전공의 선발 인터뷰 수행 베스트 프랙티스(AAMC)

전공의 선발 인터뷰 수행 베스트 프랙티스(AAMC)
Best Practices for Conducting Residency Program Interviews

소개
Introduction

AAMC는 레지던트 프로그램, 지원자, 의학교육자, 학생 지도교수 등 모든 이해관계자의 레지던트 전환을 개선하는 데 주력하고 있습니다. 이러한 노력의 일환으로 실시된 프로그램 디렉터를 대상으로 한 AAMC 설문조사에 따르면, 프로그램 디렉터들은 순위 목록을 작성할 때 경험, 학업 지표, 기타 속성 및 역량 등 지원자에 대한 다양한 정보를 평가하는 것으로 나타났습니다. 같은 설문조사에 따르면 전문성, 성실성, 대인관계 및 커뮤니케이션 기술, 신뢰성 및 의존성과 같은 특성이 가장 중요한 것으로 나타났습니다.  
The AAMC is focusing on enhancing the transition to residency for all stakeholders, including residency programs, applicants, medical educators, and student advisors. The AAMC survey of program directors conducted as part of this effort indicated that they evaluate a wide variety of information about applicants—including experiences, academic metrics, and other attributes and competencies—when creating rank order lists. The same survey found that characteristics such as professionalism, integrity, interpersonal and communication skills, and reliability and dependability are among the most important ones.

또한 프로그램 디렉터들은 레지던트 면접이 지원자의 순위를 매기는 데 가장 일반적이고 중요한 도구 중 하나이지만, 프로그램과 전문 분야에 따라 지원자를 면접하는 방식에 상당한 차이가 있다고 답했습니다. 지원자가 면접을 준비하는 데 도움이 되는 리소스는 많지만(예: AAMC 커리어 인 메디신 및 레지던트 면접 과정을 위한 미국 의사 대학 가이드라인), 면접관을 위한 리소스는 거의 존재하지 않습니다. 또한 의사는 환자와의 인터뷰 방법에 대해 상당한 교육을 받지만 지원자와의 인터뷰는 목적, 설계 및 실행 방식이 다릅니다.  
Program directors also reported that the residency interview is one of the most common and important tools used in ranking applicants but that significant variability exists in how applicants are interviewed across programs and specialties. While many resources are available to help applicants prepare for interviews (for example, AAMC Careers in Medicine and the American College of Physicians Guidelines for the Residency Interview Process), fewer resources exist for interviewers. Additionally, though physicians receive considerable training on how to interview patients, interviewing applicants is different in purpose, design, and implementation.

이러한 격차가 확인되자 AAMC는 모범 사례를 요약하고 프로그램 디렉터가 면접 프로세스를 개선하기 위한 옵션을 빠르게 이해할 수 있도록 이 가이드를 작성했습니다. 이 가이드가 일관성을 개선하고 레지던트 성과를 더 잘 예측하는 데 사용할 수 있는 면접 관행 및 프로세스에 대한 유용하고 유용한 소개 역할을 하기를 바랍니다. 
When this gap was identified, the AAMC sought to summarize best practices and assemble this guide to help program directors quickly understand their options for enhancing the interview process. Our hope is that the guide will serve as a helpful and useful introduction to interview practices and processes that can be used to improve consistency and better predict resident performance.

이 가이드의 목적
Purpose of This Guide

이 가이드는 유효하고 공정한 면접 절차를 구현하는 데 도움이 되는 면접 모범 사례를 설명합니다. 면접 구조의 구성 요소와 면접관 교육을 포함하여 면접 프로세스를 개선하면 프로그램과 지원자 모두의 성공 가능성과 호환성을 높이는 데 기여하는 보다 정보에 입각한 결정을 내릴 수 있습니다. 
This guide describes interview best practices to assist with implementing valid and fair interview processes. Any enhancements in the interview process, including components of interview structure and interviewer training, will enable programs to make more informed decisions that contribute to the increased likelihood of success and compatibility for both the programs and the applicants.

이 가이드의 정보는 두 섹션으로 나뉩니다: 
The information in this guide is divided into two sections:

• 섹션 1: 인터뷰 프로세스 구조화하기 - 프로그램 디렉터 가이드에서는 현재 연구 현황과 선발 인터뷰의 모범 사례에 대한 개요를 제공합니다.
  
• 섹션 2: 레지던트 지원자 인터뷰-교직원을 위한 실무 가이드에서는 유용한 팁과 피해야 할 함정 등 인터뷰 진행에 관한 실용적인 정보를 제공합니다.
• Section 1: Structuring Your Interview Process—A Program Director’s Guide provides an overview of the current state of research and best practices in selection interviews.
• Section 2: The Resident Applicant Interview—A Practical Guide for Faculty provides practical information on conducting interviews, including helpful tips and traps to avoid.

레지던트 프로그램에서는 지원자를 평가하고 순위를 매기는 데 다양한 정보를 사용하지만, 이 가이드는 특히 면접에 초점을 맞춥니다. 다른 일반적인 평가(예: 작업 샘플 및 OSCE)를 개발하여 선발 과정에 통합하는 방법에 대한 정보는 포함되어 있지 않습니다. 
While residency programs use many sources of information to evaluate and rank applicants, this guide focuses specifically on interviews. It does not include information about developing and integrating other common assessments (for example, work samples and OSCEs) into the selection process.

참고로, 레지던트 프로그램은 다양한 목적으로 면접일을 활용합니다. 공식적인 인터뷰 외에도 일반적인 인터뷰 데이 활동에는 현 레지던트 및 교수진과의 식사, 질의응답 세션, 캠퍼스 또는 도시 투어와 같은 채용 활동이 포함됩니다. 이러한 비공식 활동과 기숙사 및 프로그램 지원 직원과의 상호작용은 지원자의 대인관계 및 의사소통 능력에 대한 귀중한 정보를 얻을 수 있으며, 프로그램과 지원자 간의 적합성 여부를 판단하는 데 중요한 역할을 합니다. 유익하고 효과적이며 즐거운 면접일을 계획하기 위한 모범 사례(예: 프로그램이 지원자에게 기대하는 바를 모든 관계자가 공통으로 이해할 수 있도록 사전 작업을 수행하고, 모든 관계자가 관련 정보를 공유할 수 있는 피드백 메커니즘을 구현하는 등)가 있지만, 이 가이드는 특히 당일의 공식 면접 구성 요소에 대한 모범 사례에 초점을 맞추고 있습니다. 
On a related note, residency programs use interview days for multiple purposes. In addition to the formal interviews, common interview day activities include recruitment activities such as meals with current residents and faculty, question and answer sessions, and campus or city tours. These more informal activities and interactions with house and program support staff yield valuable information about applicants’ interpersonal and communication skills and play an important role in helping programs—and applicants—determine whether there is a good fit between the applicant and the program. While there are good practices for planning informative, effective, and enjoyable interview days—such as doing advance work to ensure everyone involved shares a common understanding of what the program seeks in applicants and implementing feedback mechanisms that enable everyone involved to share relevant information—this guide focuses specifically on best practices for the formal interview component of the day.

마지막으로, 많은 교육기관에서 이 가이드의 자료를 보완하는 면접관 리소스 및 지침을 제공합니다. 프로그램 디렉터와 면접관은 이러한 리소스를 살펴보는 것이 좋습니다. 면접 절차를 수정하기 전에 지정된 교육기관 관계자, 프로그램 디렉터 및 법률 고문에게 해당 교육기관 및 프로그램의 면접 정책 및 요건에 대해 문의해야 합니다. 
Finally, many institutions provide interviewer resources and guidance that complement the material in this guide. Program directors and interviewers are encouraged to explore those resources. Before modifying the interview process, the designated institutional official, program director, and legal counsel should be consulted about the institution’s and the program’s interview policies and requirements.

섹션 1: 인터뷰 프로세스 구조화하기-프로그램 디렉터를 위한 가이드
Section 1: Structuring Your Interview Process—A Program Director’s Guide

이 섹션에서는 인터뷰 구조와 인터뷰 연구의 현재 상태에 대한 개요를 제공합니다.
This section provides an overview of interview structure and the current state of interview research.

면접은 지원자가 특정 프로그램에서 레지던트로서 성공하는 데 중요한 개인적 특성을 갖추고 있는지, 프로그램의 사명과 목표에 부합하는지 평가할 수 있는 중요한 방법입니다. 예를 들어 레지던트 프로그램이나 기관의 사명과 목표에는 레지던트가 연구, 도시 또는 농촌 진료, 소외된 지역사회, 학계 또는 지역사회 리더십에 집중하기를 바라는 마음이 포함될 수 있습니다. 
Interviews are a valuable way to assess whether an applicant demonstrates the personal characteristics that are critical for success as a resident in a specific program and fit within the program’s mission and goals. For example, the missions and goals of a residency program or institution may include a desire for residents to focus on research, urban or rural practice, underserved communities, or academic or community leadership.

 

---

레지던트 선발의 맥락에서 '적합성' 정의하기
Defining “fit” in the context of residency selection

적합성은 프로그램 디렉터와 지원자가 레지던트 선발 과정에서 가장 중요한 요소 중 하나로 꼽는 경우가 많습니다. 그러나 의학교육 문헌에는 적합성에 대한 공통된 정의가 없습니다. 프로그램은 프로그램의 사명, 목표 및 학습 환경의 맥락에서 적합성에 대한 정의를 논의해야 합니다. 이 가이드에서는 명확성을 위해 적합성을 두 가지 차원으로 구분하여 설명합니다:
Fit is often reported as one of the most important factors in the residency selection process by program directors and applicants. However, there isn’t a common definition of fit in the medical education literature. Programs should discuss the definition of fit in the context of their program’s mission, goals, and learning environment. For the purposes of clarity, in this guide, we identify two dimensions of fit:

[개인-조직 적합성]은 지원자의 성격, 태도, 업무 및 학습 스타일/선호도, 목표와 조직 문화 간의 호환성을 의미합니다.
Person-organization fit refers to compatibility between an applicant’s personality, attitudes, work and learning style/preferences, and goals and the organization’s culture.

[개인-직무 적합성]은 지원자의 역량, 지식, 기술, 능력 및 기타 특성과 직무를 성공적으로 학습하고 수행하는 데 필요한 역량 및 특성 간의 호환성을 의미합니다.
Person-job fit refers to compatibility between an applicant’s competencies, knowledge, skills, abilities, and other attributes and the competencies and characteristics required to learn and perform the job successfully.

---

선발 면접은 여러 측면에서 다양할 수 있으며, 구조화되거나 비구조화될 수 있습니다:
Selection interviews may vary on a number of dimensions and may:

• 구조화되거나 비구조화될 수 있습니다,
  
• 행동 또는 상황 관련 질문을 사용합니다,
  
• 기술적(의료 및 임상 지식, 절차적 기술) 및 비기술적(대인관계 기술, 전문성) 주제를 포함한 직무 관련 내용을 평가합니다.
  
• 평가 척도를 사용하여 응답을 평가합니다.
• be structured or unstructured,
• use behavioral or situational questions,
• assess job-related content, including technical (medical and clinical knowledge and procedural skills) and nontechnical (interpersonal skills, professionalism) topics, and
• use rating scales to evaluate responses.

비구조화 및 구조화 인터뷰
Unstructured and Structured Interviews

비구조화 면접은 재량적인 내용(즉, 미리 선택된 질문이 없음)과 표준화되지 않은 평가 프로세스(즉, 질문별 채점 시스템이 없음)가 특징입니다.
Unstructured interviews are characterized by discretionary content (that is, no preselected questions) and an unstandardized evaluation process (that is, no question-specific scoring system).

구조화된 면접은 표준화를 통해 신뢰도와 타당도를 높이기 위해 면접을 개선한 것이 특징입니다. 채용 면접에 대한 연구에서는 면접 내용에 영향을 미치는 요소와 평가 프로세스에 영향을 미치는 요소의 두 가지 범주의 구조 구성 요소를 확인했습니다.
Structured interviews are characterized by any enhancement of the interview designed to improve reliability and validity by increasing standardization. Research on employment interviews has identified two categories of components of structure: those that influence interview content and those that influence the evaluation process.

• 내용 관련 구조 구성 요소는 직무와 관련된 질문을 하거나 모든 지원자에게 동일한 질문을 하는 등 면접 내용의 표준화를 높이기 위한 모든 개선 사항입니다.
  
• 평가 관련 구조 구성 요소는 평가 척도를 사용하여 면접을 평가하고 면접관에게 평가 절차에 대한 교육을 실시하는 등 평가 프로세스의 표준화를 높이는 모든 개선 사항입니다.
• Content-related components of structure are any enhancements that increase the standardization of the interview content, such as asking questions that are job-related and asking the same questions to all applicants.
• Evaluation-related components of structure are any enhancements that increase standardization of the evaluation process, such as using rating scales to evaluate the interview and training interviewers on evaluation procedures.

표 1에는 내용 및 평가 관련 구조 구성 요소와 각 구성 요소가 면접의 신뢰도, 타당도, 공정성 및 면접에 대한 지원자의 반응에 미치는 영향이 나열되어 있습니다. 그림에서 볼 수 있듯이 각 구성 요소의 효과는 서로 다릅니다. 예를 들어, 직무와 관련된 질문을 포함하면 타당도, 공정성, 지원자의 긍정적인 반응이 증가하는 반면, 탐색 질문을 제한하면 타당도와 공정성은 증가하지만 지원자의 부정적인 반응이 나타날 수 있습니다.
Table 1 lists the content- and evaluation-related components of structure and the effects of each on the interview’s reliability, validity, and fairness and the applicant reactions to the interview. As shown in the figure, the effects of each component differ. For example, including questions that are job-related increases validity, fairness, and positive applicant reactions, whereas limiting probing questions increases validity and fairness, but may lead to negative applicant reactions.

면접 프로세스에 구조를 도입하는 방법을 고려할 때, 프로그램은 선발 목표와 운영 제약 조건에 가장 적합한 구조의 구성 요소를 선택해야 합니다. 면접 결과를 개선하기 위해 모든 구조의 구성 요소를 구현할 필요는 없습니다. 구조의 구성 요소를 약간만 늘려도 지원자의 긍정적인 반응을 유지하면서 면접 결과의 신뢰도와 타당도에 긍정적인 영향을 미칠 수 있습니다.
When thinking about how to introduce structure into the interview process, programs should select the components of structure that best match its selection goals and operational constraints. Not all components of structure need to be implemented in order to improve interview results. Even making modest increases in structure can have a positive effect on the reliability and validity of interview results while maintaining positive reactions from applicants.

연구에 따르면 구조화된 면접은 구조화되지 않은 면접보다 그룹 간 차이를 줄이는 등 신뢰도, 타당도, 공정성이 더 높은 것으로 일관되게 나타났습니다. 이 분야의 연구에서는 인종/민족, 성별, 장애에 따른 차이를 조사합니다.
Research consistently shows that structured interviews have higher levels of reliability, validity, and fairness, including smaller group differences, than unstructured interviews. Research in this area investigates differences by race/ethnicity, gender, and disability.

---

표 1. 구조의 구성 요소가 신뢰성, 타당성, 공정성 및 지원자 반응에 미치는 영향
Table 1. The Effects of Components of Structure on Reliability, Validity, Fairness, and Applicant Reactions

참고: '긍정적'은 전반적으로 긍정적인 효과를, '부정적'은 전반적으로 부정적인 효과를, '불충분'은 개선 효과에 대한 연구가 불충분함을 의미합니다. "신뢰도"는 평가 프로세스가 일관되고 지원자 응답이 일관되게 평가되는 정도를 의미합니다. "타당도"는 면접 점수를 통해 추론한 내용의 정확성을 의미합니다.
Note: “positive” means overall positive effect, “negative” means overall negative effect, and "insufficient" means insufficient research on the effect of the enhancement. "Reliability" refers the extent to which the evaluation process is consistent and candidate responses are evaluated consistently. "Validity" refers to the accuracy of inferences made from interview scores.

Content	Reliability	Validity	Fairness	Applicant Reactions
Ask questions that are job-related	insufficient	positive	positive	positive
Ask all applicants questions that cover the same topics	positive	positive	positive	insufficient
Limit probing questions	positive	positive	positive	negative
Use behavioral or situational questions	positive	positive	positive	insufficient
Use a longer interview	positive	positive	insufficient	negative
Have no access to applicant information before or during interview	positive	insufficient	positive	negative
Have applicants not ask any questions	positive	insufficient	insufficient	negative

 

Evaluation	Reliability	Validity	Fairness	Applicant Reactions
Rate each answer or use multiple rating scales	positive	positive	insufficient	insufficient
Use defined rating scales	positive	positive	positive	insufficient
Take detailed notes	positive	positive	positive	insufficient
Use multiple interviewers	positive	positive	positive	negative
Use the same interviewers for all applicants	positive	insufficient	negative	insufficient
Have no discussion between interviews	negative	insufficient	positive	insufficient
Train interviewers	positive	positive	positive	positive
Use formulas to create interview total scores	positive	positive	positive	insufficient

Source: Adapted from Campion et al. (1997) and Levashina et al. (2014).

중요도가 높은 레지던트 인터뷰를 진행할 때 표준 인터뷰 질문과 평가 프로세스를 통합하세요.
Incorporate standard interview questions and evaluation processes when conducting high-stakes resident interviews.

---

행동 및 상황 질문
Behavioral and Situational Questions

면접 질문에는 여러 유형이 있습니다. 그 중 행동 질문과 상황 질문은 널리 연구되어 왔으며 비교적 구조화된 것으로 간주됩니다.
There are many types of interview questions. Two of them—behavioral and situational questions—have been widely studied and are considered relatively structured.

행동 질문은 과거의 행동이 미래의 행동을 예측할 수 있다는 전제를 바탕으로 합니다. 이러한 질문은 지원자에게 면접 중인 직무에서 직면할 수 있는 상황과 관련된 이전 상황(일반적으로 이전 직장, 학교 또는 자원봉사 경험)에서 지원자가 어떤 행동을 했는지 설명하도록 요청합니다. 과거 행동 질문은 지원자에게 특정 상황, 지원자가 취한 행동 또는 조치, 그 행동의 결과 또는 결과를 설명하도록 요청하는 경우가 많습니다.
Behavioral questions are based on the premise that past behavior predicts future behavior. They ask applicants to describe what they did in a previous context (typically, in previous jobs, at school, or in volunteer experiences) that are related to situations they may face in the job for which they are interviewing. Past-behavior questions often ask an applicant to describe a specific situation, the behavior or action they took, and the outcome or consequence of that behavior.

• 예시: 함께 일하던 의료진이 정해진 프로토콜과 일치하지 않는 방식으로 행동하는 것을 목격했던 때를 설명해 주세요. 상황이 어땠는지, 어떤 조치를 취했는지, 그 결과는 어땠는지 설명하세요.
• Example: Please describe a time when you observed a member of the medical team that you were working with behave in a manner that was inconsistent with an established protocol. Explain what the situation was, what actions you took, and the outcome.

---

행동 면접 질문 개발을 위한 주요 단계
Key Steps for Developing Behavioral Interview Questions

1. PGY-1 직책의 주요 요구 사항 파악하기
2. 면접에서 평가할 역량 3~5개 결정하기
3. 각 역량에 대한 행동 또는 상황별 질문 개발
4. 교수진에게 질문 초안을 검토하고 역량에 매핑하도록 요청합니다.
5. 목표 역량에 매핑되는 질문만 유지합니다.
6. 프로세스를 문서화하고 목표 역량 및 항목이 어떻게 선택되었는지 설명합니다.

1. Identify key requirements of the PGY-1 position
2. Determine which 3-5 competencies to target in the interview
3. Develop behavioral or situational questions for each competency
4. Invite faculty to review draft questions and map them to the competencies
5. Retain only the questions that map to the target competencies
6. Document the process and explain how the target competencies and items were selected

---

상황 질문은 의도가 미래의 행동을 예측한다는 전제를 기반으로 합니다. 상황 질문은 업무에서 발생할 수 있는 가상의 상황을 제시하고 지원자에게 해당 상황에서 어떻게 대응할 것인지 설명하도록 요청합니다.
Situational questions are based on the premise that intentions predict future behavior. They pose hypothetical situations that might occur on the job and ask applicants to describe how they would respond in the situations.

• 예시: 지원자가 아침 회진을 하고 있다고 상상해 보겠습니다. 치프 레지던트가 주 초에 지원자와 다른 PGY-1이 함께 일했던 어려운 케이스를 설명하며 어려운 상황을 잘 처리했다고 칭찬합니다. 그 과정에서 그녀는 당신에게만 공을 돌리고 당신의 동료가 중요한 역할을 했다는 사실은 언급하지 않습니다. 여러분이라면 어떻게 하시겠습니까?
• Example: I’d like you to imagine that you are on your morning rounds. The chief resident describes a difficult case that you and another PGY-1 worked on earlier in the week and compliments your handling of a difficult situation. In doing so, she gives you sole credit and fails to mention that your colleague played a major role. What would you do?

면접 질문 유형에 대한 연구에 따르면 행동 질문과 상황 질문 모두 강력한 심리 측정 특성을 가지고 있지만, 약간 다른 구성을 측정할 수 있습니다.

• 행동 질문은 주로 경험과 일부 성격 특성을 측정하는 반면,
• 상황 질문은 직무 지식을 측정할 수 있습니다.
• 두 가지 유형의 질문 모두 신뢰할 수 있으며 미래의 직무 수행을 예측하는 유효한 지표이며,
• 행동 질문의 타당도가 약간 더 높습니다.
• 일부 연구에 따르면 과거 행동 질문은 상황 질문보다 속임수에 대한 저항력이 약간 더 강하고 그룹 간 차이가 약간 더 낮을 수 있다고 합니다.

Research on the type of interview questions suggests that both behavioral and situational questions have strong psychometric properties; however, they may be measuring slightly different constructs. Behavioral questions may primarily measure experiences and some personality traits, while situational questions may measure job knowledge. Both types of questions are reliable and are valid predictors of future job performance, with behavioral questions having slightly higher validity. Some research suggests that past-behavior questions may be slightly more resistant to faking and have slightly lower group differences than situational questions.

직무 관련 면접 콘텐츠
Job-Related Interview Content

질문 유형에 관계없이 모든 면접 질문은 직무와 관련된 질문이어야 합니다. 즉, 선발 면접에 포함된 모든 질문은 PGY-1 직책의 주요 요구 사항과 명확하게 연결되어 있어야 합니다. 지원자의 학습 및 업무 스타일과 프로그램 문화 간의 적합성을 평가하는 질문을 포함하여 지원자의 학습 및 업무 스타일과 프로그램 문화 간의 적합성은 프로그램에서 성공하는 데 필수적입니다. 면접 질문에서는 지원자가 이러한 주요 요건 및 적합성을 충족하는 구체적인 사례를 자세히 설명하도록 요구해야 합니다. 가능하면 PGY-1 직책의 주요 요건과 업무 수행 및 새로운 기술 습득에 필요한 역량을 파악합니다. 입사 시 성공에 중요한 것으로 확인된 역량은 1일차 업무 수행에 필요하고 지원자의 향후 프로그램 성과를 예측할 가능성이 높기 때문에 면접의 좋은 대상이 됩니다.
Regardless of question type, all interview questions should be job-related. That is, all questions included in the selection interview should be clearly linked to key requirements of the PGY-1 position. To the extent that alignment between an applicant’s learning and work styles and the program’s culture is essential to success in your program, including questions to assess if the fit is appropriate and job-related. Interview questions should require applicants to elaborate on specific examples that address those key requirements and/or fit. If possible, identify the key requirements of the PGY-1 position and the competencies necessary to perform the work and learn new skills. Competencies that are identified as critical for success at entry are good targets for the interview because they are required to perform work on day 1 and are more likely to predict applicants’ future performance in the program.

평가하려는 역량 수, 역량 평가에 필요한 질문 수, 각 면접에 사용할 수 있는 시간 간에 균형을 유지하세요.
Maintain a balance between the number of competencies you want to assess, the number of questions needed to assess them, and the amount of time you have available for each interview.

PGY-1 직책의 주요 요건을 철저히 분석하는 데 필요한 리소스가 없는 경우, 프로그램의 PGY-1 성과 평가 도구(예: 마일스톤)를 사용하고 다른 교수진과 PGY-1이 프로그램에 입학할 때 성공에 중요한 역량(그리고 부족하면 실패로 이어질 수 있는 역량)에 대해 이야기하는 것을 고려합니다. 또 다른 옵션은 미국의학전문대학원교육인증위원회(ACGME) 핵심 역량, 레지던트 입학을 위한 AAMC 핵심 위탁 전문 활동 또는 전문 기관의 마일스톤을 사용하여 인터뷰에 어떤 내용을 포함할지 생각하는 출발점으로 삼는 것입니다. 마일스톤 또는 기타 모델을 선발 인터뷰의 출발점으로 사용하는 경우, 이는 레지던트 성과에 대한 광범위한 설명이라는 점을 기억하십시오. 어떤 측면이 프로그램의 PGY-1 포지션과 관련이 있는지 고려하는 것이 중요합니다. 선발 인터뷰는 수련 중에 배울 내용이 아니라 수련 1일차에 수련생이 시연해야 하는 내용만을 대상으로 해야 합니다. 
If you do not have the resources required to conduct a thorough analysis of the key requirements of the PGY-1 position, consider using your program’s PGY-1 performance evaluation tools (for example, milestones) and talking to other faculty about what competencies are critical for success when PGY-1s enter your program (and whose lack would lead to failure). Another option is to use the Accreditation Council on Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) Core Competencies, the AAMC Core Entrustable Professional Activities for Entering Residency, or your specialty organization’s milestones as a starting point for thinking about what content to include in the interview. If the milestones or other models are used as a starting point for your selection interview, remember that they are broad descriptions of residency performance. It is important to consider which aspects are relevant to the program’s PGY-1 position. The selection interview should only target content that trainees should be expected to demonstrate on day 1, not content that they will be expected to learn during training.

소개에서 언급했듯이 면접 당일에는 지원자 인터뷰 외에 여러 가지 요소가 포함될 수 있습니다. 면접 데이의 각 구성 요소의 목적과 각 부분에서 어떤 정보를 수집해야 하는지에 대해 생각하는 것이 중요합니다. 지원자를 모집하는 데 면접을 사용하면 지원자의 프로그램 준비도를 평가하는 데 방해가 될 수 있습니다. 가능하면 면접 당일에 지원자를 모집하고 지원자의 질문에 답변하는 시간을 따로 마련하세요. 이렇게 하면 면접이 직무 관련 내용에 집중되고 부수적인 정보가 면접관의 평가에 영향을 미치는 것을 방지할 수 있습니다.
As mentioned in the introduction, the interview day may have several components besides the applicant interview. It is important to think about the purpose of each component of the interview day and what information needs to be gathered in each part. Using interviews to recruit applicants can distract from assessing an applicant’s preparedness for your program. If possible, dedicate separate time for recruiting and answering applicants’ questions during the interview day. This may help keep the interview focused on job-related content and prevent ancillary information from influencing interviewer ratings.

면접 답변 평가하기
Evaluating Interview Responses

가장 좋은 방법은 평가 척도를 사용하여 지원자의 답변을 평가하는 것입니다. 평가 척도를 면접에 통합하면 일반적으로 지원자의 부정적인 반응을 유발하지 않으면서도 면접 점수의 신뢰성, 타당성, 공정성을 높일 수 있습니다. 또한 공통된 척도로 지원자를 평가하기 때문에 면접관이 지원자를 비교할 수 있는 능력도 향상됩니다.
A best practice is to use rating scales to evaluate applicants’ responses. Incorporating rating scales into the interview typically enhances reliability, validity, and fairness of interview scores without causing negative applicant reactions. It will also increase interviewers’ ability to compare applicants because they were evaluated on a common scale.

---

역량을 평가하는 면접 평가 척도 개발을 위한 주요 단계
Key Steps for Developing Rating Scales for Interviews that Assess Competencies

1. 평가 척도의 점수를 결정합니다.
2. 교수진에게 질문을 검토하도록 초대하고 PGY-1이 어떻게 응답할지 논의합니다.
3. 응답을 사용하여 척도의 각 점수에 대한 행동 예시 초안을 작성합니다.
4. 교직원에게 예시를 평가 대상 역량에 매핑하도록 요청합니다.
5. 매핑에서 살아남은 예만 보관합니다.
6. 프로세스 문서화
7. 면접관에게 평가 척도 사용 방법에 대해 교육하기

1. Decide on the number of points on the rating scale
2. Invite faculty to review questions and discuss how PGY-1s would respond
3. Use responses to create draft behavioral examples for each point on the scale
4. Ask faculty to map the examples to the competencies being assessed
5. Retain only the examples that survive mapping
6. Document the process
7. Train interviewers on how to use the rating scale

---

평가 척도에 대해 주목해야 할 5가지 핵심 사항이 있습니다:
There are five key points to note about rating scales:

• 개별 질문에 대한 지원자의 답변, 소수의 역량 또는 직무에 대한 전반적인 적합성을 평가하도록 설계할 수 있습니다. 가장 좋은 방법은 면접에서 평가하고자 하는 소수의 역량에 대한 평가 척도를 개발하는 것입니다.
  
• 이러한 평가 척도는 행동 및 상황별 질문과 함께 사용할 수 있도록 개발할 수 있습니다.
  
• 평가 척도의 점수는 보통 3점부터 7점까지 다양합니다. 평가 척도에 몇 점을 넣을지 결정하는 것은 일반적으로 PGY-1에서 관찰되는 행동의 범위를 반영한다고 생각하는 숙련도 수준(또는 척도 점수)의 수에 따라 달라집니다.
  
• 평가 척도의 각 점수는 각 숙련도 수준을 설명하는 행동 예시와 함께 고정되는 것이 이상적입니다. 평가 척도의 행동 예는 PGY-1의 각 수행 수준에 대한 교수진의 기대치를 반영하여 평가자에게 척도의 각 점수에 대한 공통된 정의를 제공해야 합니다. 이렇게 하면 평가자가 평가 작업을 더 쉽게 수행할 수 있고 지원자를 일관된 방식으로 평가하는 데 도움이 됩니다.
  
• 면접관에게는 평가 척도의 행동 예시를 지원자의 응답을 평가하는 일반적인 지침으로 사용하도록 안내해야 합니다.
• They can be designed to evaluate applicants’ responses to individual questions, a small number of competencies, or overall suitability for the job. A best practice is to develop rating scales for the small number of competencies that the interview was designed to assess.
• They can be developed to work with behavioral and situational questions.
• The number of points on the rating scale often varies from three to seven. Deciding how many points there should be on the rating scale typically depends on the number of proficiency levels (or scale points) you think reflect the range of behaviors observed among PGY-1s.
• Ideally, each point on the rating scale is anchored with behavioral examples that describe each level of proficiency. The behavioral examples on the rating scales should reflect faculty expectations of each level of performance for PGY-1s, providing raters with common definitions for each point on the scale. This will both make the rating task easier for raters and help ensure that applicants are being evaluated in a consistent manner.
• Interviewers should be instructed to use the behavioral examples on the rating scale as a general guide for evaluating applicants’ responses.

 

섹션 2: 레지던트 지원자 면접 - 교직원을 위한 실무 가이드
Section 2: The Resident Applicant Interview—A Practical Guide for Faculty

이 섹션에서는 레지던트 지원자 면접 절차의 각 단계에 대한 모범 사례에 대한 일반적인 지침을 제공합니다:

1. 인터뷰 준비
2. 인터뷰 시작하기
3. 인터뷰 진행
4. 인터뷰 마무리
5. 인터뷰 평가

This section provides general guidance on best practices for the stages of the residency applicant interview process:

1. Preparing for the interview
2. Starting the interview
3. Conducting the interview
4. Closing the interview
5. Evaluating the interview

예비 교직원 및 레지던트 면접관은 기관의 면접관 교육 과정(가능한 경우)을 수강하고, 무의식적 편견에 관한 과정과 같은 기관 또는 국가 교육 프로그램에 참여하며, PGY-1 레지던트의 직무 요건과 기관 및 레지던트 프로그램의 사명 및 목표를 숙지하는 것을 고려해야 합니다.
Prospective faculty and resident interviewers should consider taking the institution’s interviewer training course (if available), participating in institution or national training programs such as a course on unconscious bias, and familiarizing themselves with the job requirements for PGY-1 residents and the mission and the goals of the institution and the residency program.

1단계: 면접 준비하기
Stage 1: Preparing for the Interview

면접관은 지원자를 만나기 전에 면접 자료(예: 면접 스크립트, 가능하거나 필수적인 면접 질문, 역량 정의, 평가 척도에 대한 설명)를 숙지하는 것이 중요합니다. 다음 자료를 쉽게 사용할 수 있어야 합니다:
Before meeting the applicant, it is important that interviewers familiarize themselves with the interview materials (for example, the interview script, possible or required interview questions, competency definitions, and descriptions of rating scales). The following should be readily available:

• 토론할 질문 또는 주제 목록
  
• 인터뷰 중에 메모할 수 있는 방법
  
• 채점 루브릭 또는 평가 척도(해당되는 경우)
  
• 인터뷰 일정
• A list of questions or topics to discuss
• A way to take notes during the interview
• The scoring rubric or rating scale(s), if applicable
• The interview schedule

2단계: 인터뷰 시작
Stage 2: Starting the Interview

편안한 분위기를 조성합니다. 지원자가 정보를 공유할 수 있도록 개방적이고 편안한 분위기를 조성합니다:
Create a comfortable atmosphere. To create an open and relaxed atmosphere that will encourage the applicant to share information:

• 친절한 태도로 지원자를 맞이합니다.
  
• 이름과 직책을 밝히며 자신을 소개합니다.
  
• 지원자에게 인터뷰 시간을 알려줍니다.
  
• 면접 중에 메모를 할 계획이라면 면접을 시작하기 전에 지원자에게 알려주세요. 메모를 하면 답변을 정확하게 기억하는 데 도움이 된다고 설명할 수 있습니다.
  
• 면접 중에 전화나 긴급한 문제로 인해 면접이 중단될 수 있다는 사실을 알고 있다면 면접을 시작하기 전에 지원자에게 그 가능성에 대해 알려주세요.
• Welcome the person in a friendly manner.
• Introduce yourself, giving your name and title.
• Tell the applicant how long the interview will take.
• If you plan on taking notes during the interview, tell the applicant before you begin the interview. You can explain that taking notes helps to ensure that you remember responses accurately.
• If you know that you might be interrupted during the interview by a call or urgent matter, tell the applicant about that possibility before you begin the interview.

첫인상이나 '직감'의 영향을 받지 않도록 하세요. 지원자의 외모나 지원자와의 '케미'가 어떠하든, 이러한 요소는 해당 지원자가 프로그램에서 레지던트로서 얼마나 잘할 수 있을지를 예측할 수 없음을 기억하세요. 첫인상에 의존하면 면접에서 수집하는 직무 관련 정보의 질과 양이 제한될 수 있으므로 지원자의 답변을 경청하는 데 집중하고 모든 지원자에게 가능한 한 철저하게 임하는 것이 중요합니다.
Avoid the influence of first impressions or “gut” instinct. No matter what the applicant's personal appearance is or the "chemistry" between you and the applicant, remember that these do not predict how well a person is likely to do as a resident in your program. Relying on a first impression may limit the quality and amount of job-related information you gather during an interview; it is important to keep your focus on listening to the applicant’s answers and to be as thorough as possible with all applicants.

3단계. 면접 진행
Stage 3. Conducting the Interview

직무와 관련된 질문을 합니다. 면접 질문은 직무 요건과 명확하게 연결되는 것이 가장 좋습니다. 미리 정해진 질문이나 질문 주제가 있는 경우, 면접 전반에 걸쳐 일관성을 유지하기 위해 해당 질문이나 주제를 준수하는 것이 중요합니다. 면접관이 직접 질문을 할 수 있는 경우, 해당 질문이 직무와 관련이 있는지 확인합니다.
Ask job-relevant questions. It is a best practice for interview questions to be clearly linked to job requirements. If there is a set of predetermined questions or topics from which questions should be asked, it is important to adhere to those questions or topics for consistency across interviews. If interviewers can ask their own questions, make sure they are relevant to the job.

가능하면 상황 및 행동 질문을 사용하세요. 행동 질문과 상황 질문은 모두 면접 구조를 개선하고 강력한 심리 측정 특성을 가지고 있습니다. 

• 행동 질문은 지원자에게 특정 상황, 지원자가 취한 행동 또는 조치, 그 행동의 결과 또는 결과를 설명하도록 요청합니다.
• 상황 질문은 업무상 발생할 수 있는 가상의 상황을 제시하고 지원자가 그 상황에서 어떻게 대응할 것인지 설명하도록 요청합니다.

When possible, use situational and behavioral questions. Both behavioral and situational questions improve interview structure and have strong psychometric properties. 

• Behavioral questions ask applicants to describe a specific situation, the behavior or action they took, and the outcome or consequence of that behavior. 
• Situational questions pose hypothetical situations that may occur on the job and ask applicants to describe how they would respond in the situation.

부적절한 질문은 피하고 법률 또는 고용주 정책에 의해 금지될 수 있는 질문에 대해서는 항상 소속 기관의 법률 고문에게 문의하세요. 인터뷰 중에는 다음과 같은 주제는 피해야 합니다:
Avoid inappropriate questions and always check with your institution’s legal counsel about inquiries that may be prohibited by law or employer policy. The following topics should be avoided during an interview:

• 인구 통계: 연령, 인종, 종교, 사회경제적 지위, 민족, 성적 지향, 성 정체성, 출신 국가
  
• 가족: 혈통, 조상, 모국어 또는 모국어, 결혼 여부, 결혼 전 이름 또는 성, 지원자와 함께 사는 사람 또는 관계, 가족 문제(부모 상태, 부양가족의 나이, 자녀 계획)
  
• 개인 정보: 키와 몸무게, 신체적 및 정신적 장애, 외모, 개인적 소속을 조사하는 개인 활동
  
• 기록: 군 제대, 체포, 전과 기록
  
• 기타 프로그램 또는 전문 분야 및 순위 계획: 지원자가 지원할 수 있는 다른 프로그램 또는 전문 분야에 대한 정보 및/또는 지원자가 프로그램 순위를 매길 계획에 대한 정보. (NRMP 정책에 따르면 프로그램은 지원자에게 지원한 프로그램 및 프로그램 순위 결정 방식에 대한 정보 공개를 요구할 수 없습니다.)
  
• Demographics: Age, race, religion, socioeconomic status, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin
• Family: Lineage, ancestry, primary or native language, marital status, maiden name or family surname, relationships or people the applicant lives with, family issues (parental status, age of dependents, plans for children)
• Personal: Height and weight, physical and mental disabilities, physical appearance, personal activities that probe for personal affiliations
• History: Military discharge, arrests, criminal convictions
• Other programs or specialties, and ranking plans: Information about other programs or  specialties to which they might be applying and/or how the applicant plans to rank your program. (NRMP policies state that programs cannot require any applicant to disclose information about where they have applied and how they plan to rank programs.)

직무 관련 탐색 질문을 하세요. 지원자가 초기 답변에서 충분한 정보를 제공하지 않는 경우가 많으므로 면접관은 추가 정보를 제공하거나 후속 질문을 해야 할 수 있습니다. "좀 더 구체적으로 말씀해 주시겠습니까?" 또는 "그것에 대해 더 자세히 말씀해 주시겠습니까?"와 같은 후속 질문을 하면 지원자의 답변을 유도하지 않고 최대한 많은 정보를 수집하는 데 도움이 됩니다. 탐색 질문을 사용하는 경우, 불완전한 초기 답변을 제공한 모든 지원자에게 일관되게 질문하여 모든 지원자가 동일한 설명 기회를 갖도록 해야 합니다. 너무 많은 탐색 질문을 하면 지원자에게 찾고 있는 답변 유형에 대한 단서를 제공하여 거짓 답변을 할 가능성이 높아질 수 있다는 점에 유의하세요.
Ask job-related probing questions. In many cases, applicants do not provide enough information in their initial response, so the interviewer may need to prompt or ask follow-up questions. Asking a follow-up question such as, “Could you be more specific?” or “Could you tell me more about that?” is helpful in gathering as much information as possible without leading the applicant to an answer. If probing questions are used, they should be used consistently with all applicants who provide an incomplete initial response to ensure that everyone has the same opportunity to explain a response. Be aware that asking too many probing questions provides a cue to applicants about the types of answers you are looking for and may increase the likelihood of faking a response.

상황 또는 행동 면접 질문을 사용하는 경우 STAR 약어를 사용하면 면접관이 각 질문에 대한 중요한 정보를 모두 수집하는 데 도움이 될 수 있습니다:
If using situational or behavioral interview questions, the STAR acronym can help interviewers ensure they gather all important information about each question:

• 상황 또는 과제: 지원자가 논의 중인 사건의 맥락을 설명했나요?
  
• 행동: 지원자가 정확한 행동이나 조치에 대해 설명했나요(또는 무엇을 할 것인지)?
  
• 결과: 신청자가 행동 또는 조치의 결과 또는 결과를 설명했나요?
  
• Situation or Task: Did the applicant describe the context for the event being discussed?
• Action: Did the applicant describe the exact behaviors or actions taken (or what would  be done)?
• Result: Did the applicant describe the outcomes or consequences of the behaviors or  actions?

상황 면접 질문용 프로브
Probes for Situational Interview Questions

상황 또는 과제 Situation or Task

• 이 상황에서 가장 중요한 문제는 무엇이라고 생각하나요?
  
• 다른 어떤 문제가 우려되나요?
• What do you consider the most critical issue in this situation?
• What other issues are of concern?

행동 Action

• 당신은 뭐라고 말하겠습니까?
  
• 가장 먼저 할 일은 무엇인가요?
  
• 어떤 요인이 여러분의 행동 방침에 영향을 미칠까요?
  
• 다른 어떤 조치를 취할 수 있나요?
• What would you say?
• What is the first thing you would do?
• What factors would affect your course of action?
• What other actions could you take?

결과 Results

• 여러분의 행동이 어떻게 받아들여질 것이라고 생각하나요?
  
• 여러분의 행동이 잘 받아들여지지 않는다면 어떻게 하시겠습니까?
  
• 귀하의 행동으로 인해 어떤 이점이 있다고 생각하십니까?
• How do you think your action would be received?
• What would you do if your action was not received well?
• What do you consider benefits of your action?

행동 면접 질문용 프로브
Probes for Behavioral Interview Questions

상황 또는 과제 Situation or Task

• 그 상황이나 과업에 이르게 된 요인은 무엇인가요?
  
• 본인 또는 다른 사람이 해당 상황이나 과제를 예방하기 위해 무언가를 할 수 있었나요?
  
• 이 상황이나 과제에서 해결해야 할 가장 중요한 문제는 무엇이라고 판단했나요?
• What factors led up to the situation or task?
• Could you or anyone else have done something to prevent the situation or task?
• What did you determine as the most critical issue to address in this situation or task?

조치 Action

• 어떻게 대응했나요?
  
• 조치를 취할 때 가장 중요하게 고려한 요소는 무엇인가요?
  
• 가장 먼저 한 일은 무엇인가요?
• How did you respond?
• What was the most important factor you considered in taking action?
• What is the first thing you did?

결과 Results

• 결과는 어땠나요?
  
• 다르게 말하거나 행동했으면 좋았을 것이 있나요?
  
• 그 상황에서 어떤 이점이 있었나요?
• What was the outcome?
• Is there anything you would have said and/or done differently?
• Were there any benefits from the situation?

프로그램에서 상황 또는 행동 면접 질문을 사용하지 않는 경우, 보다 일반적인 개방형 프로빙 질문을 사용할 수 있습니다.
If the program does not use situational or behavioral interview questions, more generic and open-ended probing questions can be used.

개방형 프로빙 질문: 지원자에게 답변에 대해 자세히 설명하도록 요청하는 방법입니다:
Open-ended probing questions: Ways to ask an applicant to elaborate on a response:

• 그것에 대해 자세히 말해 보세요.
  
• 무슨 일이 있었나요?
  
• 그 이유는 무엇인가요?
  
• 어떻게 반응했나요?
  
• 어떻게 그렇게 되었나요?
  
• 더 잘 이해하도록 도와주세요.
  
• 계속하세요.
  
• 설명해 주세요.
  
• 좀 더 구체적으로 설명해 주시겠어요?
  
• 왜요?
  
• 다른 예를 들어주세요.
• Tell me more about that.
• What happened?
• Why is that?
• How did you react?
• How did that come about?
• Help me understand that better.
• Please go on.
• Explain that to me.
• Could you be more specific?
• How come?
• Give me another example, please.

간단히 메모하세요. 메모는 사용 가능한 모든 정보를 바탕으로 평가할 수 있게 해주며, 가장 객관적인 평가를 내리는 데 도움이 됩니다. 메모에는 지원자를 평가하는 방법을 정당화할 수 있도록 면접 내용에 대한 충분한 정보가 포함되어야 합니다. 지원자의 답변을 그대로 기록하기보다는 지원자의 답변에서 관련 핵심 단어나 문구를 기록하는 데 중점을 두세요.
Take short notes. Notes allow you to base your evaluations on all available information and assist you in making the most objective evaluations possible. Your notes should provide sufficient information about the interview content to justify how you evaluate candidates. Focus on recording relevant key words or phrases in the applicant’s responses rather than trying to capture responses verbatim.

메모할 때 피해야 할 몇 가지 중요한 함정은 다음과 같습니다:
Some important traps to avoid when taking notes include:

• 지원자의 의도를 유추하거나 지원자가 말한 내용에 대한 자신의 의견을 적지 마세요. 예를 들어, "나쁜 답변" 또는 "훌륭한 문제 해결사"는 지원자의 답변에 대한 사실적 증거를 제공하지 않는 평가 문장이므로 작성하지 마세요.
  
• 인종, 피부색, 종교, 성별, 출신 국가, 나이 또는 지원자가 언급했더라도 시험장 또는 평가 척도와 관련이 없는 기타 요인에 대한 언급을 포함하지 마세요.
  
• 메모가 지원자의 답변 품질에 대한 신호가 되지 않도록 하세요. 예를 들어, 매우 긍정적이거나 매우 부정적인 내용이 방금 언급되었을 때만 메모하지 마세요.
• Don't make inferences about what the applicant meant or write down your opinions of  what the applicant said. For example, do not write “bad answer” or “great problem solver” as these are evaluative statements that provide no factual evidence of the applicant’s response.
• Don't include any reference to race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, or other factors not related to the stations or rating scales, even if the applicant mentions these things.
• Don’t allow your note taking to be a signal to applicants about the quality of their responses. For example, do not take notes only when something very positive or very negative has just been said.

4단계: 면접 마무리
Stage 4: Closing the Interview

면접이 끝나면 지원자에게 감사를 표하고 다음 단계를 설명합니다. 지원자에게 면접 성과에 대한 피드백을 주거나 메모를 공유하지 않도록 주의하세요.
At the end of the interview, thank the applicant and explain where to go next. Be careful not to give the applicants any feedback on their interview performance or share your notes.

5단계: 면접 평가
Stage 5: Evaluating the Interview

지원자가 면접실을 나간 후 가능한 한 빨리 메모를 검토합니다. 놓쳤을 수 있는 중요한 세부 사항을 기입하세요. 다음 면접이 시작되기 전에 프로그램에서 설계한 접근 방식을 사용하여 지원자를 평가합니다. 지원자에 대한 평가는 메모를 통해 뒷받침되어야 합니다.
As soon as possible after the applicant leaves the room, review your notes. Fill in any important details you may have missed. Evaluate the applicant using the approach designed by your program—ideally, before the next interview begins. Ratings of the applicant should be supported by the notes.

무의식적인 편견에 유의하세요. 누구나 태도, 연상, 고정관념에 따라 다른 사람이나 집단에 대해 무의식적인 편견을 가지고 있습니다. 면접관은 개인의 편견을 완화하는 데 도움을 줄 수 있습니다:
Be aware of your unconscious bias. Everyone holds unconscious biases about other people or groups of people based on attitudes, associations, and stereotypes. Interviewers can help mitigate their individual biases through:

• 특정 지원자 또는 지원자 유형에 대한 강한 반응에 대한 인식
  
• 첫인상보다는 신중한 사고와 의사 결정에 기반한 점수 부여
  
• 관점 취하기
• awareness of strong reactions for or against a particular applicant or type of applicant
• basing scores on deliberate thinking and decision-making rather than on first impressions
• perspective taking

면접 내용 및 평가의 표준화를 강화하면 무의식적 편견이 면접 과정에 미치는 영향을 줄일 수 있습니다. 예를 들어, 기준을 명확하게 정의하고, 채점 루브릭을 사용하고, 다양한 면접관 풀을 확보하고, 면접관에게 적절한 면접 기법을 교육하는 등 면접 프로세스를 개선함으로써 무의식적 편견의 영향을 부분적으로 완화할 수 있습니다.
Increasing standardization of interview content and evaluation is likely to reduce the impact of unconscious bias on the interview process. For example, the impact of unconscious bias can be mitigated in part through enhancements to the interview process such as clearly defining criteria, using a scoring rubric, having a diverse pool of interviewers, and training interviewers on proper interview technique.

자세한 내용은 AAMC의 의료 전문가를 위한 무의식적 편견 리소스를 참조하세요.
For more information, please see the AAMC’s Unconscious Bias Resources for Health Professionals.

일반적인 평가 오류에 유의하세요. 의도하지 않은 경우가 많지만, 흔히 발생하는 평가 오류는 면접의 유효성과 공정성을 떨어뜨릴 수 있습니다. 다음은 각 지원자의 면접 답변을 평가할 때 주의해야 할 가장 일반적인 평가 오류 유형입니다:
Be aware of common rating errors. Although often unintentional, common rating errors can decrease the validity and fairness of interviews. Here are some of the most common types of rating errors to be mindful of when rating each applicant’s interview responses:

• 후광/뿔 효과: 한 응답을 기반으로 한 성과 평가가 다른 응답에 대한 평가에 영향을 미칠 수 있도록 허용하는 것입니다. 예를 들어, 팀워크를 평가하는 질문에 대한 평가가 동기를 평가하는 질문에 대한 평가에 영향을 줄 수 있도록 허용합니다.
  
• 중앙 경향: 모든 지원자를 평가 척도의 중앙에 평가합니다(예: 5점 평가 척도에서 3점을 모두 부여). 면접관은 평가 척도의 전체 범위를 편안하게 사용해야 합니다.
  
• 관대함/심각함: 지원자의 실제 답변과 관계없이 모든 지원자에게 높거나 낮은 평점을 부여하는 것입니다.
  
• 대조 효과: 한 지원자를 이전에 면접을 본 지원자의 성과와 비교하는 것입니다. 지원자가 면접을 보는 순서는 지원자의 평점에 영향을 줄 수 있습니다. 면접관은 평점을 매길 때 지원자를 비교하는 것을 자제해야 합니다. 대신 면접관은 평가 척도와 관련하여 각 지원자의 답변을 평가하는 데 집중해야 합니다.
• Halo/Horns effect: Allowing ratings of performance based on one response to influence ratings for another response. For example, allowing a rating on a question assessing teamwork to influence the rating on a question assessing motivation.
• Central tendency: Rating all applicants in the middle of the rating scale (for example, giving all 3s in a 5-point rating scale). Interviewers should feel comfortable using the entire range of the rating scale.
• Leniency/severity: Giving high or low ratings to all applicants, irrespective of their actual responses.
• Contrast effects: Comparing one applicant with the performance of previously interviewed applicants. The order in which the applicants are interviewed can affect the ratings they are given. While making ratings, interviewers should refrain from comparing applicants. Instead, interviewers should focus on evaluating each applicant’s response in relation to the rating scale.

면접관에게 프로그램 표준 및 기타 면접과 관련된 채점에 대한 정기적인 교육과 피드백을 제공하면 이러한 오류를 줄이는 데 도움이 될 수 있습니다.
Providing interviewers with regular training and feedback on their scoring relative to program standards and other interviews can help mitigate these errors.

면접 시 해야 할 일과 하지 말아야 할 일
Interview Do’s and Don’ts

면접 진행
Conducting Interviews

해야 할 일 Do:

• 직무와 관련된 질문을 하세요.
  
• 가끔 미소 짓고 고개를 끄덕이는 등 긍정적인 바디랭귀지를 사용합니다.
  
• 지원자가 본론에서 벗어난 경우 지원자의 발언에 대해 간단히 언급(예: "알겠습니다")하여 지원자의 주의를 다시 집중시킨 다음 원래의 질문으로 단호하게 돌아갑니다.
  
• 말하기보다 듣는 데 더 많은 시간을 할애하세요.
• Ask job-related questions.
• Use positive body language such as smiling and nodding occasionally.
• Refocus the applicant if he or she goes off track, by making a brief comment about the applicant’s remarks (such as, “OK”) and then firmly move back to the original question.
• Spend more time listening than talking.

하지 마세요 Don't:

• 눈썹을 치켜뜨거나 인상을 찌푸리거나 거친 목소리 톤을 사용하는 등 부정적인 바디랭귀지를 하는 것
  
• 면접 중 지원자의 성과에 대해 "좋아요" 또는 "훌륭해요"와 같은 피드백을 하는 것
  
• 판단형, 이유형, 선도형, 예/아니오형 질문을 하는 것
• Use negative body language such as raising an eyebrow, frowning, or using a harsh tone of voice.
• Give feedback to the applicant about his or her performance during the interview (such as, “Good” or “Great”).
• Ask judgmental, why, leading, or yes/no questions.

면접 평가하기
Evaluating Interviews

하세요 Do:

• 객관성을 유지하세요. 의견이 아닌 사실에 집중하세요.
  
• 면접 질문에 대한 지원자의 답변에 집중하세요.
  
• 한 번에 한 가지 질문 또는 차원에 집중합니다.
  
• 지원자의 답변을 척도 앵커와 비교하는 데 집중합니다(프로그램에서 평가 척도를 사용하는 경우).
• Stay objective―focus on facts, not opinions.
• Focus on the applicant’s responses to interview questions.
• Focus on one question or dimension at a time.
• Focus on comparing applicants’ responses with scale anchors (if your program uses a rating scale).

하지 마세요 Don't:

• "지원자의 답변에 대한 자신의 해석을 바탕으로 답변의 일부를 '채우기'.
  
• 채점 루브릭 이외의 요소(예: 외모 또는 지원자와의 '케미')를 기준으로 지원자를 판단하기
  
• 면접 중에 한 지원자의 답변을 다른 지원자의 답변과 비교하기
• “Fill in” parts of the answer based on your own interpretations of the applicant’s response.
• Judge an applicant based on anything outside the scoring rubric (for example, personal appearance or your “chemistry”).
• Compare responses of one applicant with those of other applicants during the interview.

 

출처: https://www.aamc.org/about-us/mission-areas/medical-education/best-practices-conducting-residency-program-interviews#top