Charting Outcomes In The Match - Doctajay
Charting Outcomes in the MatchCharacteristics of Applicants Who Matched to Their PreferredSpecialty in the 2009 Main Residency Match3rd EditionPrepared by:National Resident Matching Programand Association of American Medical CollegesAugust 2009www.aamc.orgwww.nrmp.org
Questions about the contents of this publication may be directed to Julia I. Raether, Director ofResearch, National Resident Matching Program, (202) 778-4773 or jraether@aamc.org.Questions about the NRMP should be directed to Mona Signer, Executive Director, NationalResident Matching Program, (202) 828-0629 or msigner@aamc.org.Questions about the AAMC data collections may be directed to Paul Jolly, Ph.D., Senior Director,Association of American Medical Colleges, (202) 828-0257 or pjolly@aamc.org.The work of Philip Szenas in the preparation of this report is gratefully acknowledged.Copyright 2009 National Resident Matching Program and theAssociation of American Medical Colleges. All materials subject to this copyright may bephotocopied for the purpose of nonprofit, scientific, or educational advancement.
2009Table of ContentsIntroduction. iiTables and Charts for All SpecialtiesChart 1. Active Applicants in the 2009 Main Residency Match .2Table 1. Number of Applicants and Positions in the 2009 Main Residency Match.3Chart 2. Ratio - Applicants Ranking Specialty First / Available Positions .4Chart 3. Match Rates .5Table 2. Summary Statistics .6Chart 4. Median Number of Contiguous Ranks .7Chart 5. Mean Number of Different Specialties Ranked.8Chart 6. USMLE Step 1 Scores of Matched Applicants .9Chart 7. USMLE Step 2 Scores of Matched Applicants .10Chart 8. Mean Number of Research Experiences.11Chart 9. Mean Number of Abstracts, Presentations, and Publications.12Chart 10. Mean Number of Work Experiences .13Chart 11. Mean Number of Volunteer Experiences .14Chart 12. Percentage of U.S. Allopathic Seniors Who are Members of AOA.15Chart 13. Percentage of U.S. Allopathic Seniors Graduating from One of the 40 Medical Schoolswith the Highest NIH Funding .16Chart 14. Percentage of Matched U.S. Allopathic Seniors Who Have a Graduate Degree.17Tables and Charts for Individual SpecialtiesAnesthesiology .18Dermatology .31Diagnostic Radiology .44Emergency Medicine.57Family Medicine.70General Surgery.83Internal Medicine .96Internal Medicine/Pediatrics.109Neurology.122Neurosurgery .135Obstetrics and Gynecology .148Orthopaedic Surgery.161Otolaryngology.174Pathology-Anatomic and Clinical .187Pediatrics .200Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation .213Plastic Surgery.226Psychiatry .239Radiation Oncology.252Transitional Year .265Copyright 2009 NRMP and AAMC. Copies may be madefor educational or noncommercial uses only.iCharting Outcomes in the Match, 2009
2009IntroductionThe first edition of Charting Outcomes in the Match waspublished in August 2006 using data from the 2005 MainResidency Match. The second edition, published in August2007 and based on the 2007 Match, built on the original reportby adding two specialties (Otolaryngology and Neurology),incorporating several additional measures, and conductingregression analyses to predict match success.Although some other measures seemed to be related to matchsuccess for some specialties, the relationships were not consistentenough to draw broad conclusions across specialties. In addition,the data sources used for Charting Outcomes do not include otherimportant applicant factors such as course evaluations, referenceletters, and the Medical School Performance Evaluation.Despite the fairly strong relationship between USMLE Stepscores and match success, the distributions of scores show thatprogram directors consider other qualifications, and a high scoreis not a guarantee of success. Even in the most competitivespecialties a few individuals with higher scores are notsuccessful. Neither is a lower score a bar to success. In the lesscompetitive specialties, U.S. seniors with scores slightly abovepassing usually match to their preferred specialties.The 2009 report is based on the 2009 Match and includes onenew specialty (Neurological Surgery) and two new measures(number of work and volunteer experiences). For this edition,the regression analyses have been replaced with two graphs foreach specialty showing the relationship between the number ofcontiguous programs ranked (number of programs in the firstchoice specialty before another specialty appears on the rankorder list) and USMLE Step 1 scores and the probability ofmatching to the preferred specialty. These changes shouldprovide more useful information for applicants and advisors asthey prepare for the Match.The data also are reassuring because they indicate that at leastsome programs do not employ an arbitrary cutoff or decline toconsider applicants with less than excellent test performance.The data in this report support the following straightforwardadvice one should give to an applicant.For the purposes of this report, match success is defined as amatch to the specialty of the applicant’s first-ranked program,because that is assumed to be the specialty of choice. Lack ofsuccess includes matching to another specialty as well as failureto match at all. No distinction was made based on whetherapplicants matched to their first, second, third, or last choice. Rank all of the programs you really want, without regard toyour estimate of your chances with those programs. Include a mix of both highly competitive and lesscompetitive programs within your preferred specialty. Include all of the programs on your list where the programhas expressed an interest in you and where you would accepta position. If you are applying to a competitive specialty and you wouldwant to have a residency position in the event you areunsuccessful in matching to a program in your preferredspecialty, also rank your most preferred programs in analternate specialty. Include all of your qualifications in your application, butknow that you do not have to be AOA, to have the highestUSMLE scores, to have publications, or to have participatedin research projects to match successfully.Combining data from the NRMP, the database of AAMC’sElectronic Residency Application Service (ERAS), USMLEscores made available by the National Board of MedicalExaminers (NBME) and the Educational Commission forForeign Medical Graduates (ECFMG), and other AAMC datasources, we identified twelve applicant characteristics. NBMEand ECFMG have granted permission to use USMLE scores,and the National Resident Matching Program and theAssociation of American Medical Colleges have collaborated toproduce this report.Because graduating seniors from U.S. allopathic medical schoolsmatch at higher rates than do other applicant groups, andbecause some of those groups contain small numbers ofapplicants, this report distinguishes only two types of applicants:U.S. seniors and independent applicants. 1 It should be noted,however, that the independent applicant category is aheterogeneous group. Moreover, because independent applicantsmatch to their preferred specialties at much lower rates than doU.S. seniors, the specialty-specific probability graphs forindependent applicants are less predictive of success.Program directors and applicants will find the tables and chartsfor the specialty of their particular interest later in this report.For questions, comments or more information, please contact:Julia I. Raether, Director of ResearchNational Resident Matching ProgramTel: (202) 778-4773Email: jraether@aamc.orgOrPaul P. Jolly, Ph.D., Senior Director, Special StudiesAssociation of American Medical CollegesTel: (202) 828-0629Email: pjolly@aamc.orgSummarySome general observations apply to all of the specialties in thisreport. Applicants who are successful in matching to theirpreferred specialty are more likely to: Rank more programs within their preferred specialty Be U.S. seniors Have higher USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 scores Be members of AOA1Independent appl icants are defi ned on page 2.Copyright 2009 NRMP and AAMC. Copies may be madefor educational or noncommercial uses only.iiCharting Outcomes in the Match, 2009
Tables and Charts for All SpecialtiesCopyright 2009 NRMP and AAMC. Copies may be madefor educational or noncommercial uses only.1Charting Outcomes in the Match, 2009
Chart1Active Applicants in the 2009 Main Residency Matchby Applicant TypeStudents/Graduates ofFifth PathwayProgramsStudents/Graduatesof OsteopathicMedical Schools2,013106U.S. CitizenStudents/Graduates ofInternational MedicalSchoolsStudents/Graduates ofCanadian MedicalSchools353,390Non-U.S. CitizenStudents/Graduatesof InternationalMedical Schools7,484Seniors of U.S.Allopathic MedicalSchools15,638Previous Graduates ofU.S. AllopathicMedical Schools1,222Chart 1 shows the number of active applicants (applicants who submitted rank order lists of programs) byapplicant type . U.S. allopathic medical school seniors constitute 52.3 percent of the applicants in this report.The next largest group is non-U.S. citizen students and graduates of international medical schools (25.0%). Forthe remainder of this report, all applicants who are not U.S. allopathic seniors will be grouped into the"independent applicants" category.Copyright 2009 NRMP and AAMC. Copies may be madefor educational or noncommercial uses only.2Charting Outcomes in the Match, 2009
Table1Number of Applicants and Positions in the 2009 Main Residency Matchby Preferred SpecialtyPreferred umber ofNumber of ApplicantsApplicants Per PositionU.S. SeniorsMatchedNotMatchedIndependent 385671.726414747109Emergency Medicine1,5151,8171.21,128117308264Family Medicine2,5353,3021.31,040239731,266Internal l 3195DermatologyObstetrics and Gynecology3561,1851,5961.487467284371Orthopaedic 260661037Pathology-Anatomic and 21,63192574500Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation3704791.313536156152Plastic 38371511Diagnostic Radiology1,0951,4771.4829257124267Radiation 50Internal Medicine/Pediatrics3543931.1238148061Transitional Year9813250.3193681549General Surgery*Preferred specialty is the specialty ranked first on an applicant's rank order list, excluding preliminary programs in specialties except Transitional Year.Note: Only integrated Plastic Surgery programs participate in the National Resident Matching Program.For those specialties where both exist, PGY-1 and PGY-2 positions have been combinedSource: NRMP Data Warehouse.Table 1 provides a summary of the numbers of applicants and positions for selected specialties. Only thosespecialties offering 50 or more positions are included. The numbers of applicants matched by applicant type (U.S.senior and independent applicants) also are provided in this table.Copyright 2009 NRMP and AAMC. Copies may be madefor educational or noncommercial uses only.3Charting Outcomes in the Match, 2009
Chart2Ratio - Applicants Ranking Specialty First / Available Positionsby Preferred Specialty2.00.9Independent ApplicantsU.S. nrm ogyoaEm stic tolR ogerge a d yioncloygFa Me ydimciilyM neGeener diciInneatern Inte l SualrnMal rgeedryMicediNiceu ne/Pe inerodiloatgicarObsl S icsteurtrigecsNeu ryanrodOlorth Gyne gyopcoaelodigcSu yOtola rgeryrng yolPa ogytholoPhPe gyysdiaticalrM icsPledasitic cinSu ergRPs eryadyciatiohiatnryOTran ncositio logna ylYear0.0Source: NRMP Data WarehouseChart 2 shows the ratios of U.S. seniors and independent applicants to available positions in each specialty. Allspecialties except Dermatology, General Surgery, Neurological Surgery, Orthopaedic Surgery, and Otolaryngology haveenough positions to accommodate all U.S. seniors who prefer that specialty. As the number of applicants has increased inrecent years, fewer specialties have offered enough positions for all applicants who prefer that specialty.Copyright 2009 NRMP and AAMC. Copies may be madefor educational or noncommercial uses only.4Charting Outcomes in the Match, 2009
Chart3Match RatesPercent Matched by Preferred Specialty and Applicant TypeU.S. Seniors1009891948076749493959487806094Independent 42414233302451 SuOrgtoerlayryngologyPathologyPePhdiatysr cTrolanogsiytionalYear0Source: NRMP Data Warehouse.Chart 3 shows the percentages of U.S. seniors and independent applicants who matched to their preferred specialty.Overall, 87.3 percent U.S. seniors matched to their preferred specialty, ranging from a high of 97.8 percent (FamilyMedicine) to a low of 52.8 percent (Plastic Surgery). For independent applicants, the overall match rate was 42.3 percent,ranging from a high of 56.7 percent (Internal Medicine/Pediatrics) to a low of 21.3 percent (Otolaryngology). In general,independent applicants are less successful in matching to their preferred specialty than are U.S. seniors.Copyright 2009 NRMP and AAMC. Copies may be madefor educational or noncommercial uses only.5Charting Outcomes in the Match, 2009
Table2Summary StatisticsAll Specialties CombinedU.S. SeniorsMatched(n 13,516)Measure1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9.10.11.12.Mean number of contiguous ranksMean number of distinct specialties rankedMean USMLE Step 1 scoreMean USMLE Step 2 scoreMean number of research experiencesMean number of abstracts, presentations, andpublicationsMean number of work experiencesMean number of volunteer experiencesPercentage who are AOA membersPercentage who graduated from one of the 40 U.S.medical schools with the highest NIH fundingPercentage who have Ph.D. degreePercentage who have another graduate degreeIndependent ApplicantsUnmatched(n 1,961)Matched(n 5,979)Unmatched(n /an/an/a: The measure either does not apply to, applies to only a small percentage of, or no reliable data were available for independent applicants.Sources. Measures 1, 2, and match outcome are from the NRMP Data Warehouse; measures 3 and 4 are from the AAMC Data Warehouse and fromthe ECFMG, both by permission of the NBME and ECFMG; measures 5-9 are from the AAMC Data Warehouse; measure 10 is from the NIH teDate.cfm Medical Schools Only.xls); and measures 11 and 12 are from the AAMC Data Warehouse.Note: USMLE Step 1 scores are not available for most osteopathic medical school graduates included in the independent applicant group.Approximately 30 percent of U.S. allopathic medical school seniors do not take the USMLE Step 2 prior to the Match.Table 2 provides summary statistics by applicant type and match outcome on the 12 measures presented in this report.Data on each of these measures will be displayed graphically by preferred specialty on the following pages. Of the 12measures, only the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1 and Step 2 scores had significantmissing data. Overall, there were Step 1 scores for 92.9 percent of applicants. Almost all of the applicants who didnot have Step 1 scores were osteopathic medical school seniors and graduates who either take an alternativeexamination (the Comprehensive Osteopathic Medical Licensing Examination, or COMLEX-USA) or who take theUSMLE exams but whose data are not shared with the AAMC. Step 2 scores were available for 79.0 percent of theapplicants. In addition to missing Step 2 scores for the osteopathic applicants, only 73.2 percent of U.S. seniors hadStep 2 scores. The missing data for U.S. seniors can be attributed to the fact that few medical schools require studentsto take and/or pass the Step 2 examination prior to the NRMP's rank order list deadline.Copyright 2009 NRMP and AAMC. Copies may be madefor educational or noncommercial uses only.6Charting Outcomes in the Match, 2009
Chart4Median Number of Contiguous Ranksby Preferred Specialty, Applicant Type, and Match StatusU.S. Seniors1412Matched121012108981066451210964Not logyPathologyPediPhatysricicsalMedicPlinaset ar0Independent Applicants14MatchedNot 311 inaset ar06Source: NRMP Data WarehouseIn general, applicants are more likely to be successful if they rank more programs in their desired specialty. To quantify thisaspect of applicant behavior, we tallied the number of programs ranked in the first-choice specialty before a program inanother specialty appeared on the applicant's rank order list.Chart 4 provides the median number of contiguous ranks by preferred specialty for U.S. seniors and independent applicantswho matched and did not match. The top panel shows significant variation across the specialties for U.S. seniors.Neurological Surgery had the longest average contiguous rank list for matched U.S. seniors (13) and Family Medicine (6)and Transitional Year (2) had the shortest. In general, U.S. senior applicants who preferred the more competitive specialtiessubmitted longer contiguous lists. For all specialties except Neurology, Pediatrics, and Physical Medicine andRehabilitation, U.S. seniors who matched to their preferred specialty had median contiguous rank lists that were longer thanU.S. seniors who did not match.A similar pattern can be found for independent applicants, although their lists are shorter than the lists submitted by U.S.seniors. Independent applicants who matched had longer contiguous lists compared with independent applicants who did notmatch to their preferred specialty.The principal message of these graphs is that applicants with longer rank order lists are more successful than those withshorter ones. The NRMP has been recommending longer list for many years, but some applicants apparently do not heedthe advice. Others may have shorter lists because they found only a few programs willing to entertain their applications orbecause they could not afford a large number of interview trips.Copyright 2009 NRMP and AAMC. Copies may be madefor educational or noncommercial uses only.7Charting Outcomes in the Match, 2009
Chart5Mean Number of Different Specialties Rankedby Preferred Specialty, Applicant Type, and Match StatusU.S. .4Not cPlinaset ar0.0Independent ApplicantsMatched2.52.5Not yPathologyPediPhatysricicsalMedicPlinaset ar0.0Source: NRMP Data WarehouseSome applicants are interested in a single specialty while others consider two or more. Chart 5 displays the averagenumber of different specialties ranked by applicant type, preferred specialty, and match outcome.The top chart shows the data for U.S. seniors. In general, seniors who preferred the more competitive specialties weremore likely to rank more than one specialty. For almost all specialties, seniors who did not match to their preferredspecialty were more likely to rank more than one specialty compared to seniors who matched.A similar pattern can be seen for the independent applicants, although on average they were more likely to rank more thanone specialty when compared with U.S. seniors.Copyright 2009 NRMP and AAMC. Copies may be madefor educational or noncommercial uses only.8Charting Outcomes in the Match, 2009
Chart6USMLE Step 1 Scores of Matched Applicantsby Preferred Specialty and Applicant TypeU.S. nt s: NRMP Data Warehouse and AAMC Data Warehouse. USMLE scores by permission of the NBME and ECFMG.Note: Step 1 scores are not available for the majority of Osteopathic seniors and graduates included within the independent applicant category.Source: NRMP Data Warehouse and AAMC Data Warehouse. USMLE scores by permission of the NBME and ECFMG.USMLE Step 1 scores are a measure of a student’s understanding of important basic science concepts and the ability toapply that knowledge to the practice of medicine. Although such knowledge is only one facet of applicant qualificationsconsidered by program directors in their selection process, it is the only one that is comparable across applicants, andavailable during the interview season and prior to the NRMP’s ranking deadline. Overall, U.S. senior applicants have meanUSMLE Step 1 scores of 224.3 (s.d. 19.6) and independent applicants have mean scores of 211.0 (s.d. 19.7), both wellabove the minimum passing score of 182.Chart 6 displays the median Step 1 scores for matched U.S. seniors (top panel) and independent applicants (bottom panel)by specialty. The horizontal bars are the median values for successful applicants and the vertical lines show the interquartileranges (the range of scores for applicants excluding the top and bottom quarters of the distribution). Scores generally arehigher for the more competitive specialties, but there is substantial overlap when specialties are compared.In general, U.S. seniors who matched to their preferred specialty have median Step 1 scores that are higher than those ofindependent applicants who matched, but there are a few exceptions. Independent applicants who matched in RadiationOncology, General Surgery, Internal Medicine, and Neurology had equivalent median Step 1 scores when compared withmatched U.S. seniors.Copyright 2009 NRMP and AAMC. Copies may be madefor educational or noncommercial uses only.9Charting Outcomes in the Match, 2009
Chart7USMLE Step 2 Scores of Matched Applicantsby Preferred Specialty and Applicant TypeU.S. ologyPediPhatysricicsalMedicPlinaset ar180Independent athologyPediPhatysricicsalMedicPlinaset ar180Sources: NRMP Data Warehouse and AAMC Data Warehouse. USMLE scores by permission of the NBME and ECFMG.Note: Approximately 30 percent of U.S. seniors did not take the Step 2 examination in time to be included in this report. Step 2 scores are notavailable for the majority of Osteopathic seniors and graduates included within the independent applicant category.Source: NRMP Data Warehouse and AAMC Data Warehouse. USMLE scores by permission of the NBME and ECFMG.USMLE Step 2 scores are a measure of an applicant's ability to apply the medical knowledge, skills, and understanding ofclinical science essential for providing patient care. Overall, U.S. senior applicants had mean USMLE step 2 scores of229.7 (s.d. 21.8) and independent applicants had mean scores of 213.4 (s.d. 21.3), both well above the minimum passingscore of 182.Chart 7 shows the median Step 2 scores for matched U.S. seniors (top panel) and independent applicants (bottom panel) whomatched by preferred specialty. The horizontal bars are the median values for successful applicants and the vertical linesshow the interquartile ranges. As was the case for the Step 1 scores, the more competitive specialties have higher averageStep 2 scores.For some specialties
Charting Outcomes in the Match, 2009 2009 Introduction The first edition of Charting Outcomes in the Match was published in August 2006 using data from the 2005 Main Residency Match. The second edition, published in August 2007 and based on the 2007 Match, built on the original report by adding two specialties (Otolaryngology and Neurology),
May 02, 2018 · D. Program Evaluation ͟The organization has provided a description of the framework for how each program will be evaluated. The framework should include all the elements below: ͟The evaluation methods are cost-effective for the organization ͟Quantitative and qualitative data is being collected (at Basics tier, data collection must have begun)
Silat is a combative art of self-defense and survival rooted from Matay archipelago. It was traced at thé early of Langkasuka Kingdom (2nd century CE) till thé reign of Melaka (Malaysia) Sultanate era (13th century). Silat has now evolved to become part of social culture and tradition with thé appearance of a fine physical and spiritual .
On an exceptional basis, Member States may request UNESCO to provide thé candidates with access to thé platform so they can complète thé form by themselves. Thèse requests must be addressed to esd rize unesco. or by 15 A ril 2021 UNESCO will provide thé nomineewith accessto thé platform via their émail address.
̶The leading indicator of employee engagement is based on the quality of the relationship between employee and supervisor Empower your managers! ̶Help them understand the impact on the organization ̶Share important changes, plan options, tasks, and deadlines ̶Provide key messages and talking points ̶Prepare them to answer employee questions
Dr. Sunita Bharatwal** Dr. Pawan Garga*** Abstract Customer satisfaction is derived from thè functionalities and values, a product or Service can provide. The current study aims to segregate thè dimensions of ordine Service quality and gather insights on its impact on web shopping. The trends of purchases have
Chính Văn.- Còn đức Thế tôn thì tuệ giác cực kỳ trong sạch 8: hiện hành bất nhị 9, đạt đến vô tướng 10, đứng vào chỗ đứng của các đức Thế tôn 11, thể hiện tính bình đẳng của các Ngài, đến chỗ không còn chướng ngại 12, giáo pháp không thể khuynh đảo, tâm thức không bị cản trở, cái được
Charting Outcomes in the Match 2018. Probability of Matching by Number of Programs Ranked. Distribution of USMLE Step Scores. Numbers of programs students rank Charting Outcomes in the Match NRMP 2018 2016 2018. Is it important to be AOA? Charting Outcomes in the Match
Abrasive water jet (AWJ) machining has been known for over 40 years. It was introduced, described and presented by Hashish [1]. It is often used to cut either semi-finished products or even final products, namely from plan-parallel plates of material. Nevertheless, applications of abrasive water jets for milling [2], turning [3], grinding [4] or polishing [5] are tested more and more often .
