2010/2011 Internship Match Statistics Discussion

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
T

Therapist4Chnge

Neuropsych Ninja
Moderator Emeritus
Verified Member
Faculty
Verified Expert
15+ Year Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2006
Messages
22,381
Reaction score
4,322
MOD NOTE: I split this out from the internship thread. Please post all match statistic posts in here, as I'd like to keep the internship thread about Clearing House now. -t4c
Members don't see this ad.
 
Here are the 2010 Match Statistics. Everything in bold is my emphasis, and not that of APPIC.

APPIC MATCH NEWS
---
2010 APPIC MATCH REPORT FROM THE APPIC BOARD OF DIRECTORS
February 22, 2010

We are pleased to report that 2,823 applicants were successfully matched to internship positions. A total of 46% of all applicants who obtained a position matched to their first choice internship program, more than two-thirds (68%) received one of their top two choices, and four-in-five (81%) received one of their top three choices.

A total of 846 applicants were not matched to an internship position, while 278 positions remained unfilled. The number of unmatched applicants this year was identical to the number seen in the 2009 Match.

Compared to the 2009 Match, the number of registered applicants increased by 65 (1.7%) to a record 3,890 applicants, while the number of internship positions increased by 50 (1.6%) to a record 3,101 positions. Furthermore, the number of accredited positions in the Match decreased by two, while the number of non-accredited positions increased by 52.
Here is a summary of the changes in numbers of applicants and positions as compared to the 2009 APPIC Match:

Applicants: Registered for the Match +65
Withdrew or did not submit ranks -6
Matched +71
Unmatched No Chg
Positions: Offered in the Match +50
Filled +29
Unfilled -21

Following is an eight year comparison of the 2002 and 2010 Match statistics:
2002 2010 8-YEAR CHANGE
Participating Sites 610 674 +64 (+10%)
Positions Offered 2,752 3,101 +349 (+13%)
Positions Filled 2,410 2,823 +413 (+17%)
Positions Unfilled 342 278 -64 (-19%)
Registered Applicants 3,073 3,890 +817 (+27%)
Withdrawn Applicants 231 221 -10 ( -4%)
Matched Applicants 2,410 2,823 +413 (+17%)
Unmatched Applicants 432 846 +414 (+96%)

INTERNSHIP PROGRAMS
===================
PARTICIPATION
-------------
Training Sites Participating in the Match 674
Programs Participating in the Match 1,176
Positions Offered in the Match 3,101

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.

MATCH RESULTS
-------------
Positions: Filled in the Match 2,823 (91%)
Remaining Unfilled 278 ( 9%)
Programs: Filled in the Match 1,013 (86%)
With Unfilled Positions 163 (14%)

NOTE: 30 programs at 25 sites submitted fewer ranks than the
number of positions available. As a result, no ranks
were submitted for 58 positions, which remained unfilled.

APA or CPA Accredited Positions:
Filled in the Match 2,246 (97%)
Remaining Unfilled 74 (3%)
Total 2,320

Non-Accredited Positions
Filled in the Match 577 (70%)
Remaining Unfilled 204 (30%)
Total 781

Non-accredited positions represented 73.4% of all unfilled positions.

RANKINGS
--------
Average Number of Applicants Ranked Per Position Offered for Each Program:
Programs Filling All Positions 8.3
Programs With Unfilled Positions 2.8
All Programs 7.5

Each Registered Applicant was Ranked by an Average of 5.3 Different Programs

APPLICANTS
==========
PARTICIPATION
-------------
Applicants Registered in the Match 3,890
Applicants Who Withdrew or Did Not Submit Ranks 221
Applicants Participating in the Match 3,669
(includes 26 individuals who participated in
the Match as 13 "couples")

MATCH RESULTS
-------------
Applicants Matched 2,823 (77%)
Participating Applicants Not Matched 846 (23%)
Match Results by Rank Number on Applicant's List:
(percentages may not total to 100 due to rounding errors)

Rank Number of Applicants
1 1,295 (46%)
2 614 (22%)
3 373 (13%)
4 201 ( 7%)
5 135 ( 5%)
6 80 ( 3%)
7 52 ( 2%)
8 25 ( 1%)
9 14 ( 0%)
10 or higher 34 ( 1%)
Total 2,823 (100%)

RANKINGS
--------
Average Number of Rankings Submitted Per Applicant:
Matched Applicants 7.8
Unmatched Applicants 4.4
Overall 7.0
Each Position was Ranked by an Average of 8.3 Applicants

================================================== ====================
2010 APPIC MATCH REPORT #2: SUMMARY OF PROGRAM RANKINGS
February 22, 2010

The following report contains additional statistics on how successful programs were, on average, in matching with applicants.
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.

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 1,034 (37%)
2 788 (28%)
3 486 (17%)
4 256 ( 9%)
5 127 ( 4%)
6 46 ( 2%)
7 33 ( 1%)
8 24 ( 1%)
9 12 ( 0%)
10 or higher 17 ( 1%)
Total 2,823 (100%)

To interpret this chart: of all positions that were filled in the Match, 37% were filled with "first choice" applicants (as defined above), 28% with "second choice" applicants, and so on.

Furthermore, 65% were filled with "first" or "second" choice applicants, while 82% 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.
 
im thinking it looks like for about 63% of the sample, things went well... (77% match rate, 82% got one of their first three choices). indeedy do, 1/3 of the sample got their first pick. on the positive side of things this looks ok, no?

i guess (as has been said) the trends of more applicants and less acred. sites threatens to break the system (as it is now) in the near future. I have the utmost sympathy for those diligent students who are caught unmatched for one reason or another, especially when their livelihood is threatened

i'd love to see a mixed methods (quantitative+qualitative) analysis of ppl who matched vs. didn't.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
jnine said:
im thinking it looks like for about 63% of the sample, things went well... (77% match rate, 82% got one of their first three choices). indeedy do, 1/3 of the sample got their first pick. on the positive side of things this looks ok, no?

i guess (as has been said) the trends of more applicants and less acred. sites threatens to break the system (as it is now) in the near future. I have the utmost sympathy for those diligent students who are caught unmatched for one reason or another, especially when their livelihood is threatened

i'd love to see a mixed methods (quantitative+qualitative) analysis of ppl who matched vs. didn't.
Click to expand...

My concern is that there was a net increase of 50 new non-acred positions. I'm not sure if there is a limitation of a site needing to be added first before they can apply for acredidation, but if not, I'm concerned. It'd be nice if every "new" site had to apply for APA-acred., though that is unrealistic for the current scenario.

At the end of the day it is not a supply side deficit, but instead a demand side inequity. The worst part about it is that the graduate students are getting pinched in the middle.
 
Last edited:
so 2 APA accredited sites dropped out of the match this year and 52 non APA accredited sites came into it....? Is that what he meant?

If thats correct, so really, for those that only apply to APA accredited sites (most of us probably and my program requires us to have an APA approved site) there was actually 2 less internship sites this year? Is that correct?
 
Last edited:
erg923 said:
so 2 APA approved sites dropped out of the match this year and 52 non APA accredited sites came into it....? Is that what he meant?

If thats correct, so really, for those that only apply to APA accredited sites (most of us probably) there was actually 2 less internship sites this year? Is that correct?
Click to expand...

From my understanding we are talking about the net result of available APA-acred positions dropped by 2, while the net result of available non-acred positions increased by 50. They are both still concerning figures. More simply put, there are 50 more total positions available this year for match, unfortunately they are all non-acred. positions. If I am interpreting the statistics correctly, that means for applicants looking for only APA-acred sites have 2 less positions to fight over.
 
Since the vast majority of us only look/apply to APA accredited sites, the reality for most of us is that there were 2 less positions than last year, and 65 more applicants than last year. Not good. Military here I come! I heard the branches numbers were up this year...no surprise huh...
 
Last edited:
Are there any statistics for a typical 'developmental trajectory' of internship programs, so to speak? For example, who many sites that are currently not accredited are working towards accreditation? Do non-accred sites usually apply for accred, and if so, how long does it usually take before they achieve accred status?
 
Among the Catch-22s in the process is you have to have a program before you can get it accredited--and then there is the extra-ordinary time and funding cost to sites (see T4Cs post elsewhere on this) and all of this becomes an obstacle to sites becoming accredited. So there is a very steep up-hill trajectory and many municipal /county/state sites can't "make the grade" financially because of public budgets. They are otherwise able to provide great training options--and do.

The stats over recent years would suggest however, that students and schools are (as happens in the evolutionary process) solving the problem by taking paths around the accreditaton process. This is not good but it appears to be necessary. It might be good if, as a profession, we could be less judgmental about that and just more curious about how to work with it.

What I have never understood--given that schools and APA know there are good sites out there that cannot afford to become accredited--is why there is not a major movement to provide external funding and assistance so sites would become accredited. Some demonstration projects in areas with a severe Match deficit could be a big step forward.

Exisiting external funding like GPE is restricted only to APA sites. If there was an effort to get federal funding that was ONLY for non-APA APPIC sites to become accredited and it was granted to sites that have already been training students for 10+ years with demonstrable outcomes, we might get somewhere. But there is no leverage point for this that I can find.
 
To add to what docma said, one local CMHC has been APPIC member for eight years now. Although they long ago stated their intention to go for APA accreditation, they still have not pursued this. The Director told me that she cannot justify the cost to her agency, most of whom are social workers who do not appreciate why an APA internship is so important. Moreover, with the current state of healthcare and the economy, she doubts they'll try for accreditation any time soon. "We get great people through Clearinghouse anyway" she confided.:(

Something is very wrong here, no?
 
Does anyone have any idea as to what percentage of applicants matched to APA-accredited sites?

EDIT: I ran the numbers, it looks like about 79% of the people who matched matched to APA internships, about 61% of all the people who participated in Match overall. That's sort of depressing.
 
Last edited:
To add to what psychmama says: YES! and it will be up to the current generation to begin to make the difference by not letting up on this issue.

In community practice and outside of the traditional world of academia, the APA status issue doesn't play well or at all. Adminstrators (who are often not doctorates and don't need to be--but do face grueling fiscal decisions) are not going to fund something doesn't clearly translate into direct benefits for clients. Our system backed (and continues to back) APPIC membership because I have been able to demonstrate how the Match brings us a more diverse and very well qualified cohort each year. (And they see that this does benefit clients) We have filled without going to Clearinghouse the last 3 years despite an embarassingly low stipend and not being APA. So our director also, like the one Psychmama cited, says: What would the system gain by APA status?

In the current economy, any funds a system has have to go to services, not to status for students who may--or may not--be willing to enter community practice long term. The leverage that works for students (you can't work in the VA; you have fewer post-docs available) doesn't work as leverage with agency and hospital administrators. We need a much broader scope of approach on this one
 
Ok here's one: Forgive me if this stat is somewhere i don't know about. As ridiculous as it is considering the discussion and revelations noted above, I will still only consider APA approved internships. Therefore, my question is how many sites in the clearinghouse this year were APA. During a brief, cursory overview of that Lyris list, the vast vast majority seemed to me non-APA, right? Actually to rephrase that, how many sites total were in the clearinghouse ,and how many (what percent) were apa accredited spots?
 
Members don't see this ad :)
If you want a totally accurate count, I think you can search in the browser for "APA-Yes" on the natmach list to see how many (my count yielded around 34 for APA accredited), but this statistic may be of interest to you:

APA or CPA Accredited Positions:
Filled in the Match 2,246 (97%)
Remaining Unfilled 74 (3%)
Total 2,320

Non-Accredited Positions
Filled in the Match 577 (70%)
Remaining Unfilled 204 (30%)
Total 781

The list of CH positions are here:
http://www.natmatch.com/psychint/unfilled/apcunlst.htm

Note that these are not updated as positions are filled. They are simply all the openings available at 11 am earlier today.
erg923 said:
Ok here's one: Forgive me if this stat is somewhere i don't know about. As ridiculous as it is considering the discussion and revelations noted above, I will still only consider APA approved internships. Therefore, my question is how many sites in the clearinghouse this year were APA. During a brief, cursory overview of that Lyris list, the vast vast majority seemed to me non-APA, right? Actually to rephrase that, how many sites total were in the clearinghouse ,and how many (what percent) were apa accredited spots?
Click to expand...
 
so even after clearinghouse...over 550 people can not possibly match anywhere this year...wow??!! is that right?

Sorry, digging through all the different stats is getting confusing...lol
 
and those people will be in the match again next year, it's only going to get worse..
 
No, you've got it right... I remember thinking that when I saw around 850 people did not match this year.

erg923 said:
so even after clearinghouse...over 550 people can not possibly match anywhere this year...wow??!! is that right?

Sorry, digging through all the different stats is getting confusing...lol
Click to expand...
 
Because I wont be applying for match until next year, i had never really paid attention to actual numbers in this god awful process. Just heard percentages and stories.

Frankly its astonishing! I never would have guessed that we are producing that many doctoral level folks every year (I mean almost 4000 psychologists per year)! Where the hell are all these people gonna work after internship is the question I have started thinking about now actually? Goodness.....
 
Last edited:
PsychGradFL said:
and those people will be in the match again next year, it's only going to get worse..
Click to expand...


while some programs won't let you graduate w/o an APA internship, others push you to not enter the match again, even if means making an internship outside of the match (so not APA or APPIC). if many/most do re-apply though that is of course worrisome, as if they do thier job right they will have thier dissertation defended, an extra pub or two, another practica--all sorts of things that you'd naturally get with an extra year but that make it hard for us applying in our 4th year to match up against. anyone know how many folks in any one recent round tend to be re-applicants?
 
PsychGradFL said:
and those people will be in the match again next year, it's only going to get worse..
Click to expand...
Many get re-directed to non-acred. sites. I do not recommend that path, but some do it. As someone mentioned, many programs require an APA-acred site, so those people must re-apply.

The stats are definitely problematic, not only for the individual, but for the field as a whole.
 
docma said:
To add to what psychmama says: YES! and it will be up to the current generation to begin to make the difference by not letting up on this issue.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure it is fair to ask students to be the ones to address this issue by going for non-APA accredited sites. How many people are going to volunteer to limit their career options in order to address a systems issue? I assume that those who are going to your site have already decided they do not want to work in areas that require APA internships. That's fine, but many people would balk at making that kind of pronouncement this early in their careers.

My program, like Erg's requires an APA accredited internship. Taking up that battle would be another huge hurdle and, again, it seems unfair to put that on the students.

At the same time, part of me thinks that perhaps there shouldn't be an increase in APA accredited sites. If we're graduating 4000 psychologists a year, it is going to be difficult for anyone to stand out in the job market. Perhaps the competitiveness of the APA sites is serving a function....Of course, I will feel very differently if I end up not matching next year ;).
 
It really seems like there is a two-tier hierarchy developing in the field of psychology. There is the group without APA-approved internships and the group with those APA internships. When I was conducting my job search, I interviewed at several "doc in a box" mental health centers which paid very, very little (after being licensed you would make $46K) had a poor benefits package (no insurance until you had been with the company for 3 months, 1 personal day/year, accruing only 4 hours of paid sick time/month), and had very controlling work environs for their employees (e.g., blocking the internet, making their employees clock-in and out for breaks, etc).

I pulled several people aside who worked at these places and asked why they would stay at a place like this. They all told me that they did not do an APA internship so could not find work elsewhere. Not to say this scenario is inevitable if you don't complete an APA internship, but it is something to consider.

As an aside, one of the hiring directors told me that she had her choice of psychologists to hire because there were so many in the job market. In fact, I heard this from more than one HR director. I think this underscores the fact that in order to help our job proscpects, we need to decrease the # of psychologists entering the field, and protect and expand for scope of practice.

Because professional schools will just keep on increasing the numbers of students they enroll, the field should avoid opening up more and more intership sites as more and more students enroll in psychology graduate programs. There really must be caps on enrollment at these schools and some should be shut down, especially the schools with sub-par match rates.
 
edieb said:
It really seems like there is a two-tier hierarchy developing in the field of psychology. There is the group without APA-approved internships and the group with those APA internships. When I was conducting my job search, I interviewed at several "doc in a box" mental health centers which paid very, very little (after being licensed you would make $46K) had a poor benefits package (no insurance until you had been with the company for 3 months, 1 personal day/year, accruing only 4 hours of paid sick time/month), and had very controlling work environs for their employees (e.g., blocking the internet, making their employees clock-in and out for breaks, etc).

I pulled several people aside who worked at these places and asked why they would stay at a place like this. They all told me that they did not do an APA internship so could not find work elsewhere. Not to say this scenario is inevitable if you don't complete an APA internship, but it is something to consider.

As an aside, one of the hiring directors told me that she had her choice of psychologists to hire because there were so many in the job market. In fact, I heard this from more than one HR director. I think this underscores the fact that in order to help our job proscpects, we need to decrease the # of psychologists entering the field, and protect and expand for scope of practice.

Because professional schools will just keep on increasing the numbers of students they enroll, the field should avoid opening up more and more intership sites as more and more students enroll in psychology graduate programs. There really must be caps on enrollment at these schools and some should be shut down, especially the schools with sub-par match rates.
Click to expand...


Personally, I could NOT agree more. At a recent internship interview, there were two individuals from the same professional school and they barely knew each other because there were something like 30 people in their class alone (as in the same year, meaning there is likely over 120 to 150 students in their program altogether). I just cannot fathom it, I mean, how do the instructors of their classes uphold the same level of expectation of work with 30 people whereas the average class I had at my doctoral program had only 5 to 6 students. To me, this just seems to be diluting the quality of the education not to mention overwhelming the field.
 
I remember hearing about an APA task force that was supposed to go find out more concrete numbers on the supply/demand issue. Does anyone know about this? Not that I really trust what the APA would say, sorry for the cynicism.

I agree with most of you, yes there is a crisis and yes it would be nice if professional schools wouldnt take so many students. However, these numbers are getting thrown around without much analysis. My point/question is, of those 3000 new psychologists per year...how many of them are doing the exact same thing? Where are they going? Why is there still a shortage in many areas, despite national health service incentives??

I'm not drawing any conclusions here...just hoping for more analysis.
 
IT514 said:
Why is there still a shortage in many areas, despite national health service incentives??

I'm not drawing any conclusions here...just hoping for more analysis.
Click to expand...

Well, I think thats pretty obvious really. There are many more physicians than psychologists in this country and there are shortages of them in rural areas as well. People dont want to live there! The point is we DO need to limit market saturation. I'm not gonna be held respobsible for where psychologists (like everyione else) chose to live and be told we need to pump out more and more because no one is practicing in Eblem, Wyoming-population 15. That's ridiculous and and it's a poor business model.
 
Last edited:
erg923 said:
Because I wont be applying for match until next year, i had never really paid attention to actual numbers in this god awful process. Just heard percentages and stories.

Frankly its astonishing! I never would have guessed that we are producing that many doctoral level folks every year (I mean almost 4000 psychologists per year)! Where the hell are all these people gonna work after internship is the question I have started thinking about now actually? Goodness.....
Click to expand...


Logan's Run: The Psychologist. <-Coming Soon To A Theatre Near You.
 
erg923 said:
Well, I think thats pretty obvious really. There are many more physicians than psychologists in this country and there are shortages of them in rural areas as well. People dont want to live there! The point is we DO need to limit market saturation. I'm not gonna be held respobsible for where psychologists (like everyione else) chose to live and be told we need to pump out more and more because no one is practicing in Eblem, Wyoming-population 15. That's ridiculous and and it's a poor business model.
Click to expand...

I see your point, and I've made the same one in other threads. I agree that we need to limit market saturation, but I think we need to be careful about how we do so. Not accrediting certain programs would be a start, but there might be other ways for APA to address the issue.

Question for you though...how is it a poor business model to go somewhere and provide a service where there is a need that no one else is providing for?? Maybe I'm misreading you?? There are some great model practices which do just that in rural areas and are making a killing, depending on the insurance climate of the area. I'm not saying that YOU or anyone else has to do it...just that its not a bad idea from a business model or any other model.
 
I meant to produce more and more until every possible place is covered. If people don't want to go there, they don't want go there. I cant do anything about that. Make incentives if you want, but don't bring down the entire profession (and our salaries) by producing more and more in the hopes that every place will eventually get covered. Frankly, it probably never will, and this is a risk/drawback people make the decision to accept when they live in rural areas.
 
Last edited:
I agree with you there. Also, the NHSC ncentives are post-licensure, so they really wouldnt help the internship cluster-f anyway.
 
I have a colleague who I became close to my first year that was at that time (my first year) applying for internship. 2 years later, he has completed his internship and is now a faculty member at Argosy. From what he has told me, the expectations there are to teach 8 courses per year (he does 3 fall/3 spring/2 summer).

He said he typically has course sizes of between 25 and 40 depending on the course (since not all students in a cohort go through the sequence in the same manner). However, there appears to be no research requirements per se for faculty.

I haven't asked him this directly, but it would seem like faculty spend far less time with research and much more time engaged with instructional activities. Even still - I would think providing supervision and meaningful didactic exercises, not to mention advising, with such large courses and cohorts would be challenging.

InUrHead said:
Personally, I could NOT agree more. At a recent internship interview, there were two individuals from the same professional school and they barely knew each other because there were something like 30 people in their class alone (as in the same year, meaning there is likely over 120 to 150 students in their program altogether). I just cannot fathom it, I mean, how do the instructors of their classes uphold the same level of expectation of work with 30 people whereas the average class I had at my doctoral program had only 5 to 6 students. To me, this just seems to be diluting the quality of the education not to mention overwhelming the field.
Click to expand...
 
We had some people not match this year, and they were all strong applicants. The DCT sent out an email saying that we need to accept the possibility that we may not get an internship on our first try. Even for us first years, for whom this is far away still, it is scary and depressing...
 
I have not renewed my APA membership this year. APA gets my vote of "no-confidence" for this internship fiasco.

For the poster asking about the APA Taskforce on the supply/demand issue on internship one only needs to look at the useless piffle proffered in their last "Taskforce" missive to know that the APA prefers rhetoric over sound, effective solutions. There statement is posted on the APPIC website. Their policies to deal with the imbalance are completely without teeth.

Now that I am matched I will get that degree. APA will eventually have to acknowledge a growing generation of disgruntled practitioners who will not be forgiving of their perceived fecklessness and I certainly count myself among those.

This year I am throwing my support behind APS.
 
It will be interesting to see what comes from the "off-season" of the internship match. Per some e-mails sent out on the APPIC List-serv, there are discussions about some changes. I'm not really sure what are some realistics options/goals for changes, but I'm hoping that APPIC, the APA, and the programs can work towards a more managable answer to a very scary imbalance.
 
cara susanna said:
We had some people not match this year, and they were all strong applicants. The DCT sent out an email saying that we need to accept the possibility that we may not get an internship on our first try. Even for us first years, for whom this is far away still, it is scary and depressing...
Click to expand...

That is a very scary thought, considering many of the people who didn't match were good applicants who seemed to get squeezed. There have been some good e-mails posted recently to the APPIC listserv about the "gestalt" of an applicant.


There isn't a definitive "standard" for people who match, though it'd be interesting if someone could aggregate that data. I'd be curious to see the database that APPIC keeps now that everything is submitted online. I'm not sure of the back-end structure, but if they had a halfway decent data structure (non-flat file, sortable, etc), it'd be really informative to do an analysis.


I'd look at Match v. Non-Match (many of the same stats they release now), BUT I'd drill down and split out by site type. A CMHC would most likely have very different numbers compared to an academic hospital. I wouldn't expect all of the site types to provide useful data, but there should be at least some. I think this could be a first step at trying to quantify "fit", though obviously a far from perfect construct.


To take it one step further, I'd be curious if there would be a "profile" more likely to match to a particular site type. We'd need multiple years worth of data to remotely predict a "profile", particularly for the lower N site types, but even one data set could at least give us something to think about.


I'd also want to look at the range of sites each applicant applies to as it relates to "competiveness" (# of total apps v. # of total spots), to see if there is any corrolation between a specific profile and their chances of matching.


The last thing I'd want to look at is the geographic dispertion of applications as it relates to regions of the country. I've seen some really cool illustrations of density as it relates to zip code, so I know it's been done before...hello census and political polling. :D I'd be interested to see what "hot zones" pop up outside of the traditional places (NYC, Bay Area, CHI, BOS). I then would want to isolate for local zip codes and capture geographically restricted applicants, and see what their true match rate is compared to people who apply nationally. Some of this may get tossed because of identifiabilty, but even looking at top locales could yield some useful information. Splitting between APA, APPIC, and non-acred. could also be interesting to see how much (if any) increase in match rate there would be if someone who was geographically restricted applied to more than just APA sites.

Is it sad that I got really excited thinking about the possibilities of how to slice and dice the data?


I may actually float this idea, and if nothing else maybe it could generate some discussion about what data is released each year about the Match...so no one steal my idea!! :D Realistically I'd expect quite a bit of push-back because there would be concern about generalizability as well as some possible undesirable data that may pop up, but it may not hurt to ask. I wonder if the general consent we sign would cover this kind of study, as that'd be a huge hurdle if the general consent didn't cover it.

Any stat-heavy people interested in helping? JockNerd...I'm looking at you! Jon Snow...you too, just don't let your job get in the way of important research like this. ;)
 
Last edited:
I apologize if this is the wrong thread to ask this question, but what is the difference between and APPIC and an APA internship? Is the latter required to be a fully-licenced clinical psychologist?
 
McClinas said:
I apologize if this is the wrong thread to ask this question, but what is the difference between and APPIC and an APA internship? Is the latter required to be a fully-licenced clinical psychologist?
Click to expand...

Check out these threads, and feel free to bump one if you have further questions. There are other threads, but these were the first two that popped up.

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=671178
http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=605791
 
Therapist4Chnge said:
That is a very scary thought, considering many of the people who didn't match were good applicants who seemed to get squeezed. There have been some good e-mails posted recently to the APPIC listserv about the "gestalt" of an applicant.


There isn't a definitive "standard" for people who match, though it'd be interesting if someone could aggregate that data. I'd be curious to see the database that APPIC keeps now that everything is submitted online. I'm not sure of the back-end structure, but if they had a halfway decent data structure (non-flat file, sortable, etc), it'd be really informative to do an analysis.


I'd look at Match v. Non-Match (many of the same stats they release now), BUT I'd drill down and split out by site type. A CMHC would most likely have very different numbers compared to an academic hospital. I wouldn't expect all of the site types to provide useful data, but there should be at least some. I think this could be a first step at trying to quantify "fit", though obviously a far from perfect construct.


To take it one step further, I'd be curious if there would be a "profile" more likely to match to a particular site type. We'd need multiple years worth of data to remotely predict a "profile", particularly for the lower N site types, but even one data set could at least give us something to think about.


I'd also want to look at the range of sites each applicant applies to as it relates to "competiveness" (# of total apps v. # of total spots), to see if there is any corrolation between a specific profile and their chances of matching.


The last thing I'd want to look at is the geographic dispertion of applications as it relates to regions of the country. I've seen some really cool illustrations of density as it relates to zip code, so I know it's been done before...hello census and political polling. :D I'd be interested to see what "hot zones" pop up outside of the traditional places (NYC, Bay Area, CHI, BOS). I then would want to isolate for local zip codes and capture geographically restricted applicants, and see what their true match rate is compared to people who apply nationally. Some of this may get tossed because of identifiabilty, but even looking at top locales could yield some useful information. Splitting between APA, APPIC, and non-acred. could also be interesting to see how much (if any) increase in match rate there would be if someone who was geographically restricted applied to more than just APA sites.

Is it sad that I got really excited thinking about the possibilities of how to slice and dice the data?


I may actually float this idea, and if nothing else maybe it could generate some discussion about what data is released each year about the Match...so no one steal my idea!! :D Realistically I'd expect quite a bit of push-back because there would be concern about generalizability as well as some possible undesirable data that may pop up, but it may not hurt to ask. I wonder if the general consent we sign would cover this kind of study, as that'd be a huge hurdle if the general consent didn't cover it.

Any stat-heavy people interested in helping? JockNerd...I'm looking at you! Jon Snow...you too, just don't let your job get in the way of important research like this. ;)
Click to expand...

Wait -- these kinds of analyses have yet to be done?? Talk about a WTF moment!!! It is not sad that you find the possibility of doing this exciting. I'll help in any way possible -- even if it's "only" swabbing the deck, cleaning the latrines, you name it!
 
Buzzwordsoldier said:
Wait -- these kinds of analyses have yet to be done?? Talk about a WTF moment!!! It is not sad that you find the possibility of doing this exciting. I'll help in any way possible -- even if it's "only" swabbing the deck, cleaning the latrines, you name it!
Click to expand...
I posted everything that I have found available from their released stats. It'd be nice if they posted more, but I'm not sure what they look at every year.
 
Therapist4Chnge said:
JockNerd...I'm looking at you!
Click to expand...

If it were possible for me to get the APPIC database I'd already have it. I've tried. I flexed all the academic nepotistic muscle I could and couldn't get that data. I know advanced longitudinal modeling in MLM and SEM and that didn't sell me getting that damn data.
 
JockNerd said:
If it were possible for me to get the APPIC database I'd already have it. I've tried. I flexed all the academic nepotistic muscle I could and couldn't get that data. I know advanced longitudinal modeling in MLM and SEM and that didn't sell me getting that damn data.
Click to expand...

I would love to access and run analyses on that data, though the subsamples I'm most interested in (School Psych applicants and applicants with disabilities) would mostly likely require multiple years of data to get a decent N. I'd also be interested in looking at number of presentations and publications by degree type (PhD V. PsyD), debt, and Match v. Non-Match.

EDIT: Looks like (some) of my last question is already in the data from last year:


25. Number of publications listed on vita:

Zero Match rate = 77% n = 1043
One or more Match rate = 85% n = 1294


26. Number of presentations listed on vita:

Zero Match rate = 73% n = 497
One Match rate = 82% n = 254
Two Match rate = 81% n = 240
Three or more Match rate = 84% n = 1339
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
JockNerd said:
If it were possible for me to get the APPIC database I'd already have it. I've tried. I flexed all the academic nepotistic muscle I could and couldn't get that data. I know advanced longitudinal modeling in MLM and SEM and that didn't sell me getting that damn data.
Click to expand...
Maybe if I tell them I'm an SDN mod I can get it....:laugh:.
 
I think that APPIC should be required to release most if not all of their data for research conducted by independent bodies. You hear things about fit, about winning formulas for writing essays, and minimum hours and diversity that make you marketable etc; but nothing will speak louder than hard facts and statistics.

It will help both training directors and applicants to objectively see the actual picture of internship and matching, and most importantly, how the trends have evolved over time to this current hot mess. It will also help answer why matched applicants are matched despite how easy it is to rationalize positive outcomes. Conversely and hopefully, there will be fewer stories here and there about people with a perfect package and excellent hours not getting interviewed or matched. Ultimately, it will inform new applicants and people reapplying to pay attention to predictors that explain successful outcomes.

Such research will also reveal supply-demand discrepancies and inform resource allocation. For example, encouraging people to spread their net and not limit their choices to a specific city is pretty much ineffective. But if you have numbers supportive of the hypothesized reduction of interview and match opportunities in metropolitan areas, applicants will think twice before setting themselves up for failure.

Research ideas are clearly limitless. Why APPIC and APA are so hell-bent on not relieving systemic cluttering and individual stress through good old research is very disturbing and goes against their very intention to help our profession.
 
futureapppsy2 said:
^
I think the reason APPIC has always given for not releasing the data sets was that some respondents would be pretty identifiable based on the info in the data set.
Click to expand...

This is correct, and I find it reasonable if not a little disappointing.
 
I wonder if there can be adjustments so under a certain N excluded. I'm thinking some of the geographic data may need to be tweaked for programs in an isolated area. It is a shame to throw the baby out with the bath water.
 
I think the geographic data and regional stats would be interesting, valuable and perhaps become a basis for more motivation for schools to develop regional internship consortiums, etc..

I have a concern though that once there were numbers and stats, students could be drawn into obsessive focus on some things they believe are the "magic key" and lose the necessary wider focus on the gestalt factor of "fit". For example, the data below could be interpreted to suggest that number of presentations/publications makes a significant difference. But in reality only some sites would look closely at this number and then probably only after many other factors had determined interest for interview/ranking.(eg: maybe students who present/publish also more easily write clear succint compelling essays?) As it is, I think the "hours count" has become a misleading factor in some ways. I am NOT saying that hours of field experience and research work are not important they are-BUT the numbers (as always) are only a part of the story and there is no "guaranteed formula"

I do think that an effort to get regionalized data is a great way to start in analyzing the overall logistical problem and would be informative data just in descriptive statistics. I can't believe some analysis at that level hasn't been done already so it is curious it is not more public.
 
docma said:
I think the geographic data and regional stats would be interesting, valuable and perhaps become a basis for more motivation for schools to develop regional internship consortiums, etc..
Click to expand...

I think it can also be useful to show potential graduate school applicants the true numbers of who goes where. I bring this up because while I believe applicants understand that they may need to match outside of their preferred areas, they may discount the likelihood of it happening. I know when I started I wanted to stay on a coast, and doing a quick search on APPIC showed me a plethora of available sites. At the time I didn't realize the true competitiveness of those sites as it related to my likelihood of landing at one.
 
Yes, I'm sure schools in desirable locations don't advertise how often students need to relocate if they want to be sure of an APA accredited site and APA does not exert enough pressure on schools with lower placement rates to create local internship consortiums.

The military used to be required to provide funds to local school districts that were "impacted" by the presence of base families; I think graduate programs should be required to fund stipends and accreditation fees for local public setting training programs who cannot afford internship cost on their own. Since the schools already know the quality of sites through the practicum training they provide, this would not be that hard to organize.
 
docma said:
Yes, I'm sure schools in desirable locations don't advertise how often students need to relocate if they want to be sure of an APA accredited site and APA does not exert enough pressure on schools with lower placement rates to create local internship consortiums.
Click to expand...

I look at a couple of programs in "less" desirable places, and they sold on training and mentioned relocation as a very likely scenario. Programs in desirable locations highlighted the # of match sites in the area, though downplayed how many non-locals would apply.

As for APA pressure....they should be on quality control and not on meeting increased demands. There has been a strong movement to provide training sites outside of APPIC (particularly in CA), though they lack APA & APPIC acred. AND are usually lack a stipend. While those sites often meet community needs, they do it at the expense of the trainee (literally).

docma said:
The military used to be required to provide funds to local school districts that were "impacted" by the presence of base families; I think graduate programs should be required to fund stipends and accreditation fees for local public setting training programs who cannot afford internship cost on their own. Since the schools already know the quality of sites through the practicum training they provide, this would not be that hard to organize.
Click to expand...

Great idea...but good luck getting programs to do that. Many programs would probably love a local option, but who foots the bill? Most CMHCs have to fight for their money already, and I can't see them shelling out the $ to get APA or APPIC-acred. The documents I linked actually mentioned the fees involved, though they are not inclusive of the cost of lost time, possible staff additions, and facility changes that may be required. Most internship sites run at a loss, so it would be a hard sell to a prospective site to enter into an agreement that almost assures losing money.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Next unread thread

Similar threads

psychologynbooks
APPIC Site Visits - Internship Match
Replies
3
Views
2K
summerbabe
summerbabe
N
Neuropsych Internship chances
Replies
3
Views
783
ihaveanxpsyd
I
B
Research output for matching at neuro internship
Replies
5
Views
771
jdawg2017
J
N
Internship list - too competitive??
Replies
15
Views
2K
ninim
N
D
APPIC Internship Drug Tests
Replies
23
Views
2K
surviving2021
S
Top