LEGO®-based communication assessment in virtual general surgery residency interviews

Abstract

Purpose: Effective communication skills are a critical quality and skill that is highly sought after for surgeons which largely impacts patient outcomes. Residency programs design their interview processes to select the best candidates. LEGO^®-based activities have been frequently used to enhance communication skills and team building. This study investigates the effectiveness and reliability of a novel LEGO^®-based communication assessment in interviews for surgical residencies and the feasibility of implementing it in a virtual setting.

Methods: This study conducted a retrospective analysis of a LEGO^®-based communication assessment at the program's 2020/2021 residency interviews. Each applicant was assessed on a different model. The total scores were analyzed for consistency among raters and correlated to faculty interviews. Furthermore, the impact of the assessment structure, scoring criteria, and range of models' difficulties on the total scores were explored.

Results: A total of 54 categorical and 55 preliminary applicants interviewed on 2 days. The assessment on different models and had no impact on applicants' total scores for either categorical and preliminary groups (p = 0.791 and 0.709, respectively). The communication components of the assessment showed high consistency between the raters. The two applicant groups displayed a statistically significant difference (p = 0.004) in the communication evaluation and model accuracy components. Total scores did not correlate with the faculty interviews of standardized questions in either group.

Conclusion: This novel LEGO^®-based communication assessment showed high reliability and promising results as a tool to assess communication and problem solving for residency interviews that can be readily implemented in a virtual setting.

Supplementary information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s44186-022-00021-4.

Keywords: Assessments; Communication; Interviews; Simulation.

Fig. 1

A depiction of the shared view with the applicant during the assessment. Each applicant was shown the individual pieces used for that model, and three views of the constructed model

Fig. 2

Score distribution and weights for each of the components. To the left is for Day 1—categorical (CAT). Day 2—preliminary (PREL) on the right

Fig. 3

Distribution of the total scores of the CAT and PREL applicants. Note that the max scores are different for each group. (CAT categorical, PREL preliminary)