 |
General
Information | Questions
about the Match | Match
Statistics | Travel
Discounts | Info
for Non-APPIC Member Programs
2003 APPIC Match: Survey of Internship Applicants
March 26, 2003
This survey of applicants who were registered for the 2003 APPIC
Match was conducted via the internet between February 24 and March
16, 2003. All 3,174 applicants who registered for the APPIC Match
were sent an e-mail message (along with one reminder e-mail) about
the availability of the survey at a specific internet address.
Results of the survey are presented below. A total of 1,807 internship
applicants (57%) completed the survey.
Some of the more interesting findings from this survey include:
- Applicants who requested telephone interviews from sites that
generally prefer or require on-site interviews agreed (by a
4-to-1 margin) that these sites were willing to set up a telephone
interview and were supportive of such a request. However, applicants'
responses were mixed when asked if a telephone interview in
this situation resulted in their being evaluated less favorably
as compared to applicants who interviewed on-site (see question
8).
- Applicants strongly agreed that the new APPIC Match Policy
requiring all internship sites to notify applicants of their
interview status was helpful to applicants and should be retained
for future Matches (see question 9).
- Applicants were asked about the section of the APPIC Directory
that allows internship programs to designate whether or not
they accept or prefer applications from students from specific
types of doctoral programs (i.e., Clinical / Counseling / School,
Ph.D. / Psy.D. / Ed.D., accredited or non-accredited). Some
applicants have told us that this information is helpful, while
others have expressed concerns that it may promote unfair discrimination
based on fairly arbitrary categories.
Applicants expressed a very strong preference for APPIC to
keep this information in the Directory (see question 12).
- Only a small percentage of applicants used the APPIC Travel
Discounts that were available (see question 13).
- Applicants submitted an average of 12.1 internship applications,
compared to an average of 13.1 in the 2002 Match and 13.8 reported
by applicants after the 1999 Match (see question 14).
- A new Match policy, implemented this year, required internship
sites to notify all applicants of their interview status (e.g.,
received an interview, no longer under consideration) no later
than the date listed in sites' APPIC Directory listings. Applicants
reported that approximately 87.6% of sites provided such notification
(see questions 14 and 15). This compares to 82.4% of sites that
provided notification of interview status during the 2002 Match.
- The average number of round-trip airline tickets purchased
for attending interviews and open houses was 1.6. This compares
to a mean of 1.8 round-trip tickets purchased by applicants
in the 2002 Match, a process that occurred shortly after the
September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks (see question 19).
Missing data and "Not Applicable" responses were eliminated,
and percentages do not necessarily total 100% due to rounding. Survey
questions 20-24 requested open-ended comments and thus the results
are not included below.
| 1. |
Type of Doctoral Program:
|
| |
Clinical |
1329 |
74 % |
| |
Counseling |
308 |
17 % |
| |
School |
81 |
4 % |
| |
Other |
88 |
5 % |
| 2. |
Degree Sought:
|
| |
Ph.D. |
1185 |
66 % |
| |
Psy.D. |
585 |
32 % |
| |
Ed.D. |
6 |
0 % |
| |
Other |
27 |
1 % |
| 3. |
Is your doctoral
program APA- or CPA-accredited?
|
| |
Yes |
1685 |
93 % |
| |
No |
119 |
7 % |
| 4. |
Were you matched
to an internship program by the APPIC Match? (i.e.,
did your official notification from National Matching
Services indicate that you were successfully matched
to an internship program?)
|
| |
Yes |
1572 |
87 % |
| |
No |
214 |
12 % |
| |
Withdrew / No rankings
submitted |
18 |
1 % |
INTERPRETATION NOTE: It appears
that unmatched applicants were underrepresented in this survey
(2003 APPIC Match statistics indicated that 18% of participating
applicants were not matched).
| 5a. |
The materials
and instructions provided by National Matching Services
(NMS) were clear and comprehensive.
|
| |
Strongly Agree |
1195 |
66 % |
| |
Agree |
536 |
30 % |
| |
Neutral |
33 |
2 % |
| |
Disagree |
13 |
1 % |
| |
Strongly Disagree |
36 |
1 % |
| 5b. |
The registration
process with NMS went smoothly.
|
| |
Strongly Agree |
1374 |
76 % |
| |
Agree |
352 |
20 % |
| |
Neutral |
34 |
2 % |
| |
Disagree |
13 |
1 % |
| |
Strongly Disagree |
27 |
2 % |
| 5c. |
The submission
of my Rank Order List to NMS went smoothly.
|
| |
Strongly Agree |
1446 |
81 % |
| |
Agree |
289 |
16 % |
| |
Neutral |
12 |
1 % |
| |
Disagree |
12 |
1 % |
| |
Strongly Disagree |
27 |
2 % |
| 5d. |
NMS was responsive
to my questions and concerns (choose "N/A"
if you never contacted NMS).
|
| |
Strongly Agree |
268 |
65 % |
| |
Agree |
82 |
20 % |
| |
Neutral |
33 |
8 % |
| |
Disagree |
20 |
5 % |
| |
Strongly Disagree |
10 |
2 % |
| 5e. |
I am satisfied
with the Match result that I received from the Matching
Program.
|
| |
Strongly Agree |
1074 |
61 % |
| |
Agree |
325 |
19 % |
| |
Neutral |
113 |
6 % |
| |
Disagree |
84 |
5 % |
| |
Strongly Disagree |
160 |
9 % |
| 5f. |
Overall, I am
satisfied with the APPIC Matching Program.
|
| |
Strongly Agree |
894 |
50 % |
| |
Agree |
550 |
31 % |
| |
Neutral |
157 |
9 % |
| |
Disagree |
109 |
6 % |
| |
Strongly Disagree |
84 |
5 % |
| 6a. |
In your judgement,
did you experience any violation(s) of APPIC Match Policies
by any site?
|
| |
Yes |
204 |
11 % |
| |
No |
1381 |
77 % |
| |
Unsure |
214 |
12 % |
| 6b. |
Did you reveal
any ranking information (e.g. You are my first choice")
to any site?
|
| |
Yes |
13 |
1 % |
| |
No |
1777 |
99 % |
| |
Unsure |
10 |
1 % |
| 6c. |
Did you experience
inappropriate pressure from any site to reveal your
rankings?
|
| |
Yes |
81 |
5 % |
| |
No |
1678 |
93 % |
| |
Unsure |
38 |
2 % |
| 6d. |
Did any site reveal
ranking information to you (e.g. "You are our first
choice")?
|
| |
Yes |
60 |
3 % |
| |
No |
1682 |
94 % |
| |
Unsure |
54 |
3 % |
| 7a. |
In general, my
doctoral program faculty provided a high level of support
for my internship application and interview experience.
|
| |
Strongly Agree |
542 |
30 % |
| |
Agree |
604 |
34 % |
| |
Neutral |
271 |
15 % |
| |
Disagree |
257 |
14 % |
| |
Strongly Disagree |
127 |
7 % |
| 7b. |
I worked closely
with other students in my program throughout the process
(e.g. sharing information, giving and receiving support).
|
| |
Strongly Agree |
587 |
33 % |
| |
Agree |
646 |
36 % |
| |
Neutral |
247 |
14 % |
| |
Disagree |
226 |
13 % |
| |
Strongly Disagree |
95 |
5 % |
| 7c. |
I took the selection
process very seriously (i.e. I worked hard on my application;
invested much time and energy, etc.).
|
| |
Strongly Agree |
1478 |
82 % |
| |
Agree |
285 |
16 % |
| |
Neutral |
20 |
1 % |
| |
Disagree |
7 |
0 % |
| |
Strongly Disagree |
7 |
0 % |
| 7d. |
I attended local
or national workshops that focused on the internship
selection process.
|
| |
Strongly Agree |
253 |
14 % |
| |
Agree |
309 |
17 % |
| |
Neutral |
145 |
8 % |
| |
Disagree |
349 |
20 % |
| |
Strongly Disagree |
733 |
41 % |
| 7e. |
I used reference
materials (e.g. the APAGS workbook, Megargee's book,
other books) to educate myself about the internship
selection process.
|
| |
Strongly Agree |
460 |
26 % |
| |
Agree |
496 |
28 % |
| |
Neutral |
145 |
8 % |
| |
Disagree |
278 |
16 % |
| |
Strongly Disagree |
412 |
23 % |
| 8a. |
Please respond to
the following items ONLY if you requested a TELEPHONE
INTERVIEW from one or more sites that generally PREFER
or REQUIRE ON-SITE INTERVIEWS:
I found that these sites were willing to set up a telephone
interview for me, even though they preferred on-site interviews.
|
| |
Strongly Agree |
118 |
28 % |
| |
Agree |
186 |
44 % |
| |
Neutral |
48 |
11 % |
| |
Disagree |
31 |
7 % |
| |
Strongly Disagree |
41 |
10 % |
| 8b. |
I found that these sites were
supportive of my request to do
telephone interviews instead of on-site interviews.
|
| |
Strongly Agree |
109 |
27 % |
| |
Agree |
168 |
41 % |
| |
Neutral |
57 |
14 % |
| |
Disagree |
34 |
8 % |
| |
Strongly Disagree |
43 |
10 % |
| 8c. |
Due to the fact that I interviewed
over the telephone, I believe that I was evaluated
LESS FAVORABLY at these sites as compared to applicants
who completed on-site interviews.
|
| |
Strongly Agree |
51 |
13 % |
| |
Agree |
89 |
23 % |
| |
Neutral |
114 |
29 % |
| |
Disagree |
90 |
23 % |
| |
Strongly Disagree |
48 |
12 % |
| 9a. |
As you may know, this year
APPIC implemented a new Match Policy requiring all
internship sites to notify applicants of their interview
status no later than the date listed in sites' APPIC
Directory Information.
I believe that this new APPIC Policy was helpful to
applicants.
|
| |
Strongly Agree |
1065 |
60 % |
| |
Agree |
577 |
32 % |
| |
Neutral |
99 |
6 % |
| |
Disagree |
20 |
1 % |
| |
Strongly Disagree |
17 |
1 % |
| 9b. |
I believe that this new APPIC
Policy helps applicants in planning their interview
and travel schedules.
|
| |
Strongly Agree |
1072 |
60 % |
| |
Agree |
561 |
32 % |
| |
Neutral |
111 |
6 % |
| |
Disagree |
19 |
1 % |
| |
Strongly Disagree |
13 |
1 % |
| 9c. |
APPIC should continue to use
this new Policy in future Matches.
|
| |
Strongly Agree |
1239 |
70 % |
| |
Agree |
453 |
26 % |
| |
Neutral |
66 |
4 % |
| |
Disagree |
7 |
0 % |
| |
Strongly Disagree |
11 |
1 % |
| 10a. |
The APPIC ONLINE
Directory was the primary resource that I used to locate
potential internship sites.
|
| |
Yes |
1699 |
94 % |
| |
No |
81 |
5 % |
| |
Unsure |
18 |
1 % |
| 10b. |
The APPIC PRINTED
Directory was the primary resource that I used to locate
potential internship sites.
|
| |
Yes |
151 |
8 % |
| |
No |
1628 |
91 % |
| |
Unsure |
10 |
1 % |
| 10c. |
I purchased my
own copy of the APPIC PRINTED Directory.
|
| |
Yes |
102 |
6 % |
| |
No |
1681 |
94 % |
| |
Unsure |
4 |
0 % |
| 11a. |
If you used the APPIC Online
Directory, please answer the questions below:
The APPIC Online Directory was easy to navigate.
|
| |
Strongly Agree |
750 |
42 % |
| |
Agree |
880 |
50 % |
| |
Neutral |
88 |
5 % |
| |
Disagree |
46 |
3 % |
| |
Strongly Disagree |
11 |
1 % |
| 11b. |
The information provided in
the APPIC Online Directory was comprehensive enough for me to successfully locate
internship programs of interest.
|
| |
Strongly Agree |
659 |
37 % |
| |
Agree |
896 |
50 % |
| |
Neutral |
131 |
7 % |
| |
Disagree |
74 |
4 % |
| |
Strongly Disagree |
18 |
1 % |
| 11c. |
The
information provided in the APPIC Online Directory was
accurate and up-to-date.
|
| |
Strongly Agree |
335 |
19 % |
| |
Agree |
877 |
49 % |
| |
Neutral |
319 |
18 % |
| |
Disagree |
221 |
12 % |
| |
Strongly Disagree |
26 |
1 % |
| 11d. |
In general, the Online Directory's
links to prorams' web sites and e-mail addresses functioned
properly.
|
| |
Strongly Agree |
481 |
27 % |
| |
Agree |
945 |
53 % |
| |
Neutral |
219 |
12 % |
| |
Disagree |
116 |
7 % |
| |
Strongly Disagree |
14 |
1 % |
| 11e. |
Overall, I am satisfied with
the APPIC Online Directory.
|
| |
Strongly Agree |
590 |
33 % |
| |
Agree |
1007 |
57 % |
| |
Neutral |
131 |
7 % |
| |
Disagree |
36 |
2 % |
| |
Strongly Disagree |
7 |
0 % |
| 12. |
The APPIC Directory
allows Training Directors to designate if they will
accept, and whether or not they prefer, applications
from students who are enrolled in the following
types of doctoral programs:
- Ph.D., Psy.D.,
or Ed.D.
- Clinical, Counseling, or School Psychology
- APA-accredited, CPA-accredited, or non-accredited
Some applicants
like this feature of the Directory because it lets
them know if they should apply to a particular site.
Other applicants believe these items promote unfair
discrimination based on fairly arbitrary categories.
Please select
the response that best describes your perspective
on this issue:
|
| |
I believe that APPIC should
KEEP this information in the Directory, since it is helpful
to applicants. |
1647 |
92 % |
| |
I believe that APIC should
REMOVE this information from the Directory, since it may
promote unfair discrimination. |
47 |
3 % |
| |
No opinion / Not Sure |
102 |
6 % |
NTERPRETATION NOTE: Applicants
were asked only whether or not this information should continue
to be provided in the APPIC Directory, and not about their
level of concern about this issue.
| 13. |
Did you use any
of the APPIC travel discounts to purchase an airline ticket,
hotel room, and/or rental car?
|
| |
Yes |
117 |
7 % |
| |
No |
1519 |
85 % |
| |
Didn't know about it |
161 |
9 % |
| 14. |
How many internship
sites did you apply to (i.e., how many separate internship
applications did you submit)?
|
| |
Mean |
= |
12.1 |
| |
Median |
= |
12 |
| |
Mode |
= |
10 |
| |
SD |
= |
5.0 |
| |
Range |
= |
0-35 |
| 15. |
Considering ALL
of the sites that you applied to, how many
notified you of your interview status (e.g., received
an interview, no longer under consideration) on or before
the "interview notification date" listed in
their APPIC Directory information? (Please estimate
if you don't know the exact number).
|
| |
Mean |
= |
10.6 |
| |
SD |
= |
4.6 |
| 16. |
How many interviews
(telephone or on-site) were you offered?
|
| |
Mean |
= |
6.9 |
| |
SD |
= |
3.8 |
| 17. |
How many programs
did you include on your final Rank Order List (i.e.,
how many program code numbers were listed)?
|
| |
Mean |
= |
6.9 |
| |
SD |
= |
3.6 |
NOTE: Use caution when comparing these numbers
with the results from questions 14-16, since some sites used
multiple program code numbers.
| 18. |
What was the rank
of the program that you were matched to?
|
| |
(Please see the 2003 APPIC
Match Statistics for this information) |
|
|
| 19. |
How many separate
round-trip airline tickets did you purchase in order to
attend on-site interviews or open houses?
|
| |
Mean |
= |
1.6 |
| |
Median |
= |
1 |
| |
Mode |
= |
0 |
| |
SD |
= |
2.0 |
| |
Range |
= |
0 - 18 |
A total of 41.5% purchased no
airline tickets; 16.1% purchased one ticket; 14.8% purchased
two tickets; 11.7% purchased three tickets; 6.8% purchased four
tickets; 4.8% purchased five tickets; 4.3% purchased six or
more airline tickets.
NOTE: Applicants in the 2002 Match
reported purchasing a mean of 1.8 round-trip airline tickets.
30 March 2003
| |
