
	Search APPIC.org contact \| legal notices \| site map

General Information | Questions about the Match | Match Statistics | Travel Discounts | Info for Non-APPIC Member Programs

1999 APPIC Match: Survey of APPIC Member Internship Training Directors

April 18, 1999

Surveys Mailed = All 576 APPIC members were sent a survey
Surveys Returned = 366 (63.5%) received through March 16, 1999
Missing Data is omitted unless otherwise indicated

1a.	Program Setting:
	VA	59	16.2 %
	State Hospital	36	9.9 %
	Community Mental Health	42	11.5 %
	Medical School	34	9.3 %
	University Counseling Center	70	19.2 %
	Child Setting	23	6.3 %
	Private General Hospital	17	4.7 %
	Private Psychiatric Hopsital	10	2.7 %
	Military Hospital	3	0.8 %
	Consortium	21	5.8 %
	Other	50	13.7 %

1b.	APA Accredited?
	Yes	289	79.0 %
	No	77	21.0 %

1c.	APPIC Member?
	Yes	349	100.0 %

2a.	Total number of completed internship applications received this year:
	Mean	75.70
	Std. Dev.	51.77
	Median	70
	Mode	70
	Range	3 - 450
	N	360

2b.	Total number of internship positions available at your site:
	Mean	4.34
	Std. Dev.	2.13
	Median	4
	Mode	3
	Range	2 - 17
	N	365

2c.	Total number of internship positions offered in the Match by your site:
	Mean	4.30
	Std. Dev.	2.14
	Median	4
	Mode	3
	Range	1 - 17
	N	364

2d.	Total number of internship positions that were filled by the APPIC Matching:
	Mean	3.99
	Std. Dev.	2.19
	Median	4
	Mode	3
	Range	0 - 17
	N	364

2e.	Total number of internship positions that were not filled by the APPIC Matching Program:
	Mean	0.31
	Std. Dev.	0.77
	Median	0
	Mode	0
	Range	0 - 4
	N	364

3.	Did you subscribe to APPIC-MATCH-NEWS?
	Yes	240	66.5 %
	No	56	15.5 %
	Didn't know about it	30	8.3 %
	Don't have e-mail	35	9.7 %

4.	Please indicate which of the following is true for your site:
	Our Rank Order List(s) reflected only our true preferences	349	96.1 %
	Our Rank Order List(s) did no reflect only our true preferences	14	3.9 %

5a.	How did you obtain your Match results?
	From the NMS web site	251	71.3 %
	From NMS via fax	81	23.0 %
	From the NMS via telephone	10	2.8 %
	Other	10	2.8 %

5b.	Did you experience any difficulties in obtaining your results?
	Yes	222	61.2 %
	No	141	38.8 %

Comments: Participants generally cited the difficulties in accessing the web site on Match Day, and the busy signals when attempting to contact NMS on that day.

6a.	How did you submit your Rank Order List(s)?
	Via fax	275	79.5 %
	Via regular mail	34	9.8 %
	Via overnight delivery service	37	10.7 %

6b.	Did you experience any difficulties in submitting your lists?
	Yes	33	9.1 %
	No	328	90.9 %

7.	Compared to the previous three years, how much stress did you experience during this year's selection process?
	Less stress this year	224	62.9 %
	About the same	80	22.5 %
	More stress this year	47	13.2 %
	Unsure / Don't Know	5	1.4 %

8.	Compared to the previous three years, how satisfied are you with the results that you received from the Match this year?
	Less satisfied this year	70	19.7 %
	About the same	174	49.0 %
	More satisfied this year	103	29.0 %
	Unsure / Don't Know	8	2.3 %

Please answer the questions below (responses of "Not Applicable / Don't Know" were excluded; "n" indicates number of applicants who responded in one of the five designated categories, "Strongly Agree" through "Strongly Disagree"):

		Strongly Agree	Agree	Neutral	Disagree	Strongly Disagree
9.	The materials and instructions provided by NMS were clear and comprehensive. (n = 358)	57.3%	37.2%	2.2%	2.8%	0.6%
10.	The registration process with NMS went smoothly. (n = 357)	73.7%	23.8%	1.4%	0.6%	0.6%
11.	The submission of my Rank Order List to NMS went smoothly. (n = 355)	69.0%	22.8%	2.8%	3.9%	1.4%
12.	NMS was responsive to my questions and concerns (circle "NA" if you never contacted NMS). (n=195)	67.2%	22.1%	6.2%	2.6%	2.1%
13.	The information distributed on APPIC-MATCH-NEWS was useful and informative (circle "NA" if you were not subscribed to this service). (n=239)	48.5%	38.9%	8.8%	2.5%	1.3%
14.	The APPIC Match Committee was responsive to my questions and concerns (circle "NA" if you never contacted the APPIC Match Committee). (n=85)	80.0%	11.8%	4.7%	1.2%	2.4%
15.	I am satisfied with the match result that I received from the Matching Program. (n=354)	50.8%	28.5%	8.8%	7.1%	4.8%
16.	Overall, I am satisfied with the APPIC Matching Program. (n = 353)	50.4%	29.2%	9.1%	6.5%	4.8%

Comment: Six respondents appeared to misunderstand the Likert scale used in questions 9-16. The apparently problematic responses were omitted.

17a.	Did any applicant reveal his/her rankings to your prior to the Rank Order List submission deadline, February 3 (i.e., "you are my first choice")?
	Yes	30	8.2 %
	No	334	91.8 %

17b.	Did you experience inappropriate pressure from any applicant to reveal your rankings?
	Yes	4	1.1 %
	No	360	98.9 %

Subsequent questions asked the respondents to comment on: the positive and negative aspects of their experience with the Matching Program; problems, suggestions, improvements, and/or changes; issues, concerns, or suggestions about Match Policies; and feedback about the performance of National Matching Services.

Responses were coded and summarized. Most of those who responded to these open-ended questions provided multiple comments, and each comment was coded separately. Comments provided by only one applicant were eliminated.

n	COMMENT
112	Overall positive comments about the process
111	Reported difficulty accessing Match results / Request to fix web site access problems
68	NMS did a great job / helpful / responsive
65	Expressions of appreciation to APPIC / "Great Job" / "Thanks!" / "Well done"
56	Concerns about diversity and lack of flexibility / Less able to get a diverse class / less control / would like "if-then"s
49	Prefer the Match to UND / Keep the Matching Program / Glad we're doing this
49	Liked Match Day: Quicker / Easier / Lack of being "on hold" / No UND "gridlock" / Less stress
41	Would like to have known where other students on my list ended up
41	Didn't like less personal contact on Match Day / Too impersonal
36	Experienced less stress and anxiety overall
33	Our results from the Match were worse this year compared to previous years
24	APPIC Match Committee did a good job / helpful / responsive
21	Would have liked more information / Clearer information / Request for specific info
19	February 3rd Rank Order List deadline was too early
17	Less "game-playing" / "cleaner" / fewer "first choice" problems / "more ethical"
16	Length of time between Rank Order List deadline and Match Day was too long
16	Problems with Match Policy regarding notification of rejected applicants 10 days prior / Need to change this Policy
14	Applicants appeared to experience less stress / anxiety
14	Liked APPIC-MATCH-NEWS e-mail updates
13	Liked not having to make telephone calls / not having to call unmatched applicants
12	Information / materials were clear and well-organized
12	Overall negative comments about the process
10	Liked ranking "true" choices / Liked not worrying about who was likely to accept
10	Perception that applicants' preferences have priority over sites' preferences
10	Concerns about continued violations of Match Policies / Not sure Match solves this
9	Policies too rigid / unclear re: communication between sites and applicants / Would like to see more open communication
9	Liked the statistics provided / Liked getting statistics so quickly
9	Match Day seemed "anti-climactic"
9	Interns weren't home on Match Day / Difficulty contacting new interns at noon EST
9	Miscellaneous comments regarding the Clearinghouse
8	Miscellaneous comments regarding the AAPI
8	Concerns regarding Supply & Demand issues / Number of applicants or applications
8	I don't like the Matching Program / Go back to UND-based selection process
8	Problems submitting Rank Order Lists / Problems getting through via fax
8	Received mail notification of results late or not at all
8	Request for additional statistics / site-specific statistics
7	Concerns about the Match fee / Match is too expensive
7	I experienced some anxiety with the new Matching Program
5	Our results from the Match were better this year compared to previous years
5	Liked NMS' focus on accuracy / Appreciated NMS calling to ensure my complicated Rank Order Lists were accurate
5	Required more work to prepare ranking lists / Required extra work to ensure accuracy
5	Request that we keep the fax option - some sites have limited internet access
5	Request to change the timing of the entire selection process
4	Match Policies were effective
4	I experienced more anxiety with the new Matching Program than in previous years
4	Problems with mailing to Canada / Two addresses confusing
4	Concerns / questions about how the algorithm works
4	There was too much information / information overload / too many e-mail lists
4	Miscellaneous concerns about the selection process
3	Applicants appeared more stressed / anxious compared to previous system
3	Difficulties getting through to NMS via phone
3	Liked getting the "best possible match" from the Matching Program
3	Would like more time for verification of Rank Order List(s) on web site
3	Would like to be able to select no more than two per school
2	Received more diversity in internship class this year
2	Prefer old "Early Notification" selection process
2	Difficulty calling NMS due to international calling limitations
2	Would like to submit Rank Order List(s) via web / e-mail
2	Would like to know applicants' rankings of our site

5 March 2002

ABOUT APPIC
Joining APPIC
Organizational Information
APPIC Policies

DIRECTORY ONLINE
Access the Directory Online
Stats & Other Directories

AAPI ONLINE

MATCH
About the Match
Frequently Asked Questions
MATCH-NEWS E-Mail List
Match Policies
Match Statistics
National Matching Services
Travel Links and Discounts

CLEARINGHOUSE
Instructions for Applicants
Instructions for Programs

E-MAIL LISTS
Using APPIC E-mail Lists

PROBLEM CONSULTATION

OTHER SERVICES
Membership Conference
Newsletters
TEPP Journal
Mentorship Program
APPIC Awards
Member Surveys

TRAINING RESOURCES

POSTDOCTORAL PROGRAMS