Some Perceptions Differ, Match Outcomes Do Not: A Multisite Retrospective Cross-Sectional Comparison of Virtual vs. In-Person Recruitment

Background Virtual interviewing for residency provides considerable savings. Its impact on match outcomes remains unclear. Objective Evaluate the impact of virtual residency recruitment on program and applicant assessment and match outcomes. Design Cross-sectional survey, September 2020–July 2021 Participants Faculty interviewers and 2019 and 2020 PGY-1 classes at three academic internal medicine residencies. Main Measures Survey items rating effectiveness of interview format, preference for future interview format, and perceived impact on diversity. Key Results A total of 247/436 faculty (57%) interviewers responded. Faculty perceived that in-person interviews enhanced applicant assessment (3.23 ± 0.38, p < 0.01) and recruitment of the most qualified applicants ( p < 0.01) but did not impact recruitment of a racially or gender diverse class (3.03 ± 0.99, p = 0.95 and 3.09 ± 0.76, p = 0.14 respectively). They also did not demonstrate a preference for future interview formats. A total of 259/364 matched applicants responded, corresponding to a 76% response rate in the in-person cohort and a 66% response rate for virtual. Trainees were equally likely to match at their top choice when interviewing virtually vs. in-person ( p = 0.56), and racial/ethnic and gender composition of the incoming class also did not differ ( p = 0.81 and p = 0.19 respectively). Trainees perceived many aspects of the institution were better assessed in-person, though the impact varied according to assessment domain. Trainees who interviewed in-person preferred in-person formats. Of those who interviewed virtually, 47% preferred virtual and 54% preferred in-person. There were no predictors of virtual preference for future interview formats. Conclusions Faculty and applicants who experienced virtual recruitment had no preference for future recruitment format. Virtual recruitment had no impact on the racial/gender diversity of matched classes or on applicants matching at their top-ranked institution. Institutions should consider the potential non-inferiority of virtual interviews with financial and other benefits when making decisions about future interview formats.