%0 Journal Article
%T Identifying inaccuracies on emergency medicine residency applications
%A Eric D Katz
%A Lee Shockley
%A Lawrence Kass
%A David Howes
%A Janis P Tupesis
%A Christopher Weaver
%A Osman R Sayan
%A Victoria Hogan
%A Jason Begue
%A Diamond Vrocher
%A Jackie Frazer
%A Timothy Evans
%A Gene Hern
%A Ralph Riviello
%A Antonio Rivera
%A Keith Kinoshita
%A Edward Ferguson
%J BMC Medical Education
%D 2005
%I BioMed Central
%R 10.1186/1472-6920-5-30
%X This is a multi-center, single-blinded, randomized, cohort study of all applicants from LCME accredited schools to involved EM residency programs. Applications were randomly selected to investigate claims of AOA election, advanced degrees and publications. Errors were reported to applicants' deans and the NRMP.Nine residencies reviewed 493 applications (28.6% of all applicants who applied to any EM program). 56 applications (11.4%, 95%CI 8.6每14.2%) contained at least one error. Excluding "benign" errors, 9.8% (95% CI 7.2每12.4%), contained at least one error. 41% (95% CI 35.0每47.0%) of all publications contained an error. All AOA membership claims were verified, but 13.7% (95%CI 4.4每23.1%) of claimed advanced degrees were inaccurate. Inter-rater reliability of evaluations was good. Investigators were reluctant to notify applicants' dean's offices and the NRMP.This is the largest study to date of accuracy on application for residency and the first such multi-centered trial. High rates of incorrect data were found on applications. This data will serve as a baseline for future years of the project, with emphasis on reporting inaccuracies and warning applicants of the project's goals.The residency application process is predicated on the validity of the credentials submitted by an applicant. Previous studies, however, have found that 10每30% of applications contain errors. [1-6] In emergency medicine (EM), Roellig, et. al. showed that 13.3% of applicants to a single EM residency had at least one error on their application, and 4% had more than one.[7] Rates of erroneous claims were similar for claims of authorship (21.3% erroneous), Alpha-Omega-Alpha (AOA) claims (35.7%) and advanced degrees (26.7%). In a previous single center investigation, Gurudevan, et. al. reported that 20.4% of applicants who claimed authorship of a peer- reviewed paper had at least one error in their reference.[8]Presently, the residency program discovering misrepresentations may only act on the in
%U http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6920/5/30