1999 APPIC Match: Survey of APPIC-Subscriber Directors of Clinical Training
Summary of Survey Results
April 18, 1999
- Surveys Mailed = All 244 APPIC members were sent a survey
- Surveys Returned = 137 (56.1%) received through March 16, 1999
- Missing Data is omitted unless otherwise indicated
| 1a. | Type of Program: |
| | Counseling | 35 | 25.5 % |
| | Clinical | 94 | 68.6 % |
| | School | 6 | 4.4 % |
| | Other | 2 | 1.5 % |
| 1b. | Degree Offered: |
| | Ph.D. | 105 | 78.9 % |
| | Psy.D. | 28 | 21.1 % |
| | Ed.D. | 0 | 0.0 % |
| | Other | 0 | 0.0 % |
| 1c. | APA Accredited? |
| | Yes | 120 | 87.6 % |
| | No | 17 | 12.4 % |
| 1d. | Program is: |
| | University Affiliated | 125 | 91.9 % |
| | Free-Standing | 11 | 8.1 % |
| | Other | 0 | 0.0 % |
| 2a. | Please specify the number of students from your program who applied for internship this year: |
| | Mean | 9.99 |
| | Std. Dev. | 10.10 |
| | Median | 7 |
| | Mode | 7 |
| | Range | 1 - 72 |
| | N | 136 |
| 2b. | Please specify the number of students from your program who participated in the APPIC Match: |
| | Mean | 9.50 |
| | Std. Dev. | 9.88 |
| | Median | 7 |
| | Mode | 6 |
| | Range | 0 - 72 |
| | N | 137 |
| 2c. | Please specify the number of students from your program who were matched to a site by the Matching Program: |
| | Mean | 8.04 |
| | Std. Dev. | 7.87 |
| | Median | 6 |
| | Mode | 6 |
| | Range | 0 - 53 |
| | N | 137 |
| 2d. | Please specify the number of students from your program who were not matched to any site by the Matching Program: |
| | Mean | 1.45 |
| | Std. Dev. | 2.51 |
| | Median | 1 |
| | Mode | 0 |
| | Range | 0 - 18 |
| | N | 137 |
| 3. | Did you subscribe to APPIC-MATCH-NEWS? |
| | Yes | 108 | 80.0 % |
| | No | 13 | 9.6 % |
| | Didn't know about it | 13 | 9.6 % |
| | Don't have e-mail | 1 | 0.7 % |
Please answer the questions below (responses of "Not Applicable / Don't Know" were excluded; "n" indicates number of applicants who responded in one of the five designated categories, "Strongly Agree" through "Strongly Disagree"):
| | | Strongly Agree | Agree | Neutral | Disagree | Strongly Disagree |
| 4. | I was well-informed about the Matching Program, and had sufficient information to assist my students. (n=133) | 57.1% | 32.3% | 4.5% | 3.0% | 3.0% |
| 5. | My students were well-informed about the Matching Program. (n=133) | 57.1% | 36.8% | 2.3% | 0.8% | 3.0% |
| 6. | The information distributed on APPIC-MATCH-NEWS was useful and informative (circle "NA" if you were not subscribed to this service). (n=112) | 57.1% | 35.7% | 4.5% | 0.9% | 1.8% |
| 7. | National Matching Services was responsive to the needs, questions, and concerns of my students. (n=95) | 46.3% | 36.8% | 10.5% | 4.2% | 2.1% |
| 8. | National Matching was responsive to my own needs, questions, and concerns. (n=75) | 40.0% | 29.3% | 18.7% | 6.7% | 5.3% |
| 9. | The APPIC Match Committee was responsive to the needs, questions, and concerns of my students. (n=77) | 53.2% | 31.2% | 13.0% | 0.0% | 2.6% |
| 10. | The APPIC Match Committee was responsive to my own needs, questions, and concerns. (n=76) | 51.3% | 28.9% | 15.8% | 1.3% | 2.6% |
| 11. | Overall, I was satisfied with the APPIC Matching Program. (n = 132) | 59.8% | 29.5% | 6.1% | 2.3% | 2.3% |
Comment: Three respondents appeared to misunderstand the Likert scale used in questions 4-11. The apparently problematic responses were omitted.
| 12. | Compared to the previous three years, how much stress did your students experience during this year's selection process? |
| | Less stress this year | 51 | 38.1 % |
| | About the same | 51 | 38.1 % |
| | More stress this year | 23 | 17.2 % |
| | Unsure / Don't know | 9 | 6.7 % |
| 13. | How satisfied are your students with the results that they received from the Match (compared to the results received by the students over the previous three years)? |
| | Less satisfied this year | 12 | 9.2 % |
| | About the same | 67 | 51.1 % |
| | More satisfied this year | 48 | 36.6 % |
| | Unsure / Don't Know | 4 | 3.1 % |
| 14. | As you may know, technical and practical limitations prevented the Matching Program from notifying APPIC Subscribers about their students' match results. Is this something you would like us to implement in future years? |
| | Yes | 119 | 88.8 % |
| | No | 7 | 5.2 % |
| | Unsure | 8 | 6.0 % |
Subsequent questions asked the respondents to comment on: the positive and negative aspects of their experience with the Matching Program; problems, suggestions, improvements, and/or changes; issues, concerns, or suggestions about Match Policies; and feedback about the performance of National Matching Services.
Responses were coded and summarized. Most of those who responded to these open-ended questions provided multiple comments, and each comment was coded separately. Comments provided by only one applicant were eliminated.
| n | COMMENT |
| 43 | General positive comments about the Match / "worked well" |
| 22 | Need to address web site access problems on Match Day |
| 21 | Request that APPIC Subscribers be notified of Match results |
| 20 | "Great Job" / "Thanks!" / "Appreciate the hard work" |
| 15 | New system is an improvement over old UND system / Keep the new system |
| 11 | Miscellaneous comments about the APPIC Application for Psychology Internship |
| 11 | Students experienced less stress / pressure with the Match |
| 8 | Match reduced Policy violations / reduced "first choice" problems |
| 6 | National Matching Services was helpful / responsive |
| 6 | Would have liked more information / clearer information / information sooner |
| 5 | Would have liked less time between Rank Order List Deadline and Match Day |
| 5 | Results for students on Match day was worse |
| 5 | Concerns about supply and demand issues |
| 4 | APPIC Match Committee was helpful / responsive |
| 4 | Information about the Match was clear / I felt well-informed |
| 4 | Sites did not properly notify applicants who were no longer being considered |
| 4 | Students experienced anxiety because of the new and unknown process |
| 4 | Would like to see additional statistics |
| 3 | The mailing list APPIC-MATCH-NEWS was helpful |
| 3 | Students wanted to know where they were ranked / where they would have matched |
| 3 | Miscellaneous questions / comments about Clearinghouse |
| 3 | Students concerned about accuracy / would like to review lists submitted to NMS |
| 2 | Students received better matches than under old UND system |
| 2 | Coaching / helping students was easier |
| 2 | Students felt they had less control |
| 2 | Concerns about diversity of placements |
| 2 | Miscellaneous procedural concerns / questions |