Table 5.

Relative importance of different criteria for the selection of residents for third-year programs: Responses are based on a 5-point scale, in which 1 was very important and 5 was not at all important, and are expressed as the mean score.

CRITERIA	PROGRAM DIRECTORS’ AND COORDINATORS’ RATING
Resident’s demonstrated abilities	2.03*
Resident’s plan for practice	2.29
Combination of ability and plan for practice	2.20
Population, community, and institutional needs	2.72
Funding	2.59
Resident’s commitment to use PGY3 training	2.36

^*Lowest average score. Resident ability was significantly more important (paired t tests) than population, community, and institutional needs (P = .001) and funding source (P = .007). Population, community, and institutional needs were significantly less important than resident practice plans (P = .01), combined resident ability and practice plans (P = .008), and commitment to use training (P = .03).