Match Statistics 2018 Phase I

2018 APPIC Match Statistics - Phase I

We are pleased to report that 3,163 applicants were successfully matched to internship positions in Phase I of the 2018 APPIC Match. More than half (51%) of all applicants who obtained a position matched to their first choice internship program, nearly three-quarters (73%) received one of their top two choices, and about six-in-seven (85%) received one of their top three choices.

A total of 432 applicants were not matched to an internship position in Phase I, while 184 applicants withdrew or did not submit a Rank Order List.

For the first time, there were fewer registered applicants (3779, down 142 or 3.6% from 2017) than the number of internship positions offered (3906, up 57 or 1.5%). The decrease in applicants was likely related to the stricter Match eligibility requirements that were implemented this year, which reduced the number of doctoral programs whose students were eligible to participate in the Match.

A total of 743 positions remained unfilled. There were 294 internship sites (37%) that had at least one unfilled position. This includes 28% of accredited sites (174 of 622) and 72% of non-accredited sites (120 of 166).

The historical shortage of accredited internship positions improved again this year; compared to 2017, the number of accredited positions increased by 214 (6.8%) to 3,383, while the number of non-accredited positions decreased by 157 (23.1%) to 523. Despite this improvement, the number of registered applicants still exceeded the number of accredited positions by 396 (compared to a difference of 752 last year and 1,020 in 2016).

The 2012 APPIC Match was the point of the worst imbalance between applicants and positions since the Match began in 1999. Here is a comparison of the 2012 and 2018 APPIC Matches (Phase I only):

The 2018 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, 15.9 in 2014, 15.8 in 2015, 15.8 in 2016, and 15.2 in 2017.

Each Position Was Ranked by an Average of 6.8 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, 89.8 in 2014, 84.9 in 2015, 79.1 in 2016, and 74.2 in 2017.

NOTE: 55 programs at 49 sites submitted fewer ranks than the number of positions available. As a result, no ranks were submitted for 108 positions, which remained unfilled.

Non-accredited positions represented 13.4% of all positions but 38.5% of unfilled positions.

Each Registered Applicant Was Ranked by an Average of 6.5 Different Programs.

DOCTORAL PROGRAM PARTICIPATION AND RESULTS

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, 30% were filled with "first choice" applicants (as defined above), 24% with "second choice" applicants, and so on.

Furthermore, 54% were filled with "first" or "second" choice applicants, while 72% 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.