

et al. 2014

Academic Emergency Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Results of a preliminary survey suggest positive endorsement from program directors, including improved ease of reading, ease of completion, ability to discriminate differences between candidates, and other factors. 2 The Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) also recommends certain guidelines for dean's letters for residency applicants, including standardized format, and quantitative comparative performance information. 3 A standardized letter format has been demonstrated to offer improved interrater reliability and diminished interpretation time.…”

Section: Problems With Lorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ethics Seminars: Beyond Authorship Requirements—Ethical Considerations in Writing Letters of Recommendation

Larkin

Marco

2001

Academic Emergency Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Letters of recommendation may serve a number of vital functions related to the evaluation, selection, and promotion of candidates. The lure of academic celebrity or the desire of an individual candidate for a flattering letter must not threaten the veracity of the content. Letters of recommendation should be appropriately authored to meet the needs of the institution or individual requesting the letter, while keeping authenticity paramount. Length and content should be complete but not overly verbose. Relevant elements suggested by standardized formats should typically be included, such as nature of contact with the applicant, commitment to emergency medicine, work ethic, ability to develop a differential and treatment plan, personality, interpersonal interactions, and an overall comparative ranking. The seven cardinal elements of an exemplary letter of recommendation are that it should be: 1) authentic (based on adequate first-hand knowledge of the candidate's skills); 2) honest (accurate; avoiding exaggeration or hyperbole); 3) explicit (avoidance of veiled omissions); 4) balanced (taking care to incorporate both strengths and weaknesses); 5) confidential (avoiding unnecessary or unanticipated disclosure); 6) of appropriate detail and length (content relevant to the institutional or individual requests); and 7) technically clear (avoidance of unnecessary abbreviations and jargon). The implied duty to future students, colleagues, researchers, and patients who might come in contact with the applicant should motivate authors to write honest, explicit, appropriate, and complete letters.

show abstract

“…Part of this discussion is to better quantify our ranking system, given that our medical school does not have grades. The Council of Residency Directors' (CORD's) standard letter of recommendation (SLOR) has assisted our faculty to some small extent with this issue [1][2][3][4] ; however, we felt that this issue needed better clarification.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%