Match Statistics 2015 Phase I

2015 APPIC Match Statistics - Phase I

We are pleased to report that 3,239 applicants were successfully matched to internship positions in Phase I of the APPIC Match. Nearly half (49%) of all applicants who obtained a position matched to their first choice internship program, more than two-thirds (70%) received one of their top two choices, and about four-in-five (82%) received one of their top three choices.

A total of 689 applicants were not matched to an internship position in Phase I, while 319 applicants withdrew or did not submit a Rank Order List. A total of 445 positions remained unfilled.

Overall, the imbalance between applicants and internship positions showed significant improvement this year, due to a substantial increase in available positions along with a decrease in registered applicants. Compared to the 2014 Match, the number of registered applicants in 2015 decreased by 88 (-2%) to 4,247 applicants, while the number of internship positions increased by 183 (+5%) to 3,684 positions. Of the 183 additional positions, 144 (79%) were in APA- or CPA-accredited programs.

Despite the improvement in the overall imbalance, the number of applicants in 2015 still exceeded the number of positions by 563, and the number of applicants still exceeded the number of accredited positions by 1,515.

Here is a three-year comparison of the numbers of applicants and positions in 2015 as compared to 2012 (the 2012 Match was the point of the worst imbalance to date between applicants and positions):

The 2015 APPIC Match statistics are provided below, in four sections:

• Applicants
• Internship Programs
• Doctoral Program Participation and Results - This year, we have included new statistics based on the accreditation status of applicants' doctoral programs
• Summary of Program Rankings

APPLICANTS

NOTE: For comparison purposes, in 2013 applicants submitted an average of 16.3 applications (SD = 6.6) and a median of 16 applications, while in 2014 applicants submitted an average of 15.9 applications (SD = 6.2) and a median of 16 applications.

Each Position Was Ranked by an Average of 7.9 Applicants.

INTERNSHIP PROGRAMS

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.

NOTE: For comparison purposes, in 2013 sites received an average of 97.9 applications (SD = 71.2) and a median of 86 applications, while in 2014 sites received an average of 89.8 applications (SD = 65.1) and a median of 80 applications.

NOTE: 33 programs at 31 sites submitted fewer ranks than the number of positions available. As a result, no ranks were submitted for 60 positions, which remained unfilled.

Non-accredited positions represented 25.8% of all positions but 70.3% of unfilled positions.

Each Registered Applicant Was Ranked by an Average of 5.6 Different Programs.

DOCTORAL PROGRAM PARTICIPATION AND RESULTS

NOTE: Students seeking Ed.D. degrees were included in the Ph.D. category in order to prevent individuals from being identified.

NOTE: Students seeking Ed.D. degrees were included in the Ph.D. category in order to prevent individuals from being identified.

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

To interpret this chart: Of all positions that were filled in Phase I of the Match, 35% were filled with "first choice" applicants (as defined above), 26% with "second choice" applicants, and so on.

Furthermore, 61% were filled with "first" or "second" choice applicants, while 76% 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.