Impact of the Virtual Interview Format on Urology Residency Interviews: A Survey of Program Directors

Introduction:Our objective is to assess the impact of the virtual interview (VI) format on urology residency interviews during the COVID-19 pandemic from the perspectives of program directors (PDs).Methods:An anonymous survey was sent to PDs of American Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited urology residency programs. Questions were designed to evaluate how VIs affected programs' assessment of applicants, interview logistics, and overall perspectives regarding in-person and virtual interviews.Results:A total of 42 PDs (31%) responded to our survey. VIs negatively affected programs' ability to assess applicants' fit with their residency program (71%), commitment to urology along with their ability to function as a resident (67%), and personality and communication skills (71%) when compared to in-person interviews. Fifty percent of PDs reported that they relied more heavily on objective metrics when ranking applicants, compared to prior years. VIs were more economical than in-person interviews for all participating programs, with each program saving an average of $3,135 in interview-related costs. Additionally, 33% of PDs reported that VIs were less time-consuming when compared to in-person interviews, with 26% of PDs reporting that they were able to interview more applicants. Only 19% of PDs reported that VIs were better than in-person interviews. Given the option, 60% of PDs intend on hosting both virtual and in-person interviews moving forward, while 9% and 31% of programs intend to exclusively host virtual and in-person interviews, respectively.Conclusions:PDs perceived VIs to be less reliable than in-person interviews for subjective evaluation of applicants; however, many PDs still desire to integrate VIs in future application cycles.