Ideal allocation criteria versus current allocation criteria: 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 of respondents in each group.
| CRITERIA | PROGRAM DIRECTORS AND COORDINATORS | PGY1 AND PGY2 | PGY3 | CURRENT CRITERIA* |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Training program | 2.65 | 2.54 | 2.30 | 2.62 |
| Resident selection | 2.47 | 2.27 | 2.19 | 2.40 |
| Combination of program and resident selection | 2.46 | 2.16† | 2.00 | 2.73 |
| Population or community needs | 2.26† | 2.38 | 2.41 | 3.02 |
| Funding | 3.13 | 2.97 | 2.77 | 2.64 |
| Resident merit | 2.42 | 2.36 | 1.67† | 2.25† |
PGY–postgraduate year.
↵* Current criteria were rated by program directors and coordinators.
↵† Lowest average scores. For program directors and coordinators, funding source was significantly less important (paired t tests P < .01) than resident merit, population or community needs, combined program-resident selection, and resident selection alone. For PGY1 and PGY2 residents, combined program-resident selection was significantly different from program alone (P < .001), funding source (P < .001), and population or community needs (P = .03); resident selection was significantly different from program (P = .005); and funding source was significantly lower (P < .001) than resident selection, merit, and population or community needs. For PGY3 residents, merit was significantly more important (P < .05) than all other options, except for a combination of program and resident selection, and funding was significantly less important (P < .05) than all other factors except for population and community needs. For current criteria, resident merit was significantly different from population or community needs (P < .001), combination of training program and resident selection (P = .01), and training program alone (P = .04); resident selection was significantly different from population or community needs (P = .01).