Internships / Match / Match Statistics / Match Statistics - 2022 - Phase I

Match Statistics - 2022 - Phase I

2022 APPIC Match Statistics - Phase I

Match Report from the APPIC Board of Directors
February 18, 2022

 

We are pleased to report that 3,327 applicants were successfully matched to internship positions in Phase I of the 2022 APPIC Match. A total of 46% 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 five-in-six (83%) received one of their top three choices.

A total of 476 applicants were not matched to an internship position in Phase I, while an additional 177 applicants withdrew or did not submit a Rank Order List. A total of 549 positions remained unfilled.

There were 222 internship sites (29%) that had at least one unfilled position. This includes 151 of 649 (23%) accredited sites and 71 of 104 (68%) non-accredited sites.

Internship Supply and Demand: Last year's Match saw an increase in registered applicants and a decrease in available internship positions. This year's Match saw the opposite: a decrease of 159 (-3.8%) registered applicants and an increase of 101 (+2.7%) registered positions. Overall, the number of applicants (3,980) exceeded the number of positions (3,876) by 104.

A total of 3,534 accredited internship positions were in the Match this year, the largest number ever but only a slight increase of 19 positions (0.5%) as compared to the 2021 Match. The number of non-accredited positions increased by 82 (31.5%, from 260 to 342). Since 2012, the number of accredited internship positions in the Match increased 49.7%, from 2,361 to 3,534. However, even with this improvement, there remains a shortage of accredited internship positions, as the number of registered applicants exceeded the number of accredited positions by 446.

The 2022 APPIC Match statistics are provided below, in four sections:




APPLICANTS

PARTICIPATION IN PHASE I
Applicants Registered in the Match
3,980
Applicants Who Withdrew or Did Not Submit Ranks
177
Applicants Who Submitted Ranks for the Match
(includes 22 applicants who submitted ranks for the Match as 11 "couples")
3,803


APPLICATIONS SUBMITTED IN PHASE I
Number of Applicants Who Submitted Applications in Phase I
3,919
Total Number of Applications Submitted in Phase I
58,502
Average Number of Applications Submitted in Phase I (SD = 5.3)
14.9
Median Number of Applications Submitted in Phase I
15
Range of Applications Submitted in Phase I
1 - 64


MATCH RESULTS IN PHASE I
Applicants Matched
3,327
87%
Applicants Not Matched
476
13%


MATCH RESULTS BY RANK NUMBER ON APPLICANT'S LIST
(Percentages may not total to 100 due to rounding errors)
Rank
Number of Applicants
1
1,535
46%
2
790
24%
3
425
13%
4
235
7%
5
137
4%
6
93
3%
7
44
1%
8
23
1%
9
14
0%
10 or higher
31
1%
TOTAL
3,327
100%


RANKINGS IN PHASE I
                Average Number of Rankings Submitted Per Applicant:
Matched Applicants
8.6
Unmatched Applicants
3.9
Overall
8.0

Each Position Was Ranked by an Average of 7.9 Applicants.




INTERNSHIP PROGRAMS


PARTICIPATION IN PHASE I
Training Sites Available in the Match
753
Programs Available in the Match
1,515
Positions Available in the Match
3,876

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
766
Total Number of Applications Received in Phase I
58,502
Average Number of Applications Received in Phase I (SD = 62.4)
76.4
Median Number of Applications Received in Phase I
64
Range of Applications Received in Phase I
1 - 452

NOTE: For comparison purposes, last year (2021) 758 sites received a total of 60,027 applications. Mean number received in 2021 = 79.2 (SD = 66.5), Median = 64, Range = 1-438.



MATCH RESULTS IN PHASE I
               Sites:
Filled in the Match
531
71%
With Unfilled Positions
222
29%
               Programs:
Filled in the Match
1,209
80%
With Unfilled Positions
306
20%
               Positions:
Filled in the Match
3,327
86%
Remaining Unfilled
549
14%

NOTE: 32 programs at 30 sites submitted fewer ranks than the number of positions available. As a result, no ranks were submitted for 64 positions, which remained unfilled.


APA- OR CPA- ACCREDITED POSITIONS
Filled in the Match
3,161
89%
Remaining Unfilled
373
11%
TOTAL
3,534


NON-ACCREDITED POSITIONS
Filled in the Match
166
49%
Remaining Unfilled
176
51%
TOTAL
342

Non-accredited positions represented 8.8% of all positions but 32.1% of unfilled positions.


INTERNSHIP MATCH RATES BY ACCREDITATION STATUS
INTERNSHIP PROGRAM ACCREDITATION STATUS
POSITIONS FILLED
SITES FILLING ALL POSITIONS
APA- or CPA-Accredited
3,161 of 3,534
89%
498 of 649
77%
Not Accredited
166 of 342
49%
33 of 104
32%

Included in the numbers for accredited sites shown above are 19 sites that were designated "Accredited, On Contingency". These 19 sites had 80% (49 of 61) of their positions filled in Phase I, with 12 of the 19 sites (63%) filling all of their positions.


RANKINGS IN PHASE I
               Average Number of Applicants Ranked Per Position Offered for Each Program:
Programs Filling All Positions
9.4
Programs With Unfilled Positions
4.7
All Programs
8.4

Each Registered Applicant Was Ranked by an Average of 7.1 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.
198
0
198
1,365
0
1,365
Psy.D.
73
5
78
1,679
32
1,711
TOTALS
271
5
276
3,044
32
3,076
Counseling
Ph.D.
66
0
66
350
0
350
Psy.D.
11
1
12
93
3
96
TOTALS
77
1
78
443
3
446
School
Ph.D.
58
3
61
231
8
239
Psy.D.
10
0
10
69
0
69
TOTALS
68
3
71
300
8
308
Combined
Ph.D.
11
0
11
71
0
71
Psy.D.
7
1
8
73
6
79
TOTALS
18
1
19
144
6
150
ALL PROGRAMS
Ph.D.
333
3
336
2,017
8
2,025
Psy.D.
101
7
108
1,914
41
1,955
TOTALS
434
10
444
3,931
49
3,980


APPLICANT RESULTS BY DOCTORAL PROGRAM TYPE AND DEGREE
PROGRAM TYPE
DEGREE SOUGHT
MATCHED
UNMATCHED
WITHDREW OR NO RANKINGS SUBMITTED
TOTAL
Clinical
Ph.D.
1,205
88.3%
125
9.2%
35
2.6%
1,365
Psy.D.
1,377
80.5%
259
15.1%
75
4.4%
1,711
TOTALS
2,582
83.9%
384
12.5%
110
3.6%
3,076
Counseling
Ph.D.
311
88.9%
23
6.6%
16
4.6%
350
Psy.D.
65
67.7%
15
15.6%
16
16.7%
96
TOTALS
376
84.3%
38
8.5%
32
7.2%
446
School
Ph.D.
194
81.2%
33
13.8%
12
5.0%
239
Psy.D.
43
62.3%
9
13.0%
17
24.6%
69
TOTALS
237
76.9%
42
13.6%
29
9.4%
308
Combined
Ph.D.
68
95.8%
2
2.8%
1
1.4%
71
Psy.D.
64
81.0%
10
12.7%
5
6.3%
79
TOTALS
132
88.0%
12
8.0%
6
4.0%
150
ALL PROGRAMS
Ph.D.
1,778
87.8%
183
9.0%
64
3.2%
2,025
Psy.D.
1,549
79.2%
293
15.0%
113
5.8%
1,955
TOTALS
3,327
83.6%
476
12.0%
177
4.4%
3,980


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.
1,181
98.0%
24
2.0%
1,205
Psy.D.
1,297
94.2%
80
5.8%
1,377
TOTALS
2,478
96.0%
104
4.0%
2,582
Counseling
Ph.D.
309
99.4%
2
0.6%
311
Psy.D.
56
86.2%
9
13.8%
65
TOTALS
365
97.1%
11
2.9%
376
School
Ph.D.
171
88.1%
23
11.9%
194
Psy.D.
27
62.8%
16
37.2%
43
TOTALS
198
83.5%
39
16.5%
237
Combined
Ph.D.
63
92.6%
5
7.4%
68
Psy.D.
57
89.1%
7
10.9%
64
TOTALS
120
90.9%
12
9.1%
132
ALL PROGRAMS
Ph.D.
1,724
97.0%
54
3.0%
1,778
Psy.D.
1,437
92.8%
112
7.2%
1,549
TOTALS
3,161
95.0%
166
5.0%
3,327



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
923
28%
2
767
23%
3
568
17%
4
397
12%
5
279
8%
6
164
5%
7
86
3%
8
55
2%
9
29
1%
10 or higher
59
2%
TOTAL
3,327
100%

To interpret this chart: Of all positions that were filled in Phase I of the Match, 28% were filled with "first choice" applicants (as defined above), 23% with "second choice" applicants, and so on.

Furthermore, 51% were filled with "first" or "second" choice applicants, while 68% 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 18, 2022