Originl Article Chrcteristics of Applicnts Who Obtin Interviews t Orthodontic Postgrdute Progrms Anil P. Ardeshn ; Courtney A. Fong b ABSTRACT Objective: To evlute pplicnt credentils tht re ssocited with receiving interviews to postgrdute orthodontic progrms. Mterils nd Methods: Twenty-two vribles incorporting cdemic, work, nd personl chrcteristics of 68 pplicnts were nlyzed using miled questionnire survey nd dt from ppliction files. Applicnts were grouped into ctegories bsed on the number of interviews reported. Results: Sttisticlly significnt ssocitions were identified between interview ctegory nd: ge, number of progrms pplied to, grde in orthodontic course, grde point verge, scores from prt 1 of the ntionl dentl bord exm, cdemic honors, reserch, recommendtion letter from orthodontic fculty, generl prctice residency, work experience, nd community service. Conclusions: Progrms re interested in rounded, well-blnced individuls who excel t more thn one thing. Cumultive grde point verge nd orthodontic work experience were the most significnt. (Angle Orthod 2010;80:373 377.) KEY WORDS: Orthodontics; Postgrdute; Interview; Eduction; School dmission criteri INTRODUCTION For more thn 30 yers, the medicl resident selection process hs been nlyzed in n effort to improve it. When medicl nd dentl students re deciding bout which postgrdute progrms to pply to, they re concerned tht they my not even be offered interviews for the vilble positions. 1 An invittion for n interview indictes n pplicnt s successful dvncement to the next stge in obtining position. It lso indictes tht progrm is serious bout interest in the pplicnt. Therefore, n pplicnt cn be considered competitive if he hs obtined high number of interviews. Fmilirity with vlued credentils would provide guidnce to pplicnts when pplying to progrms. Assistnt Professor, Deprtment of Orthodontics, New Jersey Dentl School, University of Medicine nd Dentistry of New Jersey, Newrk, New Jersey. b Privte Prctice, New York, New York. Corresponding uthor: Dr Anil P. Ardeshn, Deprtment of Orthodontics, New Jersey Dentl School, University of Medicine nd Dentistry of New Jersey, 110 Bergen Street, C712 Newrk, NJ 07101 (e-mil: rdeshp@umdnj.edu) Accepted: August 2009. Submitted: July 2009. G 2010 by The EH Angle Eduction nd Reserch Foundtion, Inc. Most postgrdute progrms do not use objective systems to screen the pplicnt nd objective components of pplictions. 1 Historiclly populr criteri re usully grdes, scores, nd letters of recommendtion. 2 Wgoner et l 3 found tht s specilty becme more competitive, its postgrdute progrms relied more hevily on cdemic credentils when screening pplicnt pools. Tylor et l 4 found tht the more surgicl, more competitive specilty of obstetrics nd gynecology focused on cdemic criteri, while fmily prctice, more biopsychosocil re of medicine, focused more on den s letters nd personl sttements. They concluded tht different specilties nd progrms were not homogenous in their vlue systems. Price 5 found tht professionl motivtion nd previous experience or knowledge in the re were the min fctors influencing the likelihood of prospective nursing students being selected for interviews. Aggrwl et l 6 developed methodology to fcilitte surgicl residents selection process using 36 vribles from their ppliction file. They found tht certin vribles were more influentil thn others. Few studies hve been conducted tht explore dentl postgrdute progrm ppliction nd selection processes, nd none hve been done specificlly for orthodontic progrms. The purpose of this study ws to nlyze the number of interviews received reltive to the number of progrms pplied to nd to describe the DOI: 10.2319/072309-410.1 373
374 ARDESHNA, FONG vribles in n pplicnt s file tht re ssocited with success in obtining interviews. Identifiction of these vribles will be helpful for progrm dmissions committees reviewing pplictions nd for potentil pplicnts, who will gin better understnding of wht mkes one competitive. MATERIALSAND METHODS Approvl for the project ws secured through the uthors institutionl review bord. Applicnts were recruited from the New Jersey Dentl School, Deprtment of Orthodontics, postgrdute ppliction pool for the yers 2005 nd 2006 (progrm strt dtes 2006 nd 2007, respectively). This is n estblished, tuitionbsed progrm ccredited by the Council on Dentl Eduction of 3 yers durtion. Grdutes receive certificte of specilty in orthodontics nd in ddition hve the option of enrolling in mster s of science degree in orl biology. All pplicnts were included in the study, except for those who withdrew their pplictions before interviews were grnted or whose current ddress ws foreign. One hundred fifty-one pplicnts from 2005 nd 140 from 2006 were enrolled in the study. Vrible mesures were derived from combintion of questionnire nd informtion in the individul s ppliction file. The questionnire ws sent to the pplicnts with cover letter, n informed consent document, nd postge-prepid return envelope vi US mil. Anonymity ws mintined for the questionnire response nd ppliction dt. The independent vribles exmined were: (1) ge, (2) gender, (3) US citizenship, (4) ethnicity, (5) grde point verge (GPA), (6) scores from prt 1 of the ntionl bord dentl exm (NBDE-1), (7) clss rnk (numericl), (8) grde in orthodontic course, (9) cdemic honors, (10) clinicl honors, (11) reserch experience, (12) publictions, (13) generl prctice residency, (14) teching experience, (15) orthodontic work experience, (16) generl dentl work experience, (17) community service, (18) letter of recommendtion from orthodontic fculty, (19) letter of recommendtion from n orthodontist in privte prctice, (20) prent n orthodontist, (21) prent dentist, nd (22) the number of progrms pplied to ctegorized into: P1 5 1 5, P2 5 6 10, P3 5 11 15, P4 5 16 20, P5 5$ 21. The dependent vribles mesured were: (1) number of interviews received (0 3, 4 6, or 7 or more); nd (2) cceptnce into progrm nd whether tht progrm ws their first choice. Presence or bsence of the vrible ws recorded without further nlysis of ccurcy, qulity, quntity, or length of time. The pplicnts were divided into three ctegories bsed on the number of interviews received: low (0 3, Figure 1. Number of progrms pplied to vs cceptnce. ie, the lest successful pplicnts); medium (4 6); nd high (7 or more, implying the most successful pplicnts). Sttisticl Anlyses Dt were compiled using Microsoft Excel (v. 5, Microsoft, Redmond, Wsh) nd nlyzed using SPSS sttisticl softwre (v. 16.0, SPSS Inc, Chicgo, Ill). A descriptive nlysis ws performed (mens nd %), nd the proportionte dt were compred using chisqure or Fisher s exct test with the significnce level set t P #.05. Logistic regression using stepwise selection procedure ws performed to determine whether there ws correltion between the significnt vribles (covrites) nd the ctegorized interview numbers (dependent vrible). The vrible cceptnce into progrm ws not included in the model becuse it did not mke sense to use it to predict the number of interviews (Figure 1). Also, the vribles ge nd community service were excluded from the model becuse of convergence problem. RESULTS Dt for the 2 yers were combined, s there ws no sttisticlly significnt difference between them. Of the 291 potentil pplicnts, 68 completed the questionnire, for response rte of 23.4%. More thn 50% of ll pplicnts hd ttended dentl schools tht either did not rnk their students or did not provide rnk or clss size informtion. Tbles 1 nd 2 show ll the vribles mesured. For the three estblished ctegories, there were 30 pplicnts in the low ctegory, 15 in the medium ctegory, nd 23 in the high ctegory. Of the pplicnts who were rnked, ll the pplicnts in the medium nd high interview ctegories rnked in the top 5% nd 7% of their dentl school clsses, respectively, while ll the pplicnts in the low ctegory were somewhere in the top 29% of their
APPLICANT INTERVIEWS AND ORTHODONTIC ADMISSION 375 Tble 1. Demogrphic Chrcteristics (Number nd %) of Applicnts with Summry of Fisher s Exct Test Results for Interview Ctegory (Low vs Medium-High) vs Demogrphic Vribles Vrible Low (n 5 30) Medium (n 5 15) High (n 5 23) Totl (N 5 68) P Age (yr) 24 25 2 (6.7) 7 (46.7) 9 (39.1) 18 (26.5).0008 26 30 23 (76.7) 8 (53.3) 13 (56.5) 44 (64.7) 31 35 5 (16.7) 0 (0.0) 1 (4.4) 6 (8.8) Gender Mle 12 (40.0) 10 (66.7) 11 (47.8) 33 (48.5).2111 Femle 18 (60.0) 5 (33.3) 12 (52.2) 35 (51.5) Citizenship United Sttes 23 (45.1) 10 (19.6) 18 (35.3) 51 (75.0).7779 Foreign 7 (41.2) 5 (29.4) 5 (29.4) 17 (25.0) Ethnicity Cucsin 20 (66.7) 8 (53.3) 12 (52.2) 40 (58.8).2398 Africn-Americn 1 (3.3) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 1 (1.5) Asin 7 (23.3) 6 (40.0) 10 (43.5) 23 (33.8) Hispnic 2 (6.7) 0 (0.0) 1 (4.4) 3 (4.4) Other 0 (0.0) 1 (6.7) 0 (0.0) 1 (1.5) No. of progrms pplied 1 5 7 (23.3) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 7 (10.3).0127,b 6 10 2 (6.7) 0 (0.0) 1 (4.4) 3 (4.4) 11 15 5 (16.7) 5 (33.3) 6 (26.1) 16 (23.5) 16 20 4 (13.3) 5 (33.3) 4 (17.4) 13 (19.1) 21+ 12 (40.0) 5 (33.3) 12 (52.2) 29 (42.7) Grde in orthodontic course A, A 12 (54.6) 11 (91.7) 12 (100.0) 35 (76.1).0010 B+, B, B 10 (45.4) 1 (8.3) 0 (0.0) 11 (23.9) NBDE-1 score $90 15 (53.6) 13 (86.7) 23 (100) 51 (77.3),.0001,90 13 (46.4) 2 (13.3) 0 (0.0) 15 (22.7) Represents comprison between low nd the combined medium nd high ctegories. Sttisticlly significnt t,.05 level. b P 5.0278 for Cochrn-Armitge trend test (one sided). There is significnt liner trend in proportions of the 5 levels of progrm pplied incresing. clss. Of the pplicnts who ttended dentl schools tht pplied letter grding system, no pplicnt erned grde lower thn B in the orthodontic course. The widest distribution of grdes (A, A2, B+, nd B) ws in the pplicnts within the low ctegory. The men GPAs were 3.43, 3.77, nd 3.80 in the low, medium, nd high ctegories, respectively (Figure 2). NBDE-1 scores (Figure 3) were highest in the high ctegory pplicnts, who hd men score of 94. The medium group hd men score of 91, while the low group hd men score of 88. For further nlysis, the medium nd high interview ctegories were combined, s there ws little difference between them. The results of Fisher s exct test of which vribles showed sttisticlly significnt ssocition reltive to the two interview ctegories (low Tble 2. Descriptive Mesures for Criteri for Interview Ctegories with Summry of Fisher s Exct Test for Interview Ctegory (Low vs Medium-High) vs Criteri Vribles Interview Ctegory Low (n 5 30) Medium (n 5 15) High (n 5 23) Yes No Yes No Yes No Vrible n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%) P Acceptnce into progrm 13 (43.3) 17 (56.7) 15 (100) 0 (0.0) 22 (95.7) 1 (4.3),.0001 Accepted into progrm, first choice 6 (46.2) 7 (53.8) 7 (46.7) 8 (53.3) 15 (68.2) 7 (31.8).4058 Honors, cdemic 19 (63.3) 11 (36.7) 12 (80.0) 3 (20.0) 22 (95.7) 1 (4.3).0098 Honors, clinicl 6 (20.0) 24 (80.0) 8 (53.3) 7 (46.7) 7 (30.4) 16 (69.6).0844 Reserch 23 (76.7) 7 (23.3) 14 (93.3) 1 (6.7) 23 (100) 0 (0.0).0179 Publictions 4 (13.3) 26 (86.7) 3 (20.0) 12 (80.0) 7 (30.4) 16 (69.6).1886 Recommendtion letter, fculty member 17 (56.7) 13 (43.3) 11 (73.3) 4 (26.7) 20 (87.0) 3 (13.0).0252 Recommendtion letter, prctitioner 5 (16.7) 25 (83.3) 1 (6.7) 14 (93.3) 3 (13.0) 20 (87.0).4934 Prent generl dentist 3 (10.0) 27 (90.0) 0 (0.0) 15 (100) 2 (8.7) 21 (91.3).6480 Prent n orthodontist 1 (3.3) 29 (96.7) 0 (0.0) 15 (100) 1 (4.4) 22 (95.6) 1.000 Generl prctice residency 13 (43.3) 17 (56.7) 3 (20.0) 12 (80.0) 5 (21.7) 18 (78.3).0483 Teching experience 16 (53.3) 14 (46.7) 9 (60.0) 6 (40.0) 16 (69.6) 7 (30.4).2972 Work experience, generl dentl 10 (34.5) 19 (65.5) 2 (13.3) 13 (86.7) 3 (13.0) 20 (87.0).0380 Work experience, orthodontic 6 (20.0) 24 (80.0) 9 (60.0) 6 (40.0) 11 (47.8) 12 (52.2).0060 Community service 23 (76.7) 7 (23.3) 15 (100) 0 (0.0) 22 (95.6) 1 (4.4).0179 Represents comprison between low nd the combined medium nd high ctegories. Sttisticlly significnt t.05 significnce level.
376 ARDESHNA, FONG Figure 2. Men (SD) GPAs by interview ctegory. vs medium-high) re shown in Tbles 1 nd 2. Sttisticlly significnt differences were seen for the vribles ge, number of progrms pplied to, grde in orthodontic course, NBDE-1 scores, cceptnce into the progrm, cdemic honors, reserch, letter of recommendtion from orthodontic fculty, generl prctice residency, work experience, nd community service. No one with NBDE-1 scores below 90 ws in the high number of interviews ctegory. Likewise, no one with B in orthodontics ws in the high group. The stepwise selection procedure showed orthodontic work experience nd cumultive GPA s independent vribles in the logistic regression nlysis model. DISCUSSION Our study exmined the first spect of the selection process: the initil screening of pplictions. Almost ll pplicnts were ccepted to n orthodontic postgrdute progrm in both the medium nd high ctegories, nd fewer thn hlf in the low ctegory were ccepted. The vribles tht were found to hve sttisticlly significnt ssocition with interview ctegory were: ge, number of progrms pplied to, grde in orthodontic course, GPA, NBDE-1 scores, cdemic honors, reserch, recommendtion letter from orthodontic fculty, generl prctice residency, work experience, nd community service. Of these, cumultive GPA nd orthodontic work experience were the most significnt. A limittion of this study ws its lck of n optiml response rte. This my hve been ffected by chnges in the miling ddresses of the pplicnts. However, it ws comprble to other mil survey studies. It would hve been preferble if clss rnking nd clss size, long with grdes, hd been vilble for ll pplicnts; however, this informtion is not reported by mny dentl schools. It should be noted tht, becuse of the lck of consistency between schools nd their grding systems, s well s possible Figure 3. Men (SD) NBDE-1 scores by interview ctegory. grde infltion, such vribles my be less relible thn expected. 8,9 Severl other vribles, such s work experience, reserch, nd community service, re more heterogeneous mesurements reltive to more stndrdized vribles such s NBDE-1 scores. Considerble vribility exists in time commitment, role plyed, topic, level of enggement, etc, nd thus such vribles re difficult to quntify nd compre. 10 It is possible tht n interview rtio (number of ctul interviews received vs number of ctul progrms pplied to) my hve given more ccurte picture of the success rte. This study gives insight into the orthodontic postgrdute progrm ppliction nd selection processes tht hs not yet been reported nd sets frmework for future studies in this re of dentl eduction. It identifies certin prmeters nd criteri tht should be useful, especilly to pplicnts nd progrms prticipting in the PASS System. Orthodontics remins highly competitive dentl specilty to pursue. Our findings were in brod greement with other studies tht looked t medicl postgrdute progrms. 6 It is interesting to note tht severl vribles, including both didctic nd nondidctic credentils, re influentil in receiving interviews. This suggests tht progrms re interested in rounded, well-blnced individuls who excel t more thn one thing. Like other competitive progrms in medicine, orthodontics tends to rely more hevily on cdemic credentils when screening pplicnt pools. 3,4,7 While the NDBE-1 score is very importnt, it did not show up in the finl model. This could be explined by the fct tht pplicnts re urged to hve score of 90 nd bove prior to pplying to our progrm. Applicnts must lso excel in their orthodontic clss nd ern n A grde if they wnt to improve their chnce of obtining interviews. Other historiclly populr criteri such s letters of recommendtion re lso importnt nd crry more weight if written by n orthodontic fculty member. 2 Professionl motivtion
APPLICANT INTERVIEWS AND ORTHODONTIC ADMISSION 377 nd previous experience or knowledge in orthodontics were dditionl fctors influencing the likelihood of pplicnts being selected for n interview. 5 Interestingly enough, hving done generl prctice residency or hving generl prctice work experience did not increse one s chnce of obtining more interviews. Progrms re more likely to be interested in recent grdutes, nd perhps hving experience in generl dentistry ws tken to men tht the individul ws not s interested or motivted. This ws lso reflected in ge, since older pplicnts were less successful in receiving interviews. Community service ws lso n importnt vrible. Progrms seem to be interested in pplicnts who undertke ctivities outside the professionl setting nd show socil nd humn compssion. The results re useful for both pplicnts nd progrm directors. Prospective pplicnts cn be wre of the qulities tht orthodontic progrms vlue when screening pplicnts in the first stge of the selection process nd shpe their cdemic nd extrcurriculr experiences ccordingly. Orthodontic progrms cn use this informtion to evlute their own selection process. They my wish to follow the criteri found here or estblish their own criteri to evlute qulities of pplicnts tht result in the kind of grdutes it wishes to produce. CONCLUSIONS N There ws sttisticlly significnt ssocition between interview ctegory nd ge, number of progrms pplied to, grde in orthodontic course, GPA, NBDE-1 scores, cdemic honors, reserch, recommendtion letter from orthodontic fculty, generl prctice residency, work experience, nd community service. N Cumultive GPA nd orthodontic work experience were the most significnt fctors in receiving more interviews. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We thnk Dr Robert Binder, Interim Chir, Deprtment of Orthodontics, New Jersey Dentl School, for reviewing the mnuscript, nd Dr Brbr Greenberg nd Shuying Jing of the office of institutionl reserch, New Jersey Dentl School, for the sttisticl nlysis of the results. REFERENCES 1. Bjj G, Crmichel KD. Wht ttributes re necessry to be selected for n orthopedic surgery postgrdute position: perceptions of fculty nd residents. South Med J. 2004;97(12):1179 1185. 2. White AA. Resident selection: re we putting the crt before the horse? Clin Orthop Relt Res. 2002;399:255 259. 3. Wgoner NE, Surino R, Stoner JA. Fctors used by progrm directors to select residents. J Med Educ. 1986; 61:10 21. 4. Tylor CA, Weinstein L, Myhew HE. The process of resident selection: view from the postgrdute director s desk. Obstet Gynecol. 1995;85(2):299 303. 5. Price S. Selecting cndidtes for interview for the Dip HE child brnch. Nurse Educ Tody. 2000;20:524 536. 6. Aggrwl AK, Trvers SD, Scott-Conner CEH. Selection of surgicl residents: neurl network pproch. Cybern Syst Anl. 2000;31:417 430. 7. Hensinger RN. Are we mesuring the right things? J Peditr Orthop. 2001;21:824 825. 8. Provn JL, Cuttress L. Preferences of progrm directors for evlution of cndidtes for postgrdute trining. Cn Med Assoc J. 1995;153(7):919 923. 9. Bernstein AD, Jzrwi LM, Elbeshbeshy B, Dell Vlle CJ, Zuckermn JD. Orthopedic resident-selection criteri. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2002;84A(11):2090 2096. 10. Dirschl DR. Scoring of orthopedic postgrdute pplicnts: is scoring system relible? Clin Orthop Relt Res. 2002; 399:260 264.