Match Statistics 2016 Phase I

2016 APPIC Match Statistics - Phase I

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:

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

• Applicants
• Internship Programs
• Doctoral Program Participation and Results
• Summary of Program Rankings

APPLICANTS

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).

Each Position Was Ranked by an Average of 7.5 Applicants.

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, 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).

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.

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

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

DOCTORAL PROGRAM PARTICIPATION AND RESULTS

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

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

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.