Internship selection in 1999: Was the Association of Psychology Postdoctoral and Internship Centers' Match a success?

Abstract

This article evaluates the 1st year of operation of the Association of Psychology Postdoctoral and Internship Centers' (APPIQ Matching Program, a computer-based selection process for predoctoral internships, from the perspective of internship applicants, internship training directors, and directors of clinical training. Statistics from the APPIC Match are presented along with the results from surveys that were sent to participants to assess their experiences with the new system. Results revealed a generally high level of satisfaction with the new selection process, along with considerable evidence that the APPIC Match resulted in less stress for participants and a dramatic reduction in violations of APPIC policies. Some limitations and procedural difficulties are reviewed and recommendations for future APPIC Matches are provided.The 1998-99 predoctoral internship selection process, sponsored by the Association of Psychology Postdoctoral and Internship Centers (APPIC), marked the first time that applicants and internship sites were matched entirely by computer. How satisfied were internship training directors, internship applicants, and directors of clinical training with this new process? How successful was the APPIC Match in meeting its goals? Did this new system really help to alleviate the problems of the previous selection system? What changes should be made in future years?The previous internship selection process, in use for more than 25 years, used a "uniform notification day" (UND) system in which offers from internship training directors (ITDs) were tendered to internship applicants over the telephone within a specific time frame (most recently, a 4-hr period on (he second Monday in February), with all acceptances and rejections of offers occurring during this period. This process was governed by a set of guidelines (see Hall, Cantrell, Boggs, & Hercey, 1997) that delineated the process of making, accepting, and rejecting offers and restricted the communication of ranking information among participants.This UND-based system has been described as problematic, subject to bottlenecks and gridlock, encouraging the violation of W. GREGORY KEILIN received his PhD in counseling psychology from

Postdoctoral Recruitment in Neuropsychology: A Review and Call for Inter-Organizational Action

“…On this UND applicants received offers over the phone during a 4-hour period. This system was noted to be vulnerable to rule violations and bottlenecks, and often resulted in a stressful process for both applicants and programs (Keilin, 2000;Roth and Xing, 1997;Stedman, 1997). After the first year of using a centralized match, Keilin (2000) conducted a survey of applicants and training directors.…”

“…This system was noted to be vulnerable to rule violations and bottlenecks, and often resulted in a stressful process for both applicants and programs (Keilin, 2000;Roth and Xing, 1997;Stedman, 1997). After the first year of using a centralized match, Keilin (2000) conducted a survey of applicants and training directors. Keilin's data (2000) suggested a generally high level of satisfaction with the match, less stress reported by applicants, improved outcomes for couples, and a dramatic reduction in perceived ethical violations (e.g., 12% compared to 40% pre-match).…”

Internships in School Psychology: Selection and Accreditation Issues

“…The primary method used to secure doctoral internship placements by students in the United States and Canada is the computer‐based matching process sponsored by APPIC. This process, established in 1999 and known as the “APPIC Match” (Keilin, , ), includes virtually all positions in internship programs accredited by the American Psychological Association (APA) and the Canadian Psychological Association (CPA), along with a number of positions at non‐accredited sites. Thus, the vast majority of students who wish to complete an accredited internship must participate in the APPIC Match.…”

Matching with Couples: Stability and Incentives in Large Markets

“…In the late 1990s, the market evolved from a decentralized one (Roth and Xing 1997) to one employing a centralized clearinghouse, where a key design issue was whether it would be possible to accommodate the presence of couples. Keilin (1998) reports that under the old decentralized system, couples had difficulties coordinating their internship choices. In 1999, clinical psychologists adopted a centralized clearinghouse using an algorithm based on Roth and Peranson (1999), in which couples are allowed to express preferences over hospital pairs.…”

“…In the old, decentralized scheme it was challenging for couples to coordinate their internship choices. Keilin (1998) reports that one partner could be put in the position of having to make an immediate decision about an offer without knowing the status of the other partner. Following the reforms of the NRMP, a new scheme that allowed couples to jointly express their preferences was adopted.…”