{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.042677824267782424, 'fraction_numerical': 0.012552301255230125, 'mean_word_length': 5.719101123595506, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Selecting specialist registrars by station interview.

Appointments to the specialist registrar (SpR) grade depend almost entirely on performance at interview, yet standard panel interviews do not directly assess the competences required of a medical trainee. In this study, station interviews were used to select neurology SpRs. Eighteen candidates were assessed in three interviews, each involving three stations: a curriculum vitae (CV)-based interview, an interview with a simulated patient, and a discussion of scenarios based upon teaching, audit and research. Two or three assessors at each station ranked candidates independently before discussing the pooled rankings and reading written references. The CV-based interview rankings (resembling a traditional panel interview) correlated less well with the overall rankings (r=0.54) than did research (r=0.83), information giving (r=0.75), audit (r=0.70) or teaching presentation (r=0.59). Station interviews appear fairer (providing more time, more independent examiners, fresh starts at each station), although they require more planning and expense. Competency-based assessments should be more widely used in selecting medical trainees.