 |
General
Information | Questions
about the Match | Match
Statistics | Travel
Discounts | Info
for Non-APPIC Member Programs
2000 APPIC Match: Survey of Internship Applicants
March 25, 2000
This survey of applicants who were registered for the 2000 Match was
conducted via the internet between February 22 and March 22, 2000.
Subscribers to the e-mail list APPIC-MATCH-NEWS were notified that a
survey was available at a specific internet address.
Results of the survey are presented below. A total of 920 internship
applicants completed the survey. Please keep in mind that this is
not a scientific sampling, as not all applicants were subscribed to
APPIC-MATCH-NEWS and thus some did not receive notification that a
survey was available. In addition, some respondents were prevented
from completing the survey because they were not using a recent
version of a web browser.
Missing data and "Not Applicable" responses have been eliminated,
and percentages do not necessarily total 100% due to rounding.
Survey questions 12 and 17-20 requested open-ended comments and thus
the results are not included below.
| 1. |
Type of Doctoral Program:
|
| |
Clinical |
694 |
76 % |
| |
Counseling |
141 |
15 % |
| |
School |
30 |
3 % |
| |
Other |
50 |
5 % |
| 2. |
Degree Sought:
|
| |
Ph.D. |
645 |
71 % |
| |
Psy.D. |
245 |
27 % |
| |
Ed.D. |
2 |
0 % |
| |
Other |
22 |
2 % |
| 3. |
Is your doctoral program APA Accredited?
|
| |
Yes |
828 |
91 % |
| |
No |
81 |
9 % |
| 4a. |
The materials and instructions provided
by National Matching Services (NMS) were clear and comprehensive.
|
| |
Strongly Agree |
578 |
63 % |
| |
Agree |
293 |
32 % |
| |
Neutral |
17 |
2 % |
| |
Disagree |
12 |
1 % |
| |
Strongly Disagree |
14 |
2 % |
| 4b. |
The registration process with NMS went
smoothly.
|
| |
Strongly Agree |
663 |
73 % |
| |
Agree |
200 |
22 % |
| |
Neutral |
18 |
2 % |
| |
Disagree |
13 |
1 % |
| |
Strongly Disagree |
20 |
2 % |
| 4c. |
The submission of my Rank Order List to
NMS went smoothly.
|
| |
Strongly Agree |
681 |
75 % |
| |
Agree |
168 |
19 % |
| |
Neutral |
17 |
2 % |
| |
Disagree |
20 |
2 % |
| |
Strongly Disagree |
20 |
2 % |
| 4d. |
NMS was responsive to my questions and
concerns (choose "N/A" if you never contacted
NMS).
|
| |
Strongly Agree |
289 |
66 % |
| |
Agree |
103 |
24 % |
| |
Neutral |
16 |
4 % |
| |
Disagree |
15 |
3 % |
| |
Strongly Disagree |
15 |
3 % |
| 4e. |
I am satisfied with the Match result that
I received from the Matching Program.
|
| |
Strongly Agree |
550 |
61 % |
| |
Agree |
169 |
19 % |
| |
Neutral |
48 |
5 % |
| |
Disagree |
39 |
4 % |
| |
Strongly Disagree |
94 |
10 % |
| 4f. |
Overall, I am satisfied with the APPIC
Matching Program.
|
| |
Strongly Agree |
469 |
51 % |
| |
Agree |
271 |
30 % |
| |
Neutral |
77 |
8 % |
| |
Disagree |
40 |
4 % |
| |
Strongly Disagree |
52 |
6 % |
| 5. |
On Match Day, February 22, how did you
FIRST obtain your Match result?
|
| |
E-mail from NMS |
809 |
89 % |
| |
From NMS web site |
63 |
7 % |
| |
From NMS via phone |
1 |
0 % |
| |
From NMS via mail |
3 |
0 % |
| |
From DCT / Faculty |
19 |
2 % |
| |
Other |
15 |
2 % |
| 6. |
On Match Day, February 22, did you experience
any difficulty obtaining your Match result?
|
| |
Yes |
14 |
2 % |
| |
No |
895 |
98 % |
NOTE: For comparison purposes: in the 1999 Match, 53% of applicants surveyed reported experiencing difficulty obtaining their results.
| 7. |
Were you subscribed to APPIC-MATCH-NEWS,
an e-mail list that provided news and information about
the Match?
|
| |
Yes |
900 |
99 % |
| |
No |
10 |
1 % |
NOTE: Since the announcement for this survey was distributed only via APPIC-MATCH-NEWS, this item is essentially meaningless.
| 8. |
If you were subscribed to APPIC-MATCH-NEWS,
how helpful was the information that was provided on this
e-mail list?
|
| |
Extremely helpful |
195 |
22 % |
| |
|
394 |
44 % |
| |
Somewhat helpful |
245 |
27 % |
| |
|
55 |
6 % |
| |
Not at all helpful |
14 |
2 % |
| 9. |
If you were subscribed to APPIC-MATCH-NEWS,
what is your opinion about the volume of information that
you received from this e-mail list?
|
| |
Too much information |
71 |
8 % |
| |
|
241 |
27 % |
| |
Just about right |
560 |
62 % |
| |
|
32 |
4 % |
| |
Too little information |
0 |
0 % |
| 10. |
Would you recommend that the APPIC-MATCH-NEWS
e-mail list service be provided again for participants
in next year's Match?
|
| |
Yes |
884 |
98 % |
| |
No |
20 |
2 % |
| 11. |
Did you use the APPIC Travel Discount
program to buy an airline ticket or rent a car?
|
| |
Yes |
104 |
11 % |
| |
No |
749 |
82 % |
| |
Didn't know about it |
61 |
7 % |
| 12. |
(Not included - this was an open-ended
comment item about APPIC Travel Discounts)
|
| 13a. |
The APPIC Match Policies were sufficiently
clear regarding what constituted "acceptable" and "unacceptable"
communication between applicants and sites.
|
| |
Strongly Agree |
240 |
26 % |
| |
Agree |
433 |
48 % |
| |
Neutral |
114 |
13 % |
| |
Disagree |
101 |
11 % |
| |
Strongly Disagree |
21 |
2 % |
| 13b. |
The Match Policies' limitations on the
communication of rankings helps to reduce applicant stress.
|
| |
Strongly Agree |
194 |
21 % |
| |
Agree |
304 |
33 % |
| |
Neutral |
182 |
20 % |
| |
Disagree |
167 |
18 % |
| |
Strongly Disagree |
64 |
7 % |
| 13c. |
I believe that the Match Policies' restrictions
on the communication of rankings should be ELIMINATED,
allowing applicants and sites to communicate in any way
they choose.
|
| |
Strongly Agree |
60 |
7 % |
| |
Agree |
120 |
13 % |
| |
Neutral |
148 |
16 % |
| |
Disagree |
237 |
26 % |
| |
Strongly Disagree |
347 |
38 % |
| 14a. |
In your judgment, did you experience any
violation(s) of APPIC Match Policies by any site?
|
| |
Yes |
133 |
15 % |
| |
No |
672 |
74 % |
| |
Unsure |
107 |
12 % |
| 14b. |
Did you reveal any ranking information
(e.g., "You are my first choice") to any site?
|
| |
Yes |
18 |
2 % |
| |
No |
880 |
96 % |
| |
Unsure |
14 |
2 % |
| 14c. |
Did you experience inappropriate pressure
from any site to reveal your rankings?
|
| |
Yes |
76 |
8 % |
| |
No |
788 |
86 % |
| |
Unsure |
46 |
5 % |
| 14d. |
Did any site reveal ranking information
to you (e.g., "You are my first choice")?
|
| |
Yes |
33 |
4 % |
| |
No |
835 |
92 % |
| |
Unsure |
41 |
4 % |
| 15a. |
I found that the on-site interviews that
I attended provided much more information about a site
than did telephone interviews.
|
| |
Strongly Agree |
420 |
62 % |
| |
Agree |
204 |
30 % |
| |
Neutral |
28 |
4 % |
| |
Disagree |
19 |
3 % |
| |
Strongly Disagree |
8 |
1 % |
| 15b. |
Compared to telephone interviews, attending
on-site interviews helped me to make better decisions
about how I should rank those sites.
|
| |
Strongly Agree |
423 |
62 % |
| |
Agree |
187 |
28 % |
| |
Neutral |
37 |
5 % |
| |
Disagree |
22 |
3 % |
| |
Strongly Disagree |
10 |
1 % |
| 15c. |
Sites generally gave me sufficient advance
notice of on-site interviews in order for me to make my
travel plans.
|
| |
Strongly Agree |
217 |
25 % |
| |
Agree |
403 |
47 % |
| |
Neutral |
86 |
10 % |
| |
Disagree |
112 |
13 % |
| |
Strongly Disagree |
40 |
5 % |
| 15d. |
Sites were generally clear about whether
or not an on-site interview was required, preferred, optional,
or not allowed.
|
| |
Strongly Agree |
266 |
31 % |
| |
Agree |
386 |
45 % |
| |
Neutral |
94 |
11 % |
| |
Disagree |
91 |
11 % |
| |
Strongly Disagree |
26 |
3 % |
| 15e. |
Overall, I believe that the benefits of
attending on-site interviews justify the time, effort,
and costs in doing so.
|
| |
Strongly Agree |
354 |
40 % |
| |
Agree |
330 |
38 % |
| |
Neutral |
105 |
12 % |
| |
Disagree |
52 |
6 % |
| |
Strongly Disagree |
35 |
4 % |
| 16. |
Please rate the importance of each of
the following activities when it comes to participating
in ON-SITE INTERVIEWS (mean responses are reported below
on the following scale: 1 = Not at all important, 5 =
Very Important):
|
| |
a. |
Receiving a copy of the interview schedule in advance
|
4.02 |
| |
b. |
Touring the internship site
|
4.27 |
| |
c. |
Meeting with one or more of the current interns
|
4.78 |
| |
d. |
Meeting with the Training Director
|
4.62 |
| |
e. |
Meeting with other staff members (other than the Training Director)
|
4.59 |
6 March 2002
| |
