To evaluate interviewer and interviewee perceptions of semi-blinded interviews performed during 2021-22 and 2022-23 urology matches at our institution. Traditional interviews, where interviewers have access to the entire application, are open to significant bias. Blinded interviews are common in industry but under explored in resident selection.
Interviewers had access to a limited portion of the application (personal statement and letters of recommendation). Applicants were ranked by faculty based solely on their interview and these documents. Following the interview, a survey was given to applicants and faculty regarding their experience.
A total of 67 applicants and 10 faculty responded to the questionnaire. Among applicants, 51% felt that blinding of interviewers offered a better assessment of fit into our program (39% neutral), while 37% felt they had improved eye contact with the interviewer (51% neutral) and that interviewers had improved (66%) or similar (19%) knowledge of their application in relation to non-blinded interviews. All but one faculty member felt able to accurately assess a candidate with the information provided, and 80% felt that the blinded interview allowed them to focus more on the applicant during the interview (20% neutral).
Semi-blinded interviews allow for accurate assessment of applicants and decrease bias in the interview process. Overall applicants and faculty were highly receptive to blinded interviews. Reducing the amount of information available to the interviewer allowed them to spend more time on the materials provided, leading to both improved eye contact and improved engagement between participants.

Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier Inc.