What is a good minimum APA-internship match rate?

[cautious_optimism]

---

Members do not see this ad.

What should I be looking for in terms of APA-internship match rates when choosing programs?

Is there a minimum average % match rate I should be looking for in the disclose data they have to post on their websites to screen out certain programs?

E.g. One of the programs I'm looking at, University of Illinois - Champaign Urbana, seems like a good program, but its match rate averages about 79% across the years posted and the licensure rate is only 48%.

Is this an acceptable match rate? Is the licensure rate lower than some other programs, because graduates are more likely to go into research and academia than into clinical service? Is anyone familiar with this program specifically and can comment on its quality, in regards to licensure rate, match rate, and the program's training in general?

 

[WisNeuro]

I personally would not consider anything less than 85%. But I am fairly risk averse in this area. None of the places I applied to were under 90%. Not because I chose based on that, but because I was only looking at high quality programs.

 

[deleted343839]

I'd say no less than 80-85%, averaged across 5 years. A flukey year or two against a steady overall trend is OK, especially with small class sizes where 1 non-match can throw things off. The licensure rate depends on other variables so, yeah, I'd look at it in the context of employment settings of recent graduates.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

Related (for those interested): I checked APPIC's site a moment ago, and it looks like they've just (as in yesterday) added the 2015 and 2016 data into their latest 5-year match stats report.

 

[Ollie123]

Generally agree with the above. I might give UIUC a pass and consider it anyways because it is historically considered a pretty strong program and recent rates are based off VERY low Ns (basically - 1 person per year not matching). The fact that it is a combined clinical-community program also makes it slightly aberrant in nature. It would not surprise me if folks heavy on the "community" side struggle more to match just because the nature of the training isn't a good fit with the overwhelming majority of internship sites. That said - just a guess. I have no evidence that is contributing.

 

[PBCocce]

85%+, preferably 90%+.

As others have said, you have a small N. So what this really means is 1 person not matching is okay. More than that is cause for you to look a little further at the program.

 

[glowstick]

85%+, preferably 90%+.

As others have said, you have a small N. So what this really means is 1 person not matching is okay. More than that is cause for you to look a little further at the program.

Right. If only 3 people applied, then you might see a "low" match rate if one doesn't match. And obviously if every year one person isn't matching, that's a slight concern. But if it's just one once in a while, less worrisome, no?

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I'd say 75% at the absolute minimum (ideally 85% or more), though I'd be more interested in seeing the actual # of students and # matching to APA-acred internships. Match %'s to any other kind of site don't matter because APA-acred is the expectation in the field.

 

[ClinicalABA]

In a mentor model program (particularly with a low N), it might be more informative to get data on the students of the specific mentor(s) you might be applying to work with.

 

[foreverbull]

My site had an 100% match rate for 3 or so years, but it dropped quickly and drastically when 4 people out of 14 didn't match in a two-year span. We had such a small "n" applying every year that just one or two people not matching could pull down the percentage a lot. What you need to take into consideration is context. For example, where these non-matchers applied/interviewed. In our program, some people were VERY picky geographically and a little overconfident about their chances of getting an internship site exactly where they wanted it to be due to raising families and inability to relocate. Thus, even if my site match rate dropped below 75%, I still matched fine as did my colleagues who did not severely limit themselves geographically. To people from the outside, the numbers didn't look great the next year or two, but there was good reason for the non-match, and my advisors specifically warned us not to limit ourselves geographically too much.

If a site's match rate is below 75%, don't automatically drop it from your list, but be curious and ask about it. There's always more to the story.

 

[WisNeuro]

One year drop, nbd deal usually. That's why the long-term averages are important. Although, I;d also be looking for trends, several years of declining match rates could signal some trouble.