2018 APPIC Match Statistics - Phase I
Match Report from the APPIC Board of Directors
February 23, 2018
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.
|
2017 MATCH |
2018 MATCH
|
|
Participating Doctoral Programs: |
452
|
420
|
Accredited |
404
|
412
|
Non-Accredited |
48
|
8
|
|
Registered Applicants: |
3,921
|
3,779
|
From Accredited Programs |
3,675
|
3,727
|
From Non-Accredited Programs |
246
|
52
|
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):
|
|
2012 MATCH |
2018 MATCH
|
6-YEAR CHANGE
|
|
Applicants: |
Registered for the Match |
4,435
|
3,779
|
-656 (-15%)
|
|
Withdrew or did not submit ranks |
426
|
184
|
-242 (-57%)
|
|
Matched |
2,968
|
3,163
|
+195 (+7%)
|
|
Unmatched |
1,041
|
432
|
-609 (-59%)
|
|
|
|
|
Positions: |
Offered in the Match |
3,190
|
3,906
|
+716 (+22%)
|
|
Filled |
2,968
|
3,163
|
+195 (+7%)
|
|
Unfilled |
222
|
743
|
+521 (+235%)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accredited (APA or CPA) |
2,361
|
3,383
|
+1,022 (+43%)
|
|
Non-Accredited |
829
|
523
|
-306 (-37%)
|
|
|
|
|
Number of registered applicants exceeded number of positions by (negative number in 2018 denotes positions exceeded applicants): |
1,245
|
-127
|
-1,372
|
|
|
|
|
Number of registered applicants exceeded number of accredited positions by: |
2,074
|
396
|
-1,678 (-81%)
|
The 2018 APPIC Match statistics are provided below, in four sections:
APPLICANTS
PARTICIPATION IN PHASE I |
Applicants Registered in the Match
|
3,779
|
Applicants Who Withdrew or Did Not Submit Ranks
|
184
|
Applicants Participating in the Match (includes 34 individuals who participated in the Match as 17 "couples")
|
3,595
|
APPLICATIONS SUBMITTED IN PHASE I |
Number of Applicants Who Submitted Applications in Phase I
|
3,710
|
Total Number of Applications Submitted in Phase I
|
56,970
|
Average Number of Applications Submitted by Applicants in Phase I (SD = 5.0)
|
15.4
|
Median Number of Applications Submitted in Phase I
|
15
|
Range of Applications Submitted in Phase I
|
1 - 42
|
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.
MATCH RESULTS IN PHASE I |
Applicants Matched
|
3,163
|
88%
|
Participating Applicants Not Matched
|
432
|
12%
|
MATCH RESULTS BY RANK NUMBER ON APPLICANT'S LIST (Percentages may not total to 100 due to rounding errors) |
Rank
|
Number of Applicants
|
1
|
1,616
|
51%
|
2
|
687
|
22%
|
3
|
398
|
13%
|
4
|
192
|
6%
|
5
|
107
|
3%
|
6
|
65
|
2%
|
7
|
43
|
1%
|
8
|
19
|
1%
|
9
|
14
|
0%
|
10 or higher
|
22
|
1%
|
TOTAL
|
3,163
|
100%
|
RANKINGS IN PHASE I |
Average Number of Rankings Submitted Per Applicant:
|
Matched Applicants
|
8.0
|
Unmatched Applicants
|
3.3
|
Overall
|
7.4
|
Each Position Was Ranked by an Average of 6.8 Applicants.
INTERNSHIP PROGRAMS
PARTICIPATION IN PHASE I |
Training Sites Participating in the Match
|
788
|
Programs Participating in the Match
|
1,476
|
Positions Offered in the Match
|
3,906
|
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
|
791
|
Total Number of Applications Received in Phase I
|
56,970
|
Average Number of Applications Received in Phase I (SD = 62.7)
|
72.0
|
Median Number of Applications Received in Phase I
|
59
|
Range of Applications Received in Phase I
|
1 - 395
|
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.
MATCH RESULTS IN PHASE I |
Positions:
|
Filled in the Match
|
3,163
|
81%
|
Remaining Unfilled
|
743
|
19%
|
Programs:
|
Filled in the Match
|
1,077
|
73%
|
With Unfilled Positions
|
399
|
27%
|
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.
APA- OR CPA- ACCREDITED POSITIONS |
Filled in the Match
|
2,926
|
86%
|
Remaining Unfilled
|
457
|
14%
|
TOTAL
|
3,383
|
|
NON-ACCREDITED POSITIONS |
Filled in the Match
|
237
|
45%
|
Remaining Unfilled
|
286
|
55%
|
TOTAL
|
523
|
|
Non-accredited positions represented 13.4% of all positions but 38.5% of unfilled positions.
RANKINGS IN PHASE I |
Average Number of Applicants Ranked Per Position Offered for Each Program:
|
Programs Filling All Positions
|
8.4
|
Programs With Unfilled Positions
|
4.1
|
All Programs
|
7.2
|
Each Registered Applicant Was Ranked by an Average of 6.5 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.
|
194
|
1
|
195
|
1,424
|
3
|
1,427
|
Psy.D.
|
67
|
5
|
72
|
1,489
|
38
|
1,527
|
Ed.D.
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
TOTALS
|
261
|
6
|
267
|
2,913
|
41
|
2,954
|
Counseling
|
Ph.D.
|
69
|
0
|
69
|
400
|
0
|
400
|
Psy.D.
|
8
|
1
|
9
|
72
|
9
|
81
|
Ed.D.
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
TOTALS
|
77
|
1
|
78
|
472
|
9
|
481
|
School
|
Ph.D.
|
55
|
0
|
55
|
197
|
0
|
197
|
Psy.D.
|
6
|
1
|
7
|
30
|
2
|
32
|
Ed.D.
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
TOTALS
|
61
|
1
|
62
|
227
|
2
|
229
|
Combined
|
Ph.D.
|
9
|
0
|
9
|
63
|
0
|
63
|
Psy.D.
|
4
|
0
|
4
|
52
|
0
|
52
|
Ed.D.
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
TOTALS
|
13
|
0
|
13
|
115
|
0
|
115
|
ALL PROGRAMS
|
Ph.D.
|
327
|
1
|
328
|
2,084
|
3
|
2,087
|
Psy.D.
|
85
|
7
|
92
|
1,643
|
49
|
1,692
|
Ed.D.
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
TOTALS
|
412
|
8
|
420
|
3,727
|
52
|
3,779
|
APPLICANT RESULTS BY DOCTORAL PROGRAM TYPE AND DEGREE
|
PROGRAM TYPE
|
DEGREE SOUGHT
|
MATCHED
|
UNMATCHED
|
WITHDREW OR NO RANKINGS SUBMITTED
|
TOTAL
|
Clinical
|
Ph.D.
|
1,231
|
86.3%
|
144
|
10.1%
|
52
|
3.6%
|
1,427
|
Psy.D.
|
1,224
|
80.2%
|
220
|
14.4%
|
83
|
5.4%
|
1,527
|
TOTALS
|
2,455
|
83.1%
|
364
|
12.3%
|
135
|
4.6%
|
2,954
|
Counseling
|
Ph.D.
|
360
|
90.0%
|
26
|
6.5%
|
14
|
3.5%
|
400
|
Psy.D.
|
|
72.8%
|
12
|
14.8%
|
10
|
12.3%
|
81
|
TOTALS
|
419
|
87.1%
|
38
|
7.9%
|
24
|
5.0%
|
481
|
School
|
Ph.D.
|
163
|
82.7%
|
15
|
7.6%
|
19
|
9.6%
|
197
|
Psy.D.
|
21
|
65.6%
|
8
|
25.0%
|
3
|
9.4%
|
32
|
TOTALS
|
184
|
80.3%
|
23
|
10.0%
|
22
|
9.6%
|
229
|
Combined
|
Ph.D.
|
56
|
88.9%
|
5
|
7.9%
|
2
|
3.2%
|
63
|
Psy.D.
|
49
|
94.2%
|
2
|
3.8%
|
1
|
1.9%
|
52
|
TOTALS
|
105
|
91.3%
|
7
|
6.1%
|
3
|
2.6%
|
115
|
ALL PROGRAMS
|
Ph.D.
|
1,810
|
86.7%
|
190
|
9.1%
|
87
|
4.2%
|
2,087
|
Psy.D.
|
1,353
|
80.0%
|
242
|
14.3%
|
97
|
5.7%
|
1,692
|
TOTALS
|
3,163
|
83.7%
|
432
|
11.4%
|
184
|
4.9%
|
3,779
|
MATCHED APPLICANTS BY ACCREDITATION STATUS OF INTERNSHIP AND DOCTORAL PROGRAMS |
DOCTORAL PROGRAM ACCREDITATION STATUS
|
MATCHED TO ACCREDITED INTERNSHIP
|
MATCHED TO NON-ACCREDITED INTERNSHIP
|
TOTAL
|
Accredited
|
2,904
|
92.6%
|
231
|
7.4%
|
3,135
|
Non-Accredited
|
22
|
78.6%
|
6
|
21.4%
|
28
|
ALL PROGRAMS
|
2,926
|
92.5%
|
237
|
7.5%
|
3,163
|
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.
|
1,199
|
97.4%
|
32
|
2.6%
|
1,231
|
Psy.D.
|
1,094
|
89.4%
|
130
|
10.6%
|
1,224
|
TOTALS
|
2,293
|
93.4%
|
162
|
6.6%
|
2,455
|
Counseling
|
Ph.D.
|
350
|
97.2%
|
10
|
2.8%
|
360
|
Psy.D.
|
39
|
66.1%
|
20
|
33.9%
|
59
|
TOTALS
|
389
|
92.8%
|
30
|
7.2%
|
419
|
School
|
Ph.D.
|
138
|
84.7%
|
25
|
15.3%
|
163
|
Psy.D.
|
11
|
52.4%
|
10
|
47.6%
|
21
|
TOTALS
|
149
|
81.0%
|
35
|
19.0%
|
184
|
Combined
|
Ph.D.
|
51
|
91.1%
|
5
|
8.9%
|
56
|
Psy.D.
|
44
|
89.8%
|
5
|
10.2%
|
49
|
TOTALS
|
95
|
90.5%
|
10
|
9.5%
|
105
|
ALL PROGRAMS
|
Ph.D.
|
1,738
|
96.0%
|
72
|
4.0%
|
1,810
|
Psy.D.
|
1,188
|
87.8%
|
165
|
12.2%
|
1,353
|
TOTALS
|
2,926
|
92.5%
|
237
|
7.5%
|
3,163
|
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
|
960
|
30%
|
2
|
748
|
24%
|
3
|
564
|
18%
|
4
|
348
|
11%
|
5
|
218
|
7%
|
6
|
148
|
5%
|
7
|
70
|
2%
|
8
|
42
|
1%
|
9
|
21
|
1%
|
10 or higher
|
44
|
1%
|
TOTAL
|
3,163
|
100%
|
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.
Report Prepared by Greg Keilin, Ph.D.
and National Matching Services, Inc.
February 23, 2018