Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2013 Jan;123(1):123-33.
doi: 10.1002/lary.23866. Epub 2012 Nov 21.

Standardized letter of recommendation for otolaryngology residency selection

Jonathan N Perkins  1 , Conan Liang, Kim McFann, Mona M Abaza, Sven-Olrik Streubel, Jeremy D Prager
Affiliations

Standardized letter of recommendation for otolaryngology residency selection

Jonathan N Perkins et al. Laryngoscope. 2013 Jan.

Abstract

Objectives/hypothesis: Develop 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 design: Prospective SLOR/NLOR comparison.

Methods: The 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.

Results: Thirty-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).

Conclusions: SLORs 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.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Otolaryngology residency SLOR form pages 1-3.
Figure 1
Figure 1
Otolaryngology residency SLOR form pages 1-3.
Figure 1
Figure 1
Otolaryngology residency SLOR form pages 1-3.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Scatterplot of the rank position compared to the mean of the cumulative SLOR scores. Lower rank list position corresponds to higher quality applicants as determined by our selection committee. Higher mean cumulative SLOR scores corresponds to higher quality SLORs as determined by three letter reviewers.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Scatterplot of the rank position compared to the mean of the cumulative NLOR scores. Lower rank list position corresponds to higher quality applicants as determined by our selection committee. Higher mean cumulative NLOR scores corresponds to higher quality NLORs as determined by three letter reviewers.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Scatterplot comparing the mean of the cumulative SLOR scores to the mean of the cumulative NLOR scores.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Messner AH, Shimahara E. Letters of recommendation to an otolaryngology/head and neck surgery residency program: their function and the role of gender. Laryngoscope. 2008;118(8):1335–1344. - PubMed
    1. DeZee KJ, Thomas MR, Mintz M, Durning SJ. Letters of recommendation: rating, writing, and reading by clerkship directors of internal medicine. Teach Learn Med. 2009;21(2):153–8. - PubMed
    1. Boyse TD, Patterson SK, Cohan RH, et al. Does medical school performance predict radiology resident performance? Acad Radiol. 2002;9(4):437–45. - PubMed
    1. Dirschl DR, Adams GL. Reliability in evaluating letters of recommendation. Acad Med. 2000;75(10):1029. - PubMed
    1. Prager JD, Myer CM, 3rd, Pensak ML. Improving the letter of recommendation. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2010;143(3):327–330. - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources