Match Statistics - 2023 - Phase I

2023 APPIC Match Statistics - Phase I

We are pleased to report that 3,319 applicants were successfully matched to internship positions in Phase I of the 2023 APPIC Match. A total of 49% of all applicants who obtained a position matched to their first choice internship program, 72% received one of their top two choices, and 85% received one of their top three choices.

A total of 483 applicants who submitted Rank Order Lists were not matched to an internship position in Phase I, while an additional 153 applicants withdrew or did not submit a Rank Order List. A total of 686 positions remained unfilled.

Compared to the 2022 Match, this year saw an additional 21 (+3%) participating internship sites and 129 (+3%) additional positions. The number of registered applicants decreased by 25 (-1%).

Of the 774 participating internship sites, 275 (36%) had at least one unfilled position in Phase I and are thus eligible to participate in Phase II. This includes 184 of 656 (28%) accredited sites and 91 of 118 (77%) non-accredited sites.

A total of 3,620 accredited internship positions were in the Match this year, the largest number ever and an increase of 86 positions (+2%) as compared to the 2022 Match. The number of non-accredited positions increased by 43 (+13%, from 342 to 385). Since 2012, the number of accredited internship positions in the Match increased 53%, from 2,361 to 3,620.

Statistics for all 25 APPIC Matches (1999-2023) are available on the "Match Statistics" page of the APPIC web site.

The 2023 APPIC Match statistics are provided below, in four sections:

• Applicants
• Internship Programs
• Doctoral Program Participation and Results
• Summary of Program Rankings

APPLICANTS

Each Position Was Ranked by an Average of 7.5 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, last year (2022) 766 sites received a total of 58,502 applications. Mean number received in 2022 = 76.4 (SD = 62.4), Median = 64, Range = 1-452.

NOTE: 38 programs at 35 sites submitted fewer ranks than the number of positions available. As a result, no ranks were submitted for 70 positions, which remained unfilled.

Non-accredited positions represented 9.6% of all positions but 31.3% of unfilled positions.

Included in the numbers for accredited sites shown above are 15 sites that were designated "Accredited, On Contingency". These 15 sites had 82% (36 of 44) of their positions filled in Phase I, with 9 of the 15 sites (60%) filling all of their positions.

Each Registered Applicant Was Ranked by an Average of 7.1 Different Programs.

DOCTORAL PROGRAM PARTICIPATION AND RESULTS

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, 28% were filled with "first choice" applicants (as defined above), 24% with "second choice" applicants, and so on.

Furthermore, 52% were filled with "first" or "second" choice applicants, while 70% 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.