Internships / Match / Match Statistics / Match Statistics - 2024 - Phase I

Match Statistics - 2024 - Phase I

2024 APPIC Match Statistics - Phase I

Match Report from the APPIC Board of Directors
February 16, 2024

 

We are pleased to report that 3,341 applicants were successfully matched to internship positions in Phase I of the 2024 APPIC Match. A total of 49% of all applicants who obtained a position matched to their first choice internship program, 71% received one of their top two choices, and 83% received one of their top three choices.

A total of 521 applicants who submitted Rank Order Lists were not matched to an internship position in Phase I, while an additional 209 applicants withdrew or did not submit a Rank Order List. A total of 613 positions remained unfilled.

Of the 763 participating internship sites, 240 (31%) had at least one unfilled position in Phase I and are thus eligible to participate in Phase II. This includes 166 of 654 (25%) accredited sites and 74 of 109 (68%) non-accredited sites.

Compared to the 2023 Match, this year saw a decrease of 11 (-1%) participating internship sites and a decrease of 51 (-1%) available positions. The number of registered applicants increased by 116 (+3%).

A total of 3,624 accredited internship positions were in the Match this year, a small increase of four positions (+0%) as compared to the 2023 Match. The number of non-accredited positions decreased by 55 (-14%, from 385 to 330), a change that may be due, at least in part, to the implementation of APPIC policies that required non-accredited internship programs to make sufficient progress toward accreditation to be eligible to participate in the 2024 Match. Since 2012, the number of accredited internship positions in the Match increased 53%, from 2,361 to 3,624.

Statistics for all 26 APPIC Matches (1999-2024) are available on the "Match Statistics" page of the APPIC web site.

The 2024 APPIC Match statistics are provided below, in four sections:




APPLICANTS

PARTICIPATION IN PHASE I
Applicants Registered in the Match
4,071
Applicants Who Withdrew or Did Not Submit Ranks
209
Applicants Who Submitted Ranks for the Match
(includes 40 applicants who submitted ranks for the Match as 20 "couples")
3,862


APPLICATIONS SUBMITTED IN PHASE I
Number of Applicants Who Submitted Applications in Phase I
4,006
Total Number of Applications Submitted in Phase I
57,795
Average Number of Applications Submitted in Phase I (SD = 4.9)
14.4
Median Number of Applications Submitted in Phase I
15
Range of Applications Submitted in Phase I
1 - 45


MATCH RESULTS IN PHASE I
Applicants Matched
3,341
87%
Applicants Not Matched
521
13%


MATCH RESULTS BY RANK NUMBER ON APPLICANT'S LIST
(Percentages may not total to 100 due to rounding errors)
Rank
Number of Applicants
1
1,652
49%
2
733
22%
3
388
12%
4
245
7%
5
145
4%
6
78
2%
7
46
1%
8
21
1%
9
12
0%
10 or higher
21
1%
TOTAL
3,341
100%


RANKINGS IN PHASE I
                Average Number of Rankings Submitted Per Applicant:
Matched Applicants
8.3
Unmatched Applicants
3.8
Overall
7.7

Each Position Was Ranked by an Average of 7.5 Applicants.




INTERNSHIP PROGRAMS


PARTICIPATION IN PHASE I
Training Sites Available in the Match
763
Programs Available in the Match
1,585
Positions Available in the Match
3,954

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.


APPLICATIONS RECEIVED IN PHASE I
Sites Receiving Applications in Phase I
781
Total Number of Applications Received in Phase I
57,795
Average Number of Applications Received in Phase I (SD = 64.4)
74
Median Number of Applications Received in Phase I
58
Range of Applications Received in Phase I
1 - 461

NOTE: For comparison purposes, last year (2023) 786 sites received a total of 57,009 applications. Mean number received in 2023 = 72.5 (SD = 63.6), Median = 56, Range = 1-436.



MATCH RESULTS IN PHASE I
               Sites:
Filled in the Match
523
69%
With Unfilled Positions
240
31%
               Programs:
Filled in the Match
1,226
77%
With Unfilled Positions
359
23%
               Positions:
Filled in the Match
3,341
84%
Remaining Unfilled
613
16%

NOTE: 35 programs at 31 sites submitted fewer ranks than the number of positions available. As a result, no ranks were submitted for 58 positions, which remained unfilled.


APA- OR CPA- ACCREDITED POSITIONS
Filled in the Match
3,184
88%
Remaining Unfilled
440
12%
TOTAL
3,624


NON-ACCREDITED POSITIONS
Filled in the Match
157
48%
Remaining Unfilled
173
52%
TOTAL
330

Non-accredited positions represented 8.3% of all positions but 28.2% of unfilled positions.


INTERNSHIP MATCH RATES BY ACCREDITATION STATUS
INTERNSHIP PROGRAM ACCREDITATION STATUS
POSITIONS FILLED
SITES FILLING ALL POSITIONS
APA- or CPA-Accredited
3,184 of 3,624
88%
488 of 654
75%
Not Accredited
157 of 330
48%
35 of 109
32%
TOTAL
3,341 of 3,954
84%
523 of 763
69%

Included in the numbers for accredited sites shown above are 13 sites that were designated "Accredited, On Contingency". These 13 sites had 94% (46 of 49) of their positions filled in Phase I, with 11 of the 13 sites (85%) filling all of their positions.


RANKINGS IN PHASE I
               Average Number of Applicants Ranked Per Position Offered for Each Program:
Programs Filling All Positions
9.2
Programs With Unfilled Positions
4.5
All Programs
8.1

Each Registered Applicant Was Ranked by an Average of 6.9 Different Programs.




DOCTORAL PROGRAM PARTICIPATION AND RESULTS


SUMMARY OF PARTICIPATING DOCTORAL PROGRAMS
PROGRAM TYPE
DEGREE SOUGHT
NUMBER OF DOCTORAL PROGRAMS
NUMBER OF REGISTERED APPLICANTS
 
 
Accredited
Non-Accred.
Totals
Accredited
Non-Accred.
Totals
Clinical
Ph.D.
203
3
206
1,447
10
1,457
Psy.D.
79
6
85
1,745
39
1,784
TOTALS
282
9
291
3,192
49
3,241
Counseling
Ph.D.
63
0
63
312
0
312
Psy.D.
12
1
13
118
2
120
TOTALS
75
1
76
430
2
432
School
Ph.D.
57
1
58
195
2
197
Psy.D.
9
0
9
57
0
57
TOTALS
66
1
67
252
2
254
Combined
Ph.D.
12
0
12
75
0
75
Psy.D.
8
0
8
69
0
69
TOTALS
20
0
20
144
0
144
ALL PROGRAMS
Ph.D.
335
4
339
2,029
12
2,041
Psy.D.
108
7
115
1,989
41
2,030
TOTALS
443
11
454
4,018
53
4,071


APPLICANT RESULTS BY DOCTORAL PROGRAM TYPE AND DEGREE
PROGRAM TYPE
DEGREE SOUGHT
MATCHED
UNMATCHED
WITHDREW OR NO RANKINGS SUBMITTED
TOTAL
Clinical
Ph.D.
1,275
87.5%
147
10.1%
35
2.4%
1,457
Psy.D.
1,378
77.2%
286
16.0%
120
6.7%
1,784
TOTALS
2,653
81.9%
433
13.4%
155
4.8%
3,241
Counseling
Ph.D.
280
89.7%
24
7.7%
8
2.6%
312
Psy.D.
87
72.5%
21
17.5%
12
10.0%
120
TOTALS
367
85.0%
45
10.4%
20
4.6%
432
School
Ph.D.
161
81.7%
19
9.6%
17
8.6%
197
Psy.D.
38
66.7%
8
14.0%
11
19.3%
57
TOTALS
199
78.3%
27
10.6%
28
11.0%
254
Combined
Ph.D.
67
89.3%
8
10.7%
0
0%
75
Psy.D.
55
79.7%
8
11.6%
6
8.7%
69
TOTALS
122
84.7%
16
11.1%
6
4.2%
144
ALL PROGRAMS
Ph.D.
1,783
87.4%
198
9.7%
60
2.9%
2,041
Psy.D.
1,558
76.7%
323
15.9%
149
7.3%
2,030
TOTALS
3,341
82.1%
521
12.8%
209
5.1%
4,071


MATCHED APPLICANTS BY ACCREDITATION STATUS OF INTERNSHIP PROGRAM
AND DOCTORAL PROGRAM TYPE AND DEGREE
PROGRAM TYPE
DEGREE SOUGHT
MATCHED TO ACCREDITED INTERNSHIP
MATCHED TO NON-ACCREDITED INTERNSHIP
TOTAL
Clinical
Ph.D.
1,261
98.9%
14
1.1%
1,275
Psy.D.
1,290
93.6%
88
6.4%
1,378
TOTALS
2,551
96.2%
102
3.8%
2,653
Counseling
Ph.D.
278
99.3%
2
0.7%
280
Psy.D.
77
88.5%
10
11.5%
87
TOTALS
355
96.7%
12
3.3%
367
School
Ph.D.
141
87.6%
20
12.4%
161
Psy.D.
32
84.2%
6
15.8%
38
TOTALS
173
86.9%
26
13.1%
199
Combined
Ph.D.
60
89.6%
7
10.4%
67
Psy.D.
45
81.8%
10
18.2%
55
TOTALS
105
86.1%
17
13.9%
122
ALL PROGRAMS
Ph.D.
1,740
97.6%
43
2.4%
1,783
Psy.D.
1,444
92.7%
114
7.3%
1,558
TOTALS
3,184
95.3%
157
4.7%
3,341



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)

Standardized Rank
Number of Applicants Matched
1
965
29%
2
782
23%
3
559
17%
4
411
12%
5
243
7%
6
151
5%
7
84
3%
8
59
2%
9
32
1%
10 or higher
55
2%
TOTAL
3,341
100%

To interpret this chart: Of all positions that were filled in Phase I of the Match, 29% were filled with "first choice" applicants (as defined above), 23% with "second choice" applicants, and so on.

Furthermore, 52% were filled with "first" or "second" choice applicants, while 69% 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.

 

Report Prepared by Greg Keilin, Ph.D.
and National Matching Services, Inc.
February 16, 2024