2014 APPIC Match Statistics - Phase I

We are pleased to report that 3,173 applicants were successfully matched to internship positions in Phase I of the APPIC Match. Nearly half (48%) of all applicants who obtained a position matched to their first choice internship program, about two-thirds (68%) received one of their top two choices, and about four-in-five (81%) received one of their top three choices.

A total of 801 applicants were not matched to an internship position in Phase I, while 361 applicants withdrew or did not submit a Rank Order List. A total of 328 positions remained unfilled.

Overall, the imbalance between applicants and internship positions showed significant improvement this year, due to a substantial increase in available positions along with a significant decrease in registered applicants. Compared to the 2013 Match, the number of registered applicants in 2014 decreased by 146 (3%) to 4,335 applicants, while the number of internship positions increased by 125 (4%) to 3,501 positions. Of the 125 additional positions, 73 (58%) were in APA- or CPA-accredited programs.

It should be noted that, in 2014, a separate, regional Match was held simultaneously with Phase I of the APPIC Match (in previous years, this regional Match occurred after the completion of Phase I of the APPIC Match). As a result of this timing conflict, applicants who lived in that region could only participate in one of these Matches. It is unknown as to whether this situation affected the number of students who registered for or participated in the APPIC Match.

Despite the improvement in the overall imbalance, the number of applicants in 2014 still exceeded the number of positions by 834.

The following Match statistics are new this year for Phase I and are included in the report below: Matched Applicants by Accreditation Status of Matched Internship.

Here is a summary of the numbers of applicants and positions in 2014 as compared to the 2012 and 2013 APPIC Matches:

Following is a ten year comparison of the 2004 and 2014 Match statistics:

INTERNSHIP PROGRAMS

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.

NOTE: For comparison purposes, in 2013 sites received an average of 97.9 applications (SD = 71.2) and a median of 86 applications.

NOTE: 29 programs at 27 sites submitted fewer ranks than the number of positions available. As a result, no ranks were submitted for 50 positions, which remained unfilled.

Non-accredited positions represented 26.1% of all positions but 65.2% of unfilled positions.

Each Registered Applicant Was Ranked by an Average of 5.3 Different Programs.

APPLICANTS

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

Each Position Was Ranked by an Average of 8.3 Applicants.

NOTE: A small number of students (less than ten) seeking Ed.D. degrees were included in the Ph.D. category in order to prevent individuals from being identified.

NOTE: A small number of students (less than ten) seeking Ed.D. degrees were included in the Ph.D. category in order to prevent individuals from being identified.

NOTE: A small number of students (less than ten) 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)

To interpret this chart: Of all positions that were filled in Phase I of the Match, 35% were filled with "first choice" applicants (as defined above), 26% with "second choice" applicants, and so on.

Furthermore, 61% were filled with "first" or "second" choice applicants, while 79% 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.