The Standardized Letter of Evaluation: How We Perceive the Quiet Student

Abstract

Introduction: The Standardized Letter of Evaluation (SLOE) is an emergency medicine (EM)-specific assessment designed to help EM residency programs differ entiate applicants. We became interested in SLOE-narrative language referencing personality when we observed less enthusiasm for applicants described as “quiet” in their SLOEs. In this study our objective was to compare how quiet-labeled, EM-bound applicants were ranked compared to their non-quiet peers in the global assessment (GA) and anticipated rank list (ARL) categories in the SLOE. Methods: We conducted a planned subgroup analysis of a retrospective cohort study of all core EM clerkship SLOEs submitted to one, four-year academic EM residency program in the 2016-2017 recruitment cycle. We compared SLOEs of applicants who were described as “quiet,” “shy,” and/or “reserved” — collectively referred to as “quiet” — to SLOEs from all other applicants, referred to as “non-quiet.” We compared frequencies of quiet to non-quiet students in GA and ARL categories using chi-square goodness-of-fit tests with a reject ion criteria (alpha) of 0.05. Results: We reviewed 1,582 SLOEs from 696 applicants. Of these, 120 SLOEs described quiet applicants. The distributions of quiet and non-quiet applicants across GA and ARL categories were significantly different (P < 0.001). Quiet applicants were less likely than non-quiet applicants to be ranked in the top 10% and top one-third GA categories combined (31% vs 60%) and more likely to be in the middle one-third category (58% vs 32%). For ARL, quiet applicants were also less likely to be ranked in the top 10% and top one-third categories combined (33% vs 58%) and more likely to be in the middle one-third category (50% vs 31%). Conclusion: Emergency medicine-bound students described as quiet in their SLOEs were less likely to be ranked in the top GA and ARL categories compared to non-quiet students. More research is needed to determine the cause of these ranking disparities and address potential biases in teaching and assessment practices.