 |
General
Information | Questions
about the Match | Match
Statistics | Travel
Discounts | Info
for Non-APPIC Member Programs
2001 APPIC Match: Survey of Internship Applicants
March 19, 2001
This survey of applicants who were registered for the 2001 APPIC Match was conducted via the internet between February 26 and March 18, 2001. Subscribers to the e-mail list MATCH-NEWS were notified that a survey was available at a specific internet address.
Results of the survey are presented below. A total of 1,425 internship applicants completed the survey. Please keep in mind that this is not a scientific sampling, as not all applicants were subscribed to MATCH-NEWS and thus some did not receive notification that a survey was available. In addition, a small number of respondents were unable to complete the survey because they were not using a recent version of a web browser.
Some of the more interesting findings from this survey include:
- Applicants were strongly supportive of the new ROLIC (Rank Order List Input and Confirmation) system and of submitting rankings via the internet (see questions 6a - 6d).
- Applicants felt that the new Friday/Monday notification process was less stressful and strongly endorsed that it be continued in future years. This result is particularly interesting given that applicants also felt that the new process was clearly better for unmatched applicants but was not necessarily better for matched applicants (see questions 9a-e).
- Applicants strongly endorsed the continuation of the APPIC Informal Problem Resolution process (see question 11).
- When asked about the timing of the entire internship selection process, applicants preferred by a 3-to-1 margin to keep the process as it is (Match Day in late February) rather than moving it later in the year (Match Day in late March or April) (see question 12).
- Applicants have mixed opinions about whether or not APPIC should adopt a uniform application deadline date (Yes = 47%, No = 40%; see question 13a).
- Applicants strongly endorsed the notion that APPIC should adopt a uniform interview notification date (Yes = 80%, No = 12%; see question 13b).
Missing data and "Not Applicable" responses were eliminated, and percentages do not necessarily total 100% due to rounding. Survey questions 7 and 17-20 requested open-ended comments and thus the results are not included below.
| 1. |
Type of Doctoral Program:
|
| |
Clinical |
1044 |
73 % |
| |
Counseling |
253 |
18 % |
| |
School |
57 |
4 % |
| |
Other |
69 |
5 % |
| 2. |
Degree Sought:
|
| |
Ph.D. |
966 |
68 % |
| |
Psy.D. |
428 |
30 % |
| |
Ed.D. |
8 |
1 % |
| |
Other |
19 |
1 % |
| 3. |
Is your doctoral program APA- or CPA-accredited?
|
| |
Yes |
1315 |
93 % |
| |
No |
104 |
7 % |
| 4. |
Were you matched to an internship program
by the APPIC Match? (i.e., did your official notification
from National Matching Services indicate that you were
successfully matched to an internship program?)
|
| |
Yes |
1257 |
88 % |
| |
No |
157 |
11 % |
| |
Withdrew / No rankings submitted |
8 |
1 % |
INTERPRETATION NOTE: It appears that unmatched applicants were underrepresented in this survey (2001 APPIC Match statistics indicated that 18% of participating applicants were not matched).
| 5a. |
The materials and instructions provided
by National Matching Services (NMS) were clear and comprehensive.
|
| |
Strongly Agree |
952 |
67 % |
| |
Agree |
413 |
29 % |
| |
Neutral |
26 |
2 % |
| |
Disagree |
13 |
1 % |
| |
Strongly Disagree |
19 |
1 % |
| 5b. |
The registration process with NMS went
smoothly.
|
| |
Strongly Agree |
1093 |
77 % |
| |
Agree |
265 |
19 % |
| |
Neutral |
20 |
1 % |
| |
Disagree |
22 |
2 % |
| |
Strongly Disagree |
22 |
2 % |
| 5c. |
The submission of my Rank Order List to
NMS went smoothly.
|
| |
Strongly Agree |
1136 |
80 % |
| |
Agree |
213 |
15 % |
| |
Neutral |
23 |
2 % |
| |
Disagree |
16 |
1 % |
| |
Strongly Disagree |
25 |
2 % |
| 5d. |
NMS was responsive to my questions and
concerns (choose "N/A" if you never contacted
NMS).
|
| |
Strongly Agree |
215 |
61 % |
| |
Agree |
77 |
22 % |
| |
Neutral |
30 |
9 % |
| |
Disagree |
18 |
5 % |
| |
Strongly Disagree |
12 |
3 % |
| 5e. |
I am satisfied with the Match result that
I received from the Matching Program.
|
| |
Strongly Agree |
867 |
63 % |
| |
Agree |
255 |
19 % |
| |
Neutral |
76 |
6 % |
| |
Disagree |
75 |
5 % |
| |
Strongly Disagree |
105 |
8 % |
| 5f. |
Overall, I am satisfied with the APPIC
Matching Program.
|
| |
Strongly Agree |
736 |
52 % |
| |
Agree |
446 |
31 % |
| |
Neutral |
125 |
9 % |
| |
Disagree |
55 |
4 % |
| |
Strongly Disagree |
52 |
4 % |
| 6a. |
I found the ROLIC system to be user-friendly
and easy to use.
|
| |
Strongly Agree |
975 |
69 % |
| |
Agree |
372 |
26 % |
| |
Neutral |
33 |
2 % |
| |
Disagree |
14 |
1 % |
| |
Strongly Disagree |
19 |
1 % |
| 6b. |
The printed ROLIC instructions that were
send to me via regular mail were clear and easy to follow
(if you didn't use these printed instructions, check "N/A")
|
| |
Strongly Agree |
695 |
66 % |
| |
Agree |
296 |
28 % |
| |
Neutral |
37 |
3 % |
| |
Disagree |
12 |
1 % |
| |
Strongly Disagree |
19 |
2 % |
| 6c. |
The on-line ROLIC instructions that were
provided on the NMS web site were clear and easy to follow
(if you didn't use these on-line instructions, check "N/A")
|
| |
Strongly Agree |
887 |
68 % |
| |
Agree |
368 |
28 % |
| |
Neutral |
31 |
2 % |
| |
Disagree |
13 |
1 % |
| |
Strongly Disagree |
14 |
1 % |
| 6d. |
I prefer to submit my rankings via the
internet rather than the method used in prior years (i.e.,
filling out a ranking form and submitting it to NMS via
regular mail or fax)
|
| |
Strongly Agree |
1206 |
87 % |
| |
Agree |
130 |
9 % |
| |
Neutral |
24 |
2 % |
| |
Disagree |
6 |
0 % |
| |
Strongly Disagree |
24 |
2 % |
| 7. |
(Not included - this was an open-ended
question about the ROLIC system)
|
| 8a. |
In your judgment, did you experience any
violation(s) of APPIC Match Policies by any site?
|
| |
Yes |
141 |
10 % |
| |
No |
1082 |
76 % |
| |
Unsure |
198 |
14 % |
INTERPRETATION NOTE: Last year, applicants' responses to this question were: Yes = 15%, No = 74%, Unsure = 12%.
| 8b. |
Did you reveal any ranking information
(e.g., "You are my first choice") to any site?
|
| |
Yes |
11 |
1 % |
| |
No |
1399 |
98 % |
| |
Didn't know about it |
11 |
1 % |
INTERPRETATION NOTE: Last year, applicants' responses to this question were: Yes = 2%, No = 96%, Unsure = 2%.
| 8c. |
Did you experience inappropriate pressure
from any site to reveal your rankings?
|
| |
Yes |
63 |
4 % |
| |
No |
1302 |
92 % |
| |
Unsure |
54 |
4 % |
INTERPRETATION NOTE: Last year, applicants' responses to this question were: Yes = 8%, No = 86%, Unsure = 5%.
| 8d. |
Did any site reveal ranking information
to you (e.g., "You are my first choice")?
|
| |
Yes |
39 |
3 % |
| |
No |
1329 |
94 % |
| |
Unsure |
53 |
4 % |
INTERPRETATION NOTE: Last year, applicants' responses to this question were: Yes = 4%, No = 92%, Unsure = 4%.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR QUESTIONS 9a - 9e:
As you may know, this year APPIC implemented a new early
notification plan to distribute results to applicants: first,
providing information about whether or not they matched (on
Friday, February 23), followed by informing them of the specific
site to which they were matched (on Monday, February 26). The
purpose of this new Friday/Monday notification process was to
provide a 3-day window so that unmatched applicants would have
time to prepare for the opening of the Clearinghouse.
When answering the questions below, please keep in mind last
year's results notification process: (a) no results information
of any kind was released on Friday, (b) applicants learned on
Monday morning whether or not they were matched as well as the
specific site to which they were matched, and (c) unmatched
applicants had to begin negotiating the Clearinghouse beginning
two hours later on that same day.
| 9a. |
Overall, the new Friday/Monday notification
process was LESS stressful than if I had received all
of my results on Monday only.
|
| |
Strongly Agree |
541 |
38 % |
| |
Agree |
375 |
27 % |
| |
Neutral |
215 |
15 % |
| |
Disagree |
164 |
12 % |
| |
Strongly Disagree |
111 |
8 % |
| 9b. |
I believe that the new Friday/Monday notification
process is better for UNMATCHED applicants.
|
| |
Strongly Agree |
936 |
67 % |
| |
Agree |
291 |
21 % |
| |
Neutral |
77 |
6 % |
| |
Disagree |
49 |
4 % |
| |
Strongly Disagree |
36 |
3 % |
| 9c. |
I believe that the new Friday/Monday notification
process is better for MATCHED applicants.
|
| |
Strongly Agree |
257 |
19 % |
| |
Agree |
211 |
15 % |
| |
Neutral |
324 |
23 % |
| |
Disagree |
328 |
24 % |
| |
Strongly Disagree |
262 |
19 % |
| 9d. |
The new Friday/Monday notification process
should be continued in future matches.
|
| |
Strongly Agree |
612 |
43 % |
| |
Agree |
359 |
25 % |
| |
Neutral |
250 |
18 % |
| |
Disagree |
110 |
8 % |
| |
Strongly Disagree |
79 |
6 % |
| 9e. |
(ANSWER ONLY IF YOU WERE UNMATCHED): The
new Friday/Monday notification process was helpful in
giving me time to prepare for the Clearinghouse.
|
| |
Strongly Agree |
100 |
64 % |
| |
Agree |
28 |
18 % |
| |
Neutral |
11 |
7 % |
| |
Disagree |
7 |
4 % |
| |
Strongly Disagree |
10 |
6 % |
INSTRUCTIONS FOR QUESTIONS 10a - 10d:
This year, APPIC instituted an "Informal Problem Resolution" process
that provided applicants and sites with the ability to consult with
an APPIC Board Member regarding problems and difficulties that arose
during the selection process.
IMPORTANT NOTE: Please respond to the following items ONLY if you had
contact with Dr. Nadine Kaslow to discuss a question, concern, or
problem (otherwise, please skip these items):
| 10a. |
APPIC responded quickly to my inquiry.
|
| |
Strongly Agree |
33 |
58 % |
| |
Agree |
11 |
19 % |
| |
Neutral |
3 |
5 % |
| |
Disagree |
3 |
5 % |
| |
Strongly Disagree |
7 |
12 % |
| 10b. |
My contacts with APPIC were helpful in
understanding, addressing, and/or resolving my situation.
|
| |
Strongly Agree |
28 |
51 % |
| |
Agree |
11 |
20 % |
| |
Neutral |
6 |
11 % |
| |
Disagree |
3 |
5 % |
| |
Strongly Disagree |
7 |
13 % |
| 10c. |
Overall, I am satisfied with how my situation
was handled by APPIC.
|
| |
Strongly Agree |
26 |
47 % |
| |
Agree |
12 |
22 % |
| |
Neutral |
9 |
16 % |
| |
Disagree |
2 |
4 % |
| |
Strongly Disagree |
6 |
11 % |
| 10d. |
Overall, I am satisfied with how my situation
was resolved overall.
|
| |
Strongly Agree |
24 |
47 % |
| |
Agree |
10 |
20 % |
| |
Neutral |
8 |
16 % |
| |
Disagree |
2 |
4 % |
| |
Strongly Disagree |
7 |
14 % |
Please answer the following question regardless of whether or not you used the APPIC Informal Problem Resolution process:
| 11. |
Should APPIC continue to have an Informal
Problem Resolution process in addition to its existing
formal complaint process (via the APPIC Standards and
Review Committee)?
|
| |
Yes |
1363 |
99 % |
| |
No |
8 |
1 % |
APPIC has been asked to consider moving the internship selection process one to two months later in the academic year. Implementing such a change would involve moving the entire selection process, including application deadlines, interview dates, the rank order list deadline, and Match Day.
| 12. |
What is your opinion about the timing
of the internship selection process? (check one)
|
| |
Should not be moved (Match Day in late February) |
857 |
60 % |
| |
Move one month later (Match Day in late March) |
154 |
11 % |
| |
Move two months later (Match Day in late April) |
144 |
10 % |
| |
No opinion |
198 |
14 % |
| |
Other |
161 |
11 % |
| 13a. |
Should APPIC adopt a uniform APPLICATION
DEADLINE DATE (i.e., all internship sites would have a
single date by which all written applications are due)?
|
| |
Yes |
675 |
47 % |
| |
No |
566 |
40 % |
| |
Unsure |
180 |
13 % |
| 13b. |
Should APPIC adopt a uniform INTERVIEW
NOTIFICATION DATE (i.e., a single date by which all internship
sites would be required to notify an applicant if he/she
will be interviewed)
|
| |
Yes |
1138 |
80 % |
| |
No |
169 |
12 % |
| |
Unsure |
115 |
8 % |
Currently, APPIC sponsors an INTERN-NETWORK e-mail list that allows applicants to discuss issues relevant to the internship application and selection process.
| 14. |
If APPIC created a new e-mail discussion
list for current interns (to discuss issues and concerns
that arise during the course of the internship), how likely
would it be for you to subscribe to such a list during
your internship year?
|
| |
Highly Likely |
326 |
23 % |
| |
Somewhat Likely |
511 |
36 % |
| |
Unsure |
192 |
14 % |
| |
Somewhat Unlikely |
241 |
17 % |
| |
Highly Unlikely |
146 |
10 % |
| 15. |
Did you use the APPIC Travel Discount
program to buy an airline ticket or rent a car?
|
| |
Yes |
150 |
11 % |
| |
No |
1188 |
84 % |
| |
Didn't know about it |
83 |
6 % |
| 16a. |
The APPIC Match Policies were sufficiently
clear regarding what constituted "acceptable" and "unacceptable"
communication between applicants and sites.
|
| |
Strongly Agree |
412 |
29 % |
| |
Agree |
717 |
50 % |
| |
Neutral |
141 |
10 % |
| |
Disagree |
140 |
10 % |
| |
Strongly Disagree |
10 |
1 % |
| 16b. |
The Match Policies' limitations on the
communication of rankings helps to reduce applicant stress.
|
| |
Strongly Agree |
381 |
27 % |
| |
Agree |
518 |
37 % |
| |
Neutral |
280 |
20 % |
| |
Disagree |
191 |
13 % |
| |
Strongly Disagree |
45 |
3 % |
| 16c. |
I believe that the Match Policies' restrictions
on the communication of rankings should be ELIMINATED,
allowing applicants and sites to communicate in any way
they choose.
|
| |
Strongly Agree |
70 |
5 % |
| |
Agree |
139 |
10 % |
| |
Neutral |
229 |
16 % |
| |
Disagree |
417 |
30 % |
| |
Strongly Disagree |
554 |
39 % |
6 March 2002
| |
