Match / Match Statistics / Match Statistics 2016 Phase I

Match Statistics - 2016 - Phase I

2016 APPIC Match Statistics - Phase I

Match Report from the APPIC Board of Directors
February 19, 2016

 

We are pleased to report that 3,235 applicants were successfully matched to internship positions in Phase I of the APPIC Match. Half (50%) of all applicants who obtained a position matched to their first choice internship program, nearly three-quarters (72%) received one of their top two choices, and more than four-in-five (84%) received one of their top three choices.

A total of 490 applicants were not matched to an internship position in Phase I, while 274 applicants withdrew or did not submit a Rank Order List. A total of 565 positions remained unfilled.

Overall, the imbalance between applicants and internship positions showed significant improvement again this year, due to a substantial increase in available positions along with a decrease in registered applicants. Compared to the 2015 Match, the number of registered applicants in 2016 decreased by 248 (-6%) to 3,999 applicants, while the number of internship positions increased by 116 (+3%) to 3,800 positions. Compared to 2015, the number of accredited positions increased by 247 while the number of non-accredited positions decreased by 131.

The number of registered applicants in 2016 exceeded the number of positions by 199 (compared to a difference of 563 last year). Considering the 274 applicants who withdrew from the 2016 Match, the number of positions (3,800) actually exceeded the number of participating applicants (3,725) by 75.

Despite the improvement in the overall imbalance and in the number of accredited positions, the number of registered applicants still exceeded the number of accredited positions by 1,020.

The 2012 APPIC Match was the point of the worst imbalance between applicants and positions since the Match began in 1999. Only four years later, the 2016 Match was the most closely balanced Match since 1999. Here is a comparison of the 2012 and 2016 APPIC Matches:



    2012 MATCH 2016 MATCH
4-YEAR CHANGE
 
Applicants: Registered for the Match
4,435     
3,999     
-436    (-10%)

Withdrew or did not submit ranks
426     
274     
-152    (-36%)

Matched
2,968     
3,235     
+267     (+9%)

Unmatched
1,041     
490     
-551    (-53%)
   

Positions: Offered in the Match
3,190     
3,800     
+610   (+19%)
  Filled
2,968     
3,235     
+267     (+9%)
  Unfilled
222     
565     
+343 (+154%)
   

  Accredited (APA or CPA)
2,361     
2,979     
+618   (+26%)
  Non-Accredited
829     
821     
-8      (-1%)
   

Number of registered applicants exceeded number of positions by:
1,245     
199     
-1,046    (-84%)
   

Number of registered applicants exceeded number of accredited positions by:
2,074     
1,020     
-1,054    (-51%)


The 2016 APPIC Match statistics are provided below, in four sections:




APPLICANTS

PARTICIPATION IN PHASE I
Applicants Registered in the Match
3,999
Applicants Who Withdrew or Did Not Submit Ranks
274
Applicants Participating in the Match
(includes 32 individuals who participated in the Match as 16 "couples")
3,725


APPLICATIONS SUBMITTED IN PHASE I
Number of Applicants Who Submitted Applications in Phase I
3,910
Total Number of Applications Submitted in Phase I
61,920
Average Number of Applications Submitted by Applicants in Phase I (SD = 6.2)
15.8
Median Number of Applications Submitted in Phase I
16
Range of Applications Submitted in Phase I
1 - 76

NOTE: For comparison purposes, applicants submitted an average of 16.3 applications in 2013 (SD = 6.6, median = 16), an average of 15.9 in 2014 (SD = 6.2, median = 16), and an average of 15.8 in 2015 (SD = 6.2, median = 16).


MATCH RESULTS IN PHASE I
Applicants Matched
3,235
87%
Participating Applicants Not Matched
490
13%


MATCH RESULTS BY RANK NUMBER ON APPLICANT'S LIST
(PERCENTAGES MAY NOT TOTAL TO 100 DUE TO ROUNDING ERRORS)
Rank
Number of Applicants
1
1,624
50%
2
698
22%
3
399
12%
4
205
6%
5
120
4%
6
84
3%
7
45
1%
8
22
1%
9
17
1%
10 or higher
21
1%
Total
3,235
100%


RANKINGS IN PHASE I
Average Number of Rankings Submitted Per Applicant:
Matched Applicants
8.3
Unmatched Applicants
3.7
Overall
7.7

Each Position Was Ranked by an Average of 7.5 Applicants.




INTERNSHIP PROGRAMS


PARTICIPATION IN PHASE I
Training Sites Participating in the Match
782
Programs Participating in the Match
1,448
Positions Offered in the Match
3,800

NOTE: A "training site" can offer more than one "program" in the Match. Each "program" was identified in the Match by a separate 6-digit code number.


APPLICATIONS RECEIVED IN PHASE I
Sites Receiving Applications in Phase I
783
Total Number of Applications Received in Phase I
61,920
Average Number of Applications Received in Phase I (SD = 61.6)
79.1
Median Number of Applications Received in Phase I
64
Range of Applications Received in Phase I
1 - 352

NOTE: For comparison purposes, sites received an average of 97.9 applications in 2013 (SD = 71.2, median = 86), an average of 89.8 in 2014 (SD = 65.1, median = 80), and an average of 84.9 in 2015 (SD = 65.2, median = 69).


MATCH RESULTS IN PHASE I
Positions:
Filled in the Match
3,235
85%
Remaining Unfilled
565
15%
Programs:
Filled in the Match
1,122
77%
With Unfilled Positions
326
23%

NOTE: 40 programs at 32 sites submitted fewer ranks than the number of positions available. As a result, no ranks were submitted for 69 positions, which remained unfilled.


APA- OR CPA- ACCREDITED POSITIONS
Filled in the Match
2,716
91%
Remaining Unfilled
263
9%
Total
2,979

NON-ACCREDITED POSITIONS
Filled in the Match
519
63%
Remaining Unfilled
302
37%
Total
821

Non-accredited positions represented 21.6% of all positions but 53.4% of unfilled positions.


RANKINGS IN PHASE I
Average Number of Applicants Ranked Per Position Offered for Each Program:
Programs Filling All Positions
8.6
Programs With Unfilled Positions
3.9
All Programs
7.5

Each Registered Applicant Was Ranked by an Average of 6.1 Different Programs.




DOCTORAL PROGRAM PARTICIPATION AND RESULTS


SUMMARY OF PARTICIPATING DOCTORAL PROGRAMS
PROGRAM TYPE
DEGREE SOUGHT
NUMBER OF DOCTORAL PROGRAMS
NUMBER OF APPLICANTS
 
 
Accredited
Non-Accred.
Totals
Accredited
Non-Accred.
Totals
Clinical
Ph.D.
191
10
201
1,399
50
1,449
Psy.D.
64
19
83
1,583
153
1,736
Ed.D.
0
0
0
0
0
0
TOTALS
255
29
284
2,982
203
3,185
Counseling
Ph.D.
65
6
71
368
26
394
Psy.D.
5
6
11
40
51
91
Ed.D.
0
2
2
0
5
5
TOTALS
70
14
84
408
82
490
School
Ph.D.
46
10
56
167
29
196
Psy.D.
3
4
7
14
18
32
Ed.D.
0
0
0
0
0
0
TOTALS
49
14
63
181
47
228
Combined
Ph.D.
7
1
8
48
1
49
Psy.D.
3
2
5
29
18
47
Ed.D.
0
0
0
0
0
0
TOTALS
10
3
13
77
19
96
ALL PROGRAMS
Ph.D.
309
27
336
1,982
106
2,088
Psy.D.
75
31
106
1,666
240
1,906
Ed.D.
0
2
2
0
5
5
TOTALS
384
60
444
3,648
351
3,999


APPLICANT RESULTS BY DOCTORAL PROGRAM TYPE AND DEGREE
PROGRAM TYPE
DEGREE SOUGHT
MATCHED
UNMATCHED
WITHDREW OR NO RANKINGS SUBMITTED
TOTAL
Clinical
Ph.D. / Ed.D.
1,232
85.0%
149
10.3%
68
4.7%
1,449
Psy.D.
1,367
78.7%
242
13.9%
127
7.3%
1,736
TOTALS
2,599
81.6%
391
12.3%
195
6.1%
3,185
Counseling
Ph.D. / Ed.D.
339
85.0%
34
8.5%
26
6.5%
399
Psy.D.
60
65.9%
15
16.5%
16
17.6%
91
TOTALS
399
81.4%
49
10.0%
42
8.6%
490
School
Ph.D. / Ed.D.
144
73.5%
28
14.3%
24
12.2%
196
Psy.D.
15
46.9%
13
40.6%
4
12.5%
32
TOTALS
159
69.7%
41
18.0%
28
12.3%
228
Combined
Ph.D. / Ed.D.
43
87.8%
3
6.1%
3
6.1%
49
Psy.D.
35
74.5%
6
12.8%
6
12.8%
47
TOTALS
78
81.3%
9
9.4%
9
9.4%
96
ALL PROGRAMS
Ph.D. / Ed.D.
1,758
84.0%
214
10.2%
121
5.8%
2,093
Psy.D.
1,477
77.5%
276
14.5%
153
8.0%
1,906
TOTALS
3,235
80.9%
490
12.3%
274
6.9%
3,999

NOTE: Students seeking Ed.D. degrees were included in the Ph.D. category in order to prevent individuals from being identified.



APPLICANT RESULTS BY DOCTORAL PROGRAM ACCREDITATION STATUS AND PROGRAM TYPE
ACCREDITATION STATUS OF DOC. PROG.
PROGRAM TYPE
MATCHED
UNMATCHED
WITHDREW OR NO RANKINGS SUBMITTED
TOTAL
Accredited
Clinical
2,494
83.6%
350
11.7%
138
4.6%
2,982
Counseling
353
86.5%
35
8.6%
20
4.9%
408
School
137
75.7%
30
16.6%
14
7.7%
181
Combined
69
89.6%
4
5.2%
4
5.2%
77
TOTALS
3,053
83.7%
419
11.5%
176
4.8%
3,648
Non-Accredited
Clinical
105
51.7%
41
20.2%
57
28.1%
203
Counseling
46
56.1%
14
17.1%
22
26.8%
82
School
22
46.8%
11
23.4%
14
29.8%
47
Combined
9
47.4%
5
26.3%
5
26.3%
19
TOTALS
182
51.9%
71
20.2%
98
27.9%
351
ALL PROGRAMS
Clinical
2,599
81.6%
391
12.3%
195
6.1%
3,185
Counseling
399
81.4%
49
10.0%
42
8.6%
490
School
159
69.7%
41
18.0%
28
12.3%
228
Combined
78
81.3%
9
9.4%
9
9.4%
96
TOTALS
3,235
80.9%
490
12.3%
274
6.9%
3,999


MATCHED APPLICANTS BY ACCREDITATION STATUS OF INTERNSHIP AND DOCTORAL PROGRAMS
DOCTORAL PROGRAM ACCREDITATION STATUS
MATCHED TO ACCREDITED INTERNSHIP
MATCHED TO NON-ACCREDITED INTERNSHIP
TOTAL
Accredited
2,660
87.1%
393
12.9%
3,053
Non-Accredited
56
30.8%
126
69.2%
182
ALL PROGRAMS
2,716
84.0%
519
16.0%
3,235


MATCHED APPLICANTS BY ACCREDITATION STATUS OF INTERNSHIP PROGRAM
AND DOCTORAL PROGRAM TYPE AND DEGREE
PROGRAM TYPE
DEGREE SOUGHT
MATCHED TO ACCREDITED INTERNSHIP
MATCHED TO NON-ACCREDITED INTERNSHIP
TOTAL
Clinical
Ph.D. / Ed.D.
1,172
95.1%
60
4.9%
1,232
Psy.D.
1,002
73.3%
365
26.7%
1,367
TOTALS
2,174
83.6%
425
16.4%
2,599
Counseling
Ph.D. / Ed.D.
317
93.5%
22
6.5%
339
Psy.D.
25
41.7%
35
58.3%
60
TOTALS
342
85.7%
57
14.3%
399
School
Ph.D. / Ed.D.
133
92.4%
11
7.6%
144
Psy.D.
6
40.0%
9
60.0%
15
TOTALS
139
87.4%
20
12.6%
159
Combined
Ph.D. / Ed.D.
39
90.7%
4
9.3%
43
Psy.D.
22
62.9%
13
37.1%
35
TOTALS
61
78.2%
17
21.8%
78
ALL PROGRAMS
Ph.D. / Ed.D.
1,661
94.5%
97
5.5%
1,758
Psy.D.
1,055
71.4%
422
28.6%
1,477
TOTALS
2,716
84.0%
519
16.0%
3,235

NOTE: Students seeking Ed.D. degrees were included in the Ph.D. category in order to prevent individuals from being identified.




SUMMARY OF PROGRAM RANKINGS


The following report contains additional statistics on how successful programs were, on average, in matching with applicants during Phase I of the APPIC Match.

There are several important issues that must be considered in attempting to analyze program success based on the rank numbers of matched applicants.

DEFINITIONAL PROBLEMS: Because each applicant submitted a single Rank Order List in order to match to a single position, it is easy to identify his or her "first choice," "second choice," etc. However, for an internship program, determining first or second choice applicants is a far more difficult and complex task. First, many programs attempt to fill several positions; if a program has three positions to fill, an applicant ranked third by that program can in effect be considered a "first choice" for purposes of the Match. Furthermore, a significant number of sites submitted multiple Rank Order Lists for a single program, sometimes ranking the same applicant on different Lists with different rank numbers. Also, the reversion of unfilled positions between lists adds a further complication to this analysis.

We worked closely with National Matching Services in an attempt to resolve these difficulties and to develop a reasonable method of presenting this data.

STANDARDIZED RANKINGS: For the purposes of this analysis, we converted each site's rankings to a "standardized rank." This is best explained by example: if the number of positions to be filled from a Rank Order List was three, then the first three applicants on this List were considered to be "first choice" applicants and given a standardized rank of 1. The next three applicants on that List were defined as "second choice" applicants and given a standardized rank of 2. And so on.


PHASE I MATCH RESULTS BY
STANDARDIZED RANK NUMBER ON INTERNSHIP PROGRAM LIST

(Percentages may not total to 100 due to rounding errors)

Standardized Rank
Number of Applicants Matched
1
1,024
32%
2
790
24%
3
562
17%
4
351
11%
5
207
6%
6
132
4%
7
73
2%
8
32
1%
9
17
1%
10 or higher
47
1%
Total
3,235
100%

To interpret this chart: Of all positions that were filled in Phase I of the Match, 32% were filled with "first choice" applicants (as defined above), 24% with "second choice" applicants, and so on.

Furthermore, 56% were filled with "first" or "second" choice applicants, while 73% were filled with "third choice" applicants or better.

Of course, comparing these numbers to applicants' Match statistics should be done with extreme caution, given the significantly different ways in how "first choice", "second choice", etc. were defined in each analysis.

 

Report Prepared by Greg Keilin, Ph.D.
and National Matching Services, Inc.
February 19, 2016