2003 APPIC Match: Survey of Internship Applicants
Summary of Survey Results
March 26, 2003
This survey of applicants who were registered for the 2003 APPIC Match was conducted via the internet between February 24 and March 16, 2003. All 3,174 applicants who registered for the APPIC Match were sent an e-mail message (along with one reminder e-mail) about the availability of the survey at a specific internet address.
Results of the survey are presented below. A total of 1,807 internship applicants (57%) completed the survey.
Some of the more interesting findings from this survey include:
1. Applicants who requested telephone interviews from sites that
generally prefer or require on-site interviews agreed (by a
4-to-1 margin) that these sites were willing to set up
a telephone interview and were supportive of such a request.
However, applicants' responses were mixed when asked if a telephone
interview in this situation resulted in their being evaluated
less favorably as compared to applicants who interviewed on-site
(see question 8).
2. Applicants strongly agreed that the new APPIC Match Policy
requiring all internship sites to notify applicants of their
interview status was helpful to applicants and should be retained
for future Matches (see question 9).
3. Applicants were asked about the section of the APPIC Directory
that allows internship programs to designate whether or not
they accept or prefer applications from students from specific
types of doctoral programs (i.e., Clinical / Counseling / School,
Ph.D. / Psy.D. / Ed.D., accredited or non-accredited). Some
applicants have told us that this information is helpful, while
others have expressed concerns that it may promote unfair
discrimination based on fairly arbitrary categories.
Applicants expressed a very strong preference for APPIC to keep
this information in the Directory (see question 12).
4. Only a small percentage of applicants used the APPIC Travel
Discounts that were available (see question 13).
5. Applicants submitted an average of 12.1 internship applications,
compared to an average of 13.1 in the 2002 Match and 13.8 reported
by applicants after the 1999 Match (see question 14).
6. A new Match policy, implemented this year, required internship
sites to notify all applicants of their interview status (e.g.,
received an interview, no longer under consideration) no later
than the date listed in sites' APPIC Directory listings.
Applicants reported that approximately 87.6% of sites provided
such notification (see questions 14 and 15). This compares to
82.4% of sites that provided notification of interview status
during the 2002 Match.
7. The average number of round-trip airline tickets purchased for
attending interviews and open houses was 1.6. This compares to
a mean of 1.8 round-trip tickets purchased by applicants in the
2002 Match, a process that occurred shortly after the September 11,
2001 terrorist attacks (see question 19).
Missing data and "Not Applicable" responses were eliminated, and percentages do not necessarily total 100% due to rounding. Survey questions 20-24 requested open-ended comments and thus the results are not included below.
1. Type of Doctoral Program
Clinical 1329 74 %
Counseling 308 17 %
School 81 4 %
Other 88 5 %
2. Degree Sought
Ph.D. 1185 66 %
Psy.D. 585 32 %
Ed.D. 6 0 %
Other 27 1 %
3. Is your doctoral program APA- or CPA-accredited?
Yes 1685 93 %
No 119 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 1572 87%
No 214 12%
Withdrew / No rankings submitted 18 1%
INTERPRETATION NOTE: It appears that unmatched applicants may
have been underrepresented in this survey (2003 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 1195 66 %
Agree 536 30 %
Neutral 33 2 %
Disagree 13 1 %
Strongly Disagree 26 1 %
5b. The registration process with NMS went smoothly.
Strongly Agree 1374 76 %
Agree 352 20 %
Neutral 34 2 %
Disagree 13 1 %
Strongly Disagree 27 2 %
5c. The submission of my Rank Order List to NMS went smoothly.
Strongly Agree 1446 81 %
Agree 289 16 %
Neutral 12 1 %
Disagree 12 1 %
Strongly Disagree 27 2 %
5d. NMS was responsive to my questions and concerns
(choose "N/A" if you never contacted NMS).
Strongly Agree 268 65 %
Agree 82 20 %
Neutral 33 8 %
Disagree 20 5 %
Strongly Disagree 10 2 %
5e. I am satisfied with the Match result that I received from
the Matching Program.
Strongly Agree 1074 61 %
Agree 325 19 %
Neutral 113 6 %
Disagree 84 5 %
Strongly Disagree 160 9 %
5f. Overall, I am satisfied with the APPIC Matching Program.
Strongly Agree 894 50 %
Agree 550 31 %
Neutral 157 9 %
Disagree 109 6 %
Strongly Disagree 84 5 %
6a. In your judgment, did you experience any violation(s) of
APPIC Match Policies by any site?
Yes 204 11 %
No 1381 77 %
Unsure 214 12 %
6b. Did you reveal any ranking information (e.g., "You are my
first choice") to any site?
Yes 13 1 %
No 1777 99 %
Unsure 10 1 %
6c. Did you experience inappropriate pressure from any site to
reveal your rankings?
Yes 81 5 %
No 1678 93 %
Unsure 38 2 %
6d. Did any site reveal ranking information to you (e.g., "You
are our first choice")?
Yes 60 3 %
No 1682 94 %
Unsure 54 3 %
7a. In general, my doctoral program faculty provided a high level
of support for my internship application and interview experience.
Strongly Agree 542 30 %
Agree 604 34 %
Neutral 271 15 %
Disagree 257 14 %
Strongly Disagree 127 7 %
7b. I worked closely with other students in my program throughout
the process (e.g., sharing information, giving and receiving
support).
Strongly Agree 587 33 %
Agree 646 36 %
Neutral 247 14 %
Disagree 226 13 %
Strongly Disagree 95 5 %
7c. I took the selection process very seriously (i.e., I worked hard
on my application; invested much time and energy; etc.).
Strongly Agree 1478 82 %
Agree 285 16 %
Neutral 20 1 %
Disagree 7 0 %
Strongly Disagree 7 0 %
7d. I attended local or national workshops that focused on the
internship selection process.
Strongly Agree 253 14 %
Agree 309 17 %
Neutral 145 8 %
Disagree 349 20 %
Strongly Disagree 733 41 %
7e. I used reference materials (e.g., the APAGS workbook, Megargee's
book, other books) to educate myself about the internship selection
process.
Strongly Agree 460 26 %
Agree 496 28 %
Neutral 145 8 %
Disagree 278 16 %
Strongly Disagree 412 23 %
8. Please respond to the following items ONLY if you requested a
TELEPHONE INTERVIEW from one or more sites that generally PREFER
or REQUIRE ON-SITE INTERVIEWS:
a. I found that these sites were willing to set up a telephone
interview for me, even though they preferred on-site interviews.
Strongly Agree 118 28 %
Agree 186 44 %
Neutral 48 11 %
Disagree 31 7 %
Strongly Disagree 41 10 %
b. I found that these sites were supportive of my request to do
telephone interviews instead of on-site interviews.
Strongly Agree 109 27 %
Agree 168 41 %
Neutral 57 14 %
Disagree 34 8 %
Strongly Disagree 43 10 %
c. Due to the fact that I interviewed over the telephone, I believe
that I was evaluated LESS FAVORABLY at these sites as compared
to applicants who completed on-site interviews.
Strongly Agree 51 13 %
Agree 89 23 %
Neutral 114 29 %
Disagree 90 23 %
Strongly Disagree 48 12 %
9. As you may know, this year APPIC implemented a new Match Policy
requiring all internship sites to notify applicants of their
interview status no later than the date listed in sites' APPIC
Directory information.
This Policy stated: [Match Policy #3g was reprinted here]
Please answer the items below using the following scale:
a. I believe that this new APPIC Policy was helpful to applicants.
Strongly Agree 1065 60 %
Agree 577 32 %
Neutral 99 6 %
Disagree 20 1 %
Strongly Disagree 17 1 %
b. I believe that this new APPIC Policy helps applicants in
planning their interview and travel schedules.
Strongly Agree 1072 60 %
Agree 561 32 %
Neutral 111 6 %
Disagree 19 1 %
Strongly Disagree 13 1 %
c. APPIC should continue to use this new Policy in future Matches.
Strongly Agree 1239 70 %
Agree 453 26 %
Neutral 66 4 %
Disagree 7 0 %
Strongly Disagree 11 1 %
10a. The APPIC ONLINE Directory was the primary resource that I used
to locate potential internship sites.
Yes 1699 94 %
No 81 5 %
Unsure 18 1 %
10b. The APPIC PRINTED Directory was the primary resource that I used
to locate potential internship sites.
Yes 151 8 %
No 1628 91 %
Unsure 10 1 %
10c. I purchased my own copy of the APPIC PRINTED Directory.
Yes 102 6 %
No 1681 94 %
Unsure 4 0 %
11. If you used the APPIC Online Directory, please answer the
questions below using the following scale:
a. The APPIC Online Directory was easy to navigate.
Strongly Agree 750 42 %
Agree 880 50 %
Neutral 88 5 %
Disagree 46 3 %
Strongly Disagree 11 1 %
b. The information provided in the APPIC Online Directory was
comprehensive enough for me to successfully locate internship
programs of interest.
Strongly Agree 659 37 %
Agree 896 50 %
Neutral 131 7 %
Disagree 74 4 %
Strongly Disagree 18 1 %
c. The information provided in the APPIC Online Directory was
accurate and up-to-date.
Strongly Agree 335 19 %
Agree 877 49 %
Neutral 319 18 %
Disagree 221 12 %
Strongly Disagree 26 1 %
d. In general, the Online Directory's links to programs' web
sites and e-mail addresses functioned properly.
Strongly Agree 481 27 %
Agree 945 53 %
Neutral 219 12 %
Disagree 116 7 %
Strongly Disagree 14 1 %
e. Overall, I am satisfied with the APPIC Online Directory.
Strongly Agree 590 33 %
Agree 1007 57 %
Neutral 131 7 %
Disagree 36 2 %
Strongly Disagree 7 0 %
12. The APPIC Directory allows Training Directors to designate if they
will accept, and whether or not they prefer, applications from
students who are enrolled in the following types of doctoral
programs:
- Ph.D., Psy.D., or Ed.D.
- Clinical, Counseling, or School Psychology
- APA-accredited, CPA-accredited, or non-accredited
Some applicants like this feature of the Directory because it lets
them know if they should apply to a particular site. Other
applicants believe these items promote unfair discrimination
based on fairly arbitrary categories.
Please select the response that best describes your perspective on
this issue:
I believe that APPIC should KEEP this 1647 92 %
information in the Directory, since it
is helpful to applicants
I believe that APPIC should REMOVE this 47 3 %
information from the Directory, since it
may promote unfair discrimination
No opinion / Not sure 102 6 %
INTERPRETATION NOTE: Applicants were asked only whether or not
this information should continue to be provided in the APPIC
Directory, and not about their level of concern about this issue.
13. Did you use any of the APPIC travel discounts to purchase an
airline ticket, hotel room, and/or rental car?
Yes 117 7 %
No 1519 85 %
Didn't know about it 161 9 %
14. How many internship sites did you apply to (i.e., how many
separate internship applications did you submit)?
Mean = 12.1 Median = 12
SD = 5.0 Mode = 10
Range = 0 - 35
15. Considering ALL of the sites that you applied to, how many
notified you of your interview status (e.g., received an
interview, no longer under consideration) on or before the
"interview notification date" listed in their APPIC Directory
information? (Please estimate if you don't know the exact
number)
Mean = 10.6
SD = 4.6
16. How many interviews (telephone or on-site) were you offered?
Mean = 6.9
SD = 3.8
17. How many programs did you include on your final Rank Order List
(i.e., how many program code numbers were listed)?
Mean = 6.9
SD = 3.6
NOTE: Use caution when comparing these numbers with the results
from questions 14-16, since some sites used multiple program code
numbers.
18. What was the rank of the program that you were matched to?
(Please see the 2003 APPIC Match Statistics for this information)
19. How many separate round-trip airline tickets did you purchase
in order to attend on-site interviews or open houses?
Mean = 1.6 Median = 1
SD = 2.0 Mode = 0
Range = 0 - 18
A total of 41.5% purchased no airline tickets; 16.1% purchased
one ticket; 14.8% purchased two tickets; 11.7% purchased three
tickets; 6.8% purchased four tickets; 4.8% purchased five
tickets; 4.3% purchased six or more airline tickets.
NOTE: Applicants in the 2002 Match reported purchasing a mean
of 1.8 round-trip airline tickets.