New user? Click here to register.Have you forgotten your password?
Repository logoRepository logo
Who We Are✱Collections✱News and Events✱Contacts
  1. Home
  2. PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION
  3. Journal Article
  4. Examining Differential Rater Functioning and Bias in the Holistic Review of Residency Applications
Details

Examining Differential Rater Functioning and Bias in the Holistic Review of Residency Applications

Publication type
journal article
Publication date
June 2026
Author(s)
Barnes, Leandra A.
Sebok-Syer, Stefanie S.
Wind, Stefanie A.
Nord, Kristin M.
Laidlaw, Kathrina
more
Publisher
Journal of Graduate Medical Education
Language
English
Keywords

Bias

Cross-Sectional Studi...

Female

Humans

Internship and Reside...

Interviews

Male

Observer Variation

Personnel Selection

Sexism

View point(s)
Global
Discipline(s)

Dermatology

Abstract
BACKGROUND: The impact of rater bias in applicant selection for residency interviews using holistic review is poorly understood. OBJECTIVE: To measure faculty raters' bias toward applicant gender and underrepresented in medicine (URiM) status in their recommendations to offer residency interviews. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, applicant (n=3875) and faculty rater (n=69) data within a single institution's dermatology residency application database from 2014 to 2023 were examined for differences in rater judgments to interview applicants as measured by logits (ie, a standardized unit of scoring difference) using the many-facet Rasch model, a statistical method that accounts for variations among raters, applicants, and scoring for applicant gender (23% women, 14% men, and 63% unknown) and URiM status (26% White, 21% non-White non-URiM, 12% URiM, 41% unknown). RESULTS: Rater bias, as measured in logits using the rater severity measure, was minimal for applicant gender (-0.12, 0.08 logits) and URiM status (-0.07, 0.04 logits). However, raters were more lenient (ie, likely to favor an interview) when the applicant's and rater's gender (-1.74 logits, SE 0.05) or URiM status (-0.46 logits, SE 0.05) were concordant. Conversely, raters were more severe (ie, unlikely to favor an interview) when discordant on gender (1.74 logits, SE 0.05) or URiM status (0.46 logits, SE 0.05). More than 50% of individual raters exhibited substantial gender bias, and approximately 33% for URiM status bias when concordant. CONCLUSIONS: Raters were more likely to favor offering interview invitations to applicants with concordant gender or URiM status and less likely to favor interviewing applicants with discordant gender or URiM status.
Part of
Journal of Graduate Medical Education
ISSN
1949-8357
1949-8349
DOI
10.4300/JGME-D-25-00491.1
Volume
18
Issue
3
https://libkey.io/libraries/2561/articles/712433747/full-text-file?utm_source=api_2667&allow_speedbump=true
Repository logo
Sistema Bibliotecariodi Ateneo SBA
gendermore@unimore.it
www.sba.unimore.it
Privacy policy
End User Agreement
Send Feedback

Built with DSpace-CRIS software - Extension maintained and optimized by 4Science

  • Accessibility settings
Repository logo COAR Notify