Does “Hoarding” Impact Interview Distribution Among Orthopaedic Surgery Residency Applicants? A Modeling Study Based on a Large Database
Authors: Hutchison Catherine E. , Reminick Jason I. , Love Ephy R. , Karan Suzanne , Gundle Kenneth R. 
Published: August 2023

Background

“Interview hoarding” is commonly used to refer to the concentration of interview offers among a small number of high-performing residency applicants. Theoretically, if the same applicants interview at every program, fewer rank lists will be submitted than open residency positions, leading to a “match crisis” with unfilled positions after the match. There are no published studies we are aware of that describe the observed distribution of residency interview offers among orthopaedic surgery applicants or the potential impact of “hoarding” on that distribution.

Questions/purposes

We examined the distribution of interview invitations extended to orthopaedic surgery residency applicants in the 2020 to 2021 and 2021 to 2022 application cycles. The change in the shape of the interview invitation distribution was the primary outcome for two central questions: (1) Does the interview offer distribution curve among orthopaedic surgery applicants change meaningfully from baseline with implementation of an interview cap (Model 1)? (2) What is the impact on the distribution of invitations with a reduction in the number of applicants in the field (Model 2)?

Methods

This was a retrospective study of orthopaedic surgery interview invitations extended to applicants via the Thalamus interview management program during the 2020 to 2021 and 2021 to 2022 residency application cycles. The Thalamus database was chosen because it contains data on interview invitations for orthopaedic surgery residency positions and has the largest market share in orthopaedics compared with similar databases. Thalamus data represent 1565 applicants and 53 residency programs (90% and 25% of the national total, respectively) in 2021 to 2022 and 993 applicants and 46 programs (77% and 23%, respectively) in 2020 to 2021. It has been shown to contain a representative sample of orthopaedic residency programs. An interview cap (Model 1) was simulated by removing excess interviews held by applicants above the 75th and 95th percentiles, which were chosen to represent a formal cap and an informal cap, respectively. A reduction in the size of the applicant pool was similarly modeled by randomly removing 5% and 25% of applicants, chosen to simulate informal and formal application requirements, respectively. In both models, the excess interviews were redistributed among the remaining applicants.

Results

Applicants received a mean of 1.8 ± 2.2 Thalamus interview invitations in 2020 to 2021 and 1.7 ± 2.4 invitations in 2021 to 2022, with no change to the overall distribution curve. A total of 39% (606 of 1565) of applicants received no Thalamus interview invitations in 2021 to 2022, 75% (1176 of 1565) received two or fewer, and < 1% (14 of 1565) of applicants received 10 or more invitations. Redistributing excess interviews held by the top 5% of applicants resulted in 2% (61 of 2651) of interviews being redistributed (Model 1). Removing 5% of the total applicant pool resulted in a redistribution of 3% (87 of 2651) of the interview invitations (Model 2).

Conclusion

Orthopaedic surgery interview data demonstrated an expected uneven distribution of interview invitations, with a small proportion of highly competitive applicants receiving a higher number of interview offers as well as a large group of applicants receiving no interview invitations in Thalamus. Concerns that “hoarding” would lead to a crisis resulting in many unmatched residency positions seemed unfounded, given the excess of applicants relative to positions and the minimal change in the distribution of interviews in the cap model.

Clinical Relevance

Medical students applying to orthopaedic residency should seek individual advising to improve their individual odds of matching, while understanding that interview hoarding does not seem to alter the distribution of interviews. Program directors and medical students’ advisors should be cognizant that a small proportion of applicants are broadly interviewed and may benefit from steps taken to ensure applicants have genuine interest in the program.