American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education 2017; 81 (5) Article 100. important when evaluating residency applicants.6 A single site study spanning multiple years found that higher GPA was consistently associated with an increased likelihood of being invited for an onsite interview.7 The disparity in the literature regarding the role of GPA in the screening and selection process may be explained by a number of factors, including differences in the volume of applicants, variations in screening tools used, changes in perspectives over time, or geographical differences in preferences for specific screening criteria. For example, as was noted in our discussion, our results may not be representative of all areas in the United States. Most of the pharmacy students that we surveyed were located in large, metropolitan areas with other pharmacy schools in the immediate area. Consequently, our survey respondents may have been applying to programs that receive a high volume of applications. It may be possible that residency programs located in areas with high competition for positions may be more willing to use quick and “easy” objective filters, such as GPA or number of leadership positions, to reduce what may seem an unmanageable number of applications. However, the characteristics of residency programs or RPDs as they relate to the choice and weight of residency application screening criteria have not been systematically studied. There remains a need for such research, so we can better mentor and guide our pharmacy students to succeed in the application, interview, and match process. We agree that there are many factors that need to be taken into consideration when selecting residents. Focusing on one, or only a few, is not enough to get an accurate impression of who candidates are and what they have to offer. In one survey, 38.4% and 22.8% of RPDs indicated that synergy between a candidate’s letter of intent and the nature of the residency program and letters of recommendation were the most important selection criterion, respectively.5 When this is contrasted to the relatively fewer RPDs who indicated GPA as most important (13.4%), it seems apparent that trying to understand residency “fit” through the contents of letters of intent and letters of recommendation is a high priority for many RPDs.5 Furthermore, many characteristics beyond knowledge are necessary for a resident to be successful, including dependability, professionalism, self-motivation/initiative, and work ethic, which were identified in a recent survey of RPDs.8 More objective criteria, like number of leadership positions and GPA are “easy” filters to apply, but they should not be selected because they are easy. It is more difficult to get an idea of subjective characteristics during the screening, non-interactive portion of the residency application process. Having a robust screening tool that

LETTER RE: Considerations in Determining the Ideal Pharmacy Residency Candidate To the Editor: We would like to thank Dr. Copenhaver and colleagues for their interest in our work and for their letter regarding our recently published study, “Student Characteristics Associated with Successful Matching to a PGY-1 Residency Program.” Our survey found that number of applications, number of interviews, pharmacy school GPA, and female gender were associated with a higher likelihood of matching to a residency for students at five different pharmacy schools across the United States.1 Copenhaver and colleagues suggest that residency programs that focus only on objective data, including number of leadership positions and grade point average (GPA), may miss out on the valuable perspective that can be gleaned by looking at subjective data, including letters of intent and letters of recommendation.2 We agree with these comments and feel that a wholistic approach, which takes into account subjective as well as objective information, is the best way to accurately and completely assess a candidate’s “fit” for a particular residency program. Although our work was not intended to serve as guide for candidate selection, it did provide an interesting perspective on characteristics that were associated with matching from the students surveyed. The results of our survey found that higher GPA was associated with a higher likelihood of applying, getting an interview, and matching to a residency program. However, one can argue that the magnitude of the difference found (3.5 vs 3.7, delta of 0.2) was not “educationally” significant. Indeed, GPA is, in essence, a surrogate marker for candidate knowledge and aptitude, and there are inherent limitations in using it as such, as was discussed in our article. There seems to be inconsistency in the published literature regarding the value of GPA as a screening tool for pharmacy residency applicants. Some studies suggest that GPA is important, and others do not. In a recent survey, residency program directors (RPDs) appeared to place less emphasis on GPA than in the past.3 Similarly, RPDs at large academic medical centers indicated that GPA was not among the most highly valued characteristics that programs used in screening tools in another survey study.4 Another survey found that while only 13.4% of RPD respondents selected GPA as the most important selection criterion, 94.4% of these respondents use GPA as a selection criterion.5 Although a specific GPA was not mentioned, a 2012 survey of RPDs noted that 98.9% of RPDs considered pharmacy school grades critically 1

American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education 2017; 81 (5) Article 100. incorporates all relevant subjective and objective characteristics will help RPDs get closer to finding the ideal “fit” for their programs. More research should be done investigating how to efficiently extract valuable subjective information from items such as letters of intent and letters of recommendation. Alternatively, the value of pre-onsite interview screening tools should also be evaluated. In the interim, we would be doing our students an injustice by advising them not to maintain a GPA high enough to remain competitive residency candidates. Because although many programs search for signs of residency “fit” and other more subjective candidate characteristics in the standard application package, most of the current literature indicates GPA is still being used, to varying degrees, as a screening tool in the residency application process.

matching to a PGY1 residency program. Am J Pharm Educ. 2016;80(5):Article 84. 2. Copenhaver AM, Jarett JB. Considerations in determining the ideal pharmacy residency candidate. Am J Pharm Educ. 2017;81(5): Article 99. 3. Gohlke AL, Ray DB, El-Ibiary SY, Barletta JF. Characteristics of the ideal postgraduate year 1 pharmacy practice residency candidate: a survey of residency program directors. J Pharm Pract. 2014;27 (1):84-88. 4. Hillebrand K, Leinum CJ, Desai S, Petit NN, Fuller PD. Residency application screening tools: a survey of academic medical centers. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2015:72(11 Suppl 1):S16-S19. 5. Blake EW, Friesner D, Gettig JP, Hajjar E, Gentry EJ, Kline JM. Comparing pharmacy practice faculty perceptions of first-year post-graduate residency (PGY1) selection criteria to those reported by PGY1 residency directors. Curr Pharm Teach Learn. 2015;7 (1):20-28. 6. Jellinek-Cohen SP, Cohen V, Bucher KL, Likourezos A. Factors used by pharmacy residency programs to select residents. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2012;69(13):1105-1108. 7. Ensor CR, Walker CL, Rider SK, Clemente EU, Ashby DM, Shermock KM. Streamlining the process for initial review of pharmacy residency applications: an analytic approach. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2013;70(19):1670-1675. 8. Jellinek-Cohen SP, Cohen V, Rab S, Likourezos A. Characteristics that define a successful pharmacy resident as perceived by residency programs. Hosp Pharm. 2015;50 (10):876-883.

Jennifer Phillips, PharmD Jacob P. Gettig, PharmD, MPH, MEd Midwestern University Chicago College of Pharmacy, Downers Grove, Illinois

REFERENCES 1. Phillips JA, McLaughlin MM, Rose C, Gallagher JC, Gettig JP, Rhodes NJ. Student characteristics associated with successful

2