Abstract：
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of the recent changes to the urology residency application process on the criteria utilized by residency program directors (PDs) for interview invitations and their perspectives concerning these changes.
METHODS: One hundred thirty-seven urology residency PDs were invited to participate in an anonymous survey to explore interview selection criteria and the impact of the increase in preference signals (PS) per applicant.
RESULTS: Fifty-eight PDs (42.8%) completed the survey. The highest-ranked criteria were letters of recommendation (LoR) and successful sub-internship (sub-I) at the PD\'s institution, without statistically significant differences between these 2. Gender, ethnicity, and medical school prestige were the lowest rated criteria, without significant differences between these 3. Compared to before the increase in the number of PS per applicant, 80.7% of PDs reported that not receiving a PS from an applicant this cycle would more negatively impact the chances of offering an interview to that applicant. Moreover, 12.2% stated they would not interview any applicants who did not send a PS. Finally, 62.1% of PDs believed recent changes worsened the process.
CONCLUSIONS: Recent changes impacted PDs applicant evaluation, with the highest ranked criteria being LoRs and sub-I. Paradoxically, the increase in the number of PS per applicant has increased their importance as applicants are much less likely to receive interview offers from programs they have not signaled. Lastly, most PDs believe changes have worsened the evaluation process.
METHODS: One hundred thirty-seven urology residency PDs were invited to participate in an anonymous survey to explore interview selection criteria and the impact of the increase in preference signals (PS) per applicant.
RESULTS: Fifty-eight PDs (42.8%) completed the survey. The highest-ranked criteria were letters of recommendation (LoR) and successful sub-internship (sub-I) at the PD\'s institution, without statistically significant differences between these 2. Gender, ethnicity, and medical school prestige were the lowest rated criteria, without significant differences between these 3. Compared to before the increase in the number of PS per applicant, 80.7% of PDs reported that not receiving a PS from an applicant this cycle would more negatively impact the chances of offering an interview to that applicant. Moreover, 12.2% stated they would not interview any applicants who did not send a PS. Finally, 62.1% of PDs believed recent changes worsened the process.
CONCLUSIONS: Recent changes impacted PDs applicant evaluation, with the highest ranked criteria being LoRs and sub-I. Paradoxically, the increase in the number of PS per applicant has increased their importance as applicants are much less likely to receive interview offers from programs they have not signaled. Lastly, most PDs believe changes have worsened the evaluation process.
摘要：
目的：评估最近泌尿科住院医师申请程序的变化对住院医师计划主任（PD）面试邀请使用的标准及其对这些变化的看法的影响。
方法：邀请了137名泌尿科住院医师参加一项匿名调查，以探讨面试选择标准以及每个申请人偏好信号（PS）增加的影响。
结果：58个PD（42.8％）完成了调查。排名最高的标准是推荐信(LoR)和在PD机构成功的子实习(sub-I)，这两者之间没有统计学上的显著差异。性别,种族和医学院声望是最低的评级标准，这三者之间没有显著差异。与每个申请人的PS数量增加之前相比，80.7%的PD报告说，在这个周期内没有收到申请人的PS会对申请人进行面试的机会产生更大的负面影响。此外，12.2%的人表示他们不会面试任何没有发送PS的申请人。最后,62.1％的PD认为最近的变化使这一过程恶化。
结论：最近的变化影响了PDs申请人评估，排名最高的标准是LoR和次级I。矛盾的是,每个申请人PS数量的增加增加了他们的重要性，因为申请人不太可能从他们没有发出信号的计划中收到面试通知。最后,大多数PD认为变化恶化了评估过程。
方法：邀请了137名泌尿科住院医师参加一项匿名调查，以探讨面试选择标准以及每个申请人偏好信号（PS）增加的影响。
结果：58个PD（42.8％）完成了调查。排名最高的标准是推荐信(LoR)和在PD机构成功的子实习(sub-I)，这两者之间没有统计学上的显著差异。性别,种族和医学院声望是最低的评级标准，这三者之间没有显著差异。与每个申请人的PS数量增加之前相比，80.7%的PD报告说，在这个周期内没有收到申请人的PS会对申请人进行面试的机会产生更大的负面影响。此外，12.2%的人表示他们不会面试任何没有发送PS的申请人。最后,62.1％的PD认为最近的变化使这一过程恶化。
结论：最近的变化影响了PDs申请人评估，排名最高的标准是LoR和次级I。矛盾的是,每个申请人PS数量的增加增加了他们的重要性，因为申请人不太可能从他们没有发出信号的计划中收到面试通知。最后,大多数PD认为变化恶化了评估过程。
