results of the 2015 nrmp applicant · pdf fileresults of the 2015 nrmp applicant survey by...

Results of the 2015NRMP Applicant Survey by Preferred Specialty and Applicant Type

www.nrmp.org

September 2015

Requests for permission to use these data, as well as questions about the content of this publication or the National Resident Matching Program data and reports, may be directed to

Mei Liang, Director of Research, NRMP, at [email protected]

Questions about the NRMP should be directed to Mona Signer, President and CEO, NRMP, at [email protected].

Suggested CitationNational Resident Matching Program, Data Release and Research Committee: Results of the 2015 NRMP Applicant Survey by Preferred Specialty and Applicant Type. National Resident Matching

Program, Washington, DC. 2015.

Copyright © 2015 National Resident Matching Program, 2121 K Street, NW, Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20037 USA. All rights reserved. Permission to use, copy, and/or distribute any documentation

and/or related images from this publication shall be expressly obtained from the NRMP.

Table of Contents

Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................... 1 Response Rates ................................................................................................................................................. 2 All Specialties ................................................................................................................................................... 3

Charts for Individual Specialties Anesthesiology .......................................................................................................................................... 14 Child Neurology ........................................................................................................................................ 22 Dermatology .............................................................................................................................................. 30 Emergency Medicine ................................................................................................................................ 38 Family Medicine ........................................................................................................................................ 46 Internal Medicine ...................................................................................................................................... 54 Internal Medicine/Pediatrics ...................................................................................................................... 62 Neurology .................................................................................................................................................. 70 Neurological Surgery................................................................................................................................. 78 Obstetrics and Gynecology ........................................................................................................................ 86 Orthopaedic Surgery .................................................................................................................................. 94 Otolaryngology ........................................................................................................................................ 102 Pathology ................................................................................................................................................. 110 Pediatrics ................................................................................................................................................. 118 Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation ..................................................................................................... 126 Plastic Surgery ......................................................................................................................................... 134 Psychiatry ................................................................................................................................................ 142

Radiation Oncology ................................................................................................................................. 150 Radiology-Diagnostic .............................................................................................................................. 158 Surgery-General ...................................................................................................................................... 166

Introduction

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015

The National Resident Matching Program (NRMP) conducted a survey of all applicants who participated in the 2015 Main Residency Match®. Similar surveys were conducted in 2008, 2009, 2011, and 2013.

The primary purpose of the survey was to elucidate the factors applicants weigh in applying to and ranking programs. The survey was fielded during the 18 days between the Rank Order List Deadline and Match Week so that applicant Match outcomes would not influence respondents' answers.

The survey was sent to all applicants who certified a rank order list (ROL) by the Rank Order List Deadline. Some applicants could certify a blank ROL. Between the Rank Order List Deadline and the time when the matching algorithm was processed, however, some applicants still could be withdrawn from the Match. The responses of those who certified a blank rank order list and those who were withdrawn from the Match were not included in this report.

This report presents survey results by preferred specialty and applicant type. Preferred specialty is defined as the specialty listed first on an applicant's ROL. Applicant type includes U.S. allopathic medical school seniors and independent applicants. Independent applicants include prior allopathic medical school graduates, U.S. citizen and non-U.S. citizen students and graduates of international medical schools, students and graduates of schools of osteopathy, students and graduates of Canadian medical schools, and graduates of the Fifth Pathway program.

Changes from Previous ReportsThis year, several changes were made to the survey questionnaire. In previous surveys, applicants were asked to indicate factors used in selecting programs for application and to rate the importance in selecting programs for ranking. In the 2015 survey, both questions were expanded. Applicants were asked about the factors that influenced both application and ranking choices, and the relative importance of each of those factors.

Additional attributes were introduced in the 2015 survey. "Quality of ambulatory care facilities," "overall goodness of fit," "having friends at the program," and "support network in the area" were added to the list of factors used in selecting programs for application. The above four factors and "interview day experience" were added to the list of factors used in selecting programs for ranking.

ResultsOverall, geographic location, reputation of program, and perceived goodness of fit topped the list of factors that applicants considered most when applying to programs. When ranking programs, the newly added overall goodness of fit became the number one consideration. Applicants also valued such factors as career path, future fellowship training opportunities, housestaff morale, and work/life balance. Although there was commonality among all applicants, differences were observed among specialties. For example, applicants who applied to Family Medicine and Internal Medicine programs were more interested in future fellowship training opportunities, but the opportunity to conduct certain procedures was of more importance to applicants to Neurological Surgery programs.

The median number of applications submitted by independent applicants was much higher than for U.S. seniors, but U.S. seniors obtained more interviews than did independent applicants. It also is worth noting that even though matched applicants did not apply to more programs, they attended more interviews and thus were able to rank more programs than unmatched applicants. The greatest number of applications was submitted to Orthopaedic Surgery, Otolaryngology, Dermatology, Plastic Surgery, and Neurological Surgery; however, the numbers of interviews obtained and programs ranked in those specialties were comparable to other specialties.

The NRMP hopes that program directors, medical school officials, and applicants find these data useful as they prepare for and participate in the Match.

_________________________The NRMP's data reporting and research activities are guided by its Data Release and Research Committee. NRMP data and reports can be found at: www.nrmp.org/data/ <http://www.nrmp.org/data/>.

1

Yes No Yes No

Anesthesiology 547 598 47.8% 303 406 42.7%Child Neurology 48 33 59.3% 30 34 46.9%

Dermatology 236 232 50.4% 49 114 30.1%Emergency Medicine 706 829 46.0% 284 333 46.0%

Family Medicine 699 677 50.8% 1010 1732 36.8%Internal Medicine 1740 1822 48.8% 3061 2920 51.2%

Internal Medicine/Pediatrics 197 153 56.3% 57 62 47.9%Neurological Surgery 132 118 52.8% 26 61 29.9%

Neurology 208 208 50.0% 262 243 51.9%Obstetrics and Gynecology 576 558 50.8% 239 281 46.0%

Orthopaedic Surgery 425 453 48.4% 42 110 27.6%Otolaryngology 207 157 56.9% 14 30 31.8%

Pathology 150 139 51.9% 224 229 49.4%Pediatrics 1074 892 54.6% 673 606 52.6%

Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 101 122 45.3% 124 209 37.2%Plastic Surgery 73 89 45.1% 15 14 51.7%

Psychiatry 354 457 43.6% 486 686 41.5%Radiation Oncology 94 98 49.0% 5 31 13.9%

Radiology-Diagnostic 281 370 43.2% 196 246 44.3%Surgery-General 547 562 49.3% 284 497 36.4%

All Other 130 136 48.9% 73 87 45.6%

No Preferred Specialty 229 555 29.2% 289 303 48.8%Total (All specialties) 8754 9258 49.4% 7746 9234 45.6%

Response Rate

Independent ApplicantsCompleted Survey Completed Survey

U.S. Seniors

Response Rate

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015 2

Response RatesIn the 2015 Applicant Survey, 35,713 electronic surveys were sent, and 16,500 complete or partial reponses were received. After excluding respondents who were withdrawn after the Rank Order List Deadline (62), he overall response rate was 47.5 percent for the 20 largest preferred specialties detailed in this report, as well as for all specialties combined. Response rates varied by specialty and applicant type (see table below). Specialties with 50 or fewer responses were excluded from this report.

All Specialties Combined


All SpecialtiesPercent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application

4

Figure 1

NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015

Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.54.24.74.54.44.54.34.43.74.33.94.54.14.14.24.44.13.63.84.24.04.13.93.94.03.83.93.64.23.93.73.43.53.53.73.43.73.73.63.83.8

100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%

87%83%80%70%68%68%64%64%58%57%57%56%56%55%53%53%52%52%52%50%48%43%34%33%33%29%29%28%26%25%24%24%22%21%18%15%15%13%7%5%5%

Geographic locationReputation of program

Perceived goodness of fitQuality of residents in program

Academic medical center programQuality of educational curriculum and training

Work/life balanceQuality of facultySize of program

Quality of program directorSocial and recreational opportunities of the area

House staff moraleFuture fellowship training opportunities

Career paths of recent program graduatesSupport network in the area

Preparation for fellowship trainingBalance between supervision and responsibility**

Cost of livingQuality of hospital facilities

Diversity of patient problemsProgram's flexibility to pursue electives and interests

Opportunity to conduct researchAvailability of electronic health records

Size of patient caseloadCultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location

Quality of ancillary support staffOpportunities to perform specific procedures

Call scheduleABMS board pass rates

Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institutionOpportunity for international experience

SalaryVacation/parental/sick leave

Having friends at the programCommunity-based setting

Supplemental income (moonlighting) opportunitiesQuality of ambulatory care facilities

Opportunities for training in systems-based practiceAlternative duty hours

Other BenefitsPresence of a previous match violation

Percent Citing Factor Average Rating

All SpecialtiesPercent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application

Figure 1

5NRMP Applicant Survey Results, 2015

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.24.24.64.44.34.54.24.43.84.43.84.44.34.14.14.44.23.84.14.24.04.13.94.04.04.04.13.84.44.03.73.63.73.83.93.63.94.03.74.14.14.3

100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%

66%60%54%56%50%55%48%54%47%46%33%38%50%42%32%44%44%39%50%47%39%41%29%29%30%24%29%23%29%36%20%23%19%24%32%13%16%24%

9%6%5%

16%





















H-1B visa sponsorship

Average RatingPercent Citing Factor


Figure 2

All SpecialtiesPercent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Ranking Programs


1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.84.54.54.64.34.54.64.44.64.34.44.44.24.34.23.83.94.14.23.84.14.24.23.93.94.13.73.94.14.14.03.53.83.63.93.73.93.63.93.83.83.9

100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%

87%81%80%74%71%66%63%62%62%61%56%49%48%47%47%47%46%45%44%43%42%42%39%29%26%26%26%25%23%22%22%21%20%17%14%13%13%11%

8%4%4%4%

Overall goodness of fitInterview day experience

Geographic locationQuality of residents in program

Reputation of programQuality of faculty

House staff moraleQuality of program director

Quality of educational curriculum and trainingWork/life balance

Academic medical center programPreparation for fellowship training


Balance between supervision and responsibility**Size of program

Quality of hospital facilitiesSocial and recreational opportunities of the area

Future fellowship training opportunitiesCost of living

Program's flexibility to pursue electives and interestsDiversity of patient problems

Opportunity to conduct researchSize of patient caseload

Availability of electronic health recordsCultural/racial/ethnic diversity of geographic location

Call scheduleQuality of ancillary support staff

Cultural/racial/ethnic/gender diversity at institutionABMS board pass rates

Opportunities to perform specific proceduresSalary

Opportunity for international experienceVacation/parental/sick leave

Quality of ambulatory care facilitiesHaving friends at the program

Community-based settingSupplemental income (moonlighting) opportunities

Opportunities for training in systems-based practiceAlternative duty hours in program




Figure 2

All SpecialtiesPercent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Ranking Programs


1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.74.64.44.44.34.44.54.54.64.34.44.44.24.24.33.94.23.94.43.94.14.34.24.04.14.13.94.14.14.34.23.83.93.84.23.94.13.74.13.94.14.14.4

100% 80% 60% 40% 20%0%

68%67%58%53%52%52%37%47%49%43%41%41%35%27%37%38%43%25%43%33%31%37%35%24%22%23%19%20%25%27%24%19%13%14%13%17%21%

9%17%

6%3%5%

13%

























All SpecialtiesPercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type

Figure 3


0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

I ranked the programs in order of my preferences

I ranked all programs that I was willing to attend

I ranked all programs at which I interviewed

I ranked a mix of both competitive and lesscompetitive programs

I ranked one or more less competitive program(s)in my preferred specialty as a "safety net"

I ranked one or more program(s) in an alternativespecialty as a "fall-back" plan

I ranked the programs based on the likelihood ofmatching (most likely first, etc.)

I ranked one or more program(s) where I appliedbut did not interview

92%

76%

69%

64%

47%

6%

5%

2%

75%

53%

69%

32%

23%

12%

17%

6%

U.S. Senior Independent Applicant

All SpecialtiesMedian Number of Applications, Interviews and Programs Ranked By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*

Figure 4

*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs, excluding preliminary programs).


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Median number ofapplications submitted

Median number ofinterviews offered

Median number ofinterviews attended

Median number ofprograms ranked

30

1612 12

54

6 6 6

Matched Not Matched

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Median number ofapplications submitted




75

9 8 8

68

2 2 2

Matched Not Matched

U.S. Seniors

Independent Applicants

Figure 5All SpecialtiesLikelihood to Pursue a Strategy If Applicant Did Not MatchBy Applicant Type and Match Outcome*


1 2 3 4 5

Participate in SOAP for a position in my preferredspecialty

Participate in SOAP for a preliminary year positionand re-enter the Match next year

Pursue research and re-enter the Match next year

Participate in SOAP for a position in a lesscompetitive back-up specialty

Re-enter the Match next year

Delay graduation and re-enter the Match next year

Pursue a graduate degree

Pursue non-clinical training

Pursue graduate medical education training outsidethe U.S.

4.2

3.1

2.8

2.3

1.9

1.9

1.8

1.7

1.1

4.1

3.5

2.9

2.8

1.9

1.8

1.7

1.8

1.1

Matched Not Matched

1 2 3 4 5










4.5

3.2

3.1

2.8

1.8

1.7

1.6

1.6

1.6

4.4

3.6

3.4

3.3

2.2

2.1

1.8

1.7

1.6

Matched Not Matched

U.S. Seniors


*Match outcome is based on preferred specialty (i.e., specialty listed first on rank order list of programs, excluding preliminary programs).Likelihood is measured on a scale of 5 where 5="extremely likely" and 1="not at all likely"

Figure 6All SpecialtiesApplications, Interviews, Offers, and Ranks in Preferred Specialty†


†Self-reported data

The boxes in a boxplot represent the interquartile range (or IQR, which is the range between the 25th and 75th percentiles) and the line in the box is the median. The upper bound of the whisker is the upper fence, which is 1.5 IQR above the 75% percentile; the lower bound of the whisker is the lower fence, which is 1.5 IQR below the 25th percentile. The circles and asterisks below and above the whiskers are outliers and extreme values. Scales in these graphs are adjusted to show a close-up of the boxplots. Some extreme values and outliers are not shown in the graphs.

Number of Applications Submitted by Applicants Number of Interviews Offered to Applicants

Number of Interviews Attended by Applicants Number of Programs Ranked by Applicants

Figure 7All SpecialtiesApplications, Interviews, Offers, and Ranks in Preferred Specialty†

By Preferred Specialty

Number of Applications Submitted by Applicants

Number of Interviews Offered to Applicants




OT: OtolaryngologyPA: PathologyPD: Pediatrics (Categorical)PM: Physical Medicine & RehabilitationPS: Plastic Surgery (Integrated)PY: Psychiatry (Categorical)RD: Radiation OncologyRO: Radiology-DiagnosticSG: Surgery (Categorical)

AN: AnesthesiologyCN: Child Neurology DM: Dermatology MP: Medicine/Pediatrics EM: Emergency MedicineFP: Family MedicineIM: Internal Medicine (Categorical)NE: NeurologyNS: Neurological SurgeryOB: Obstetrics-Gynecology

Figure 7All SpecialtiesApplicants' First Choice Specialty†

By Specialty (Cont'd)


Number of Interviews Attended by Applicants

Number of Programs Ranked by Applicants



OS: Orthopedic SurgeryOT: OtolaryngologyPA: PathologyPD: Pediatrics (Categorical)PM: Physical Medicine & RehabilitationPS: Plastic Surgery (Integrated)PY: Psychiatry (Categorical)RD: Radiation OncologyRO: Radiology-DiagnosticSG: Surgery (Categorical)

AN: AnesthesiologyCN: Child Neurology DM: Dermatology MP: Medicine/Pediatrics EM: Emergency MedicineFP: Family MedicineIM: Internal Medicine (Categorical)NE: NeurologyNS: Neurological SurgeryOB: Obstetrics-Gynecology

Anesthesiology


Figure AN-1AnesthesiologyPercent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.64.34.74.54.44.54.44.53.64.34.04.54.14.24.24.34.03.73.94.03.83.73.83.83.93.73.93.74.43.93.53.43.53.53.33.53.53.63.53.53.8

100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%

90%84%79%68%67%67%75%63%56%58%65%58%61%51%53%60%53%59%52%44%43%35%33%29%24%29%35%40%33%15%23%27%24%23%6%

33%4%

13%14%5%6%






















Data are presented in a descending order of percentage of applicants citing each factor for U.S. seniors in all specialties*Ratings on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important)** Appropriate balance between faculty supervision and resident responsibility for patient care


Figure AN-1AnesthesiologyPercent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.24.24.64.44.34.54.44.33.54.44.04.64.24.14.14.34.23.74.04.13.83.63.83.93.83.84.13.84.53.93.63.73.83.93.63.84.04.03.93.84.14.3

100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%

72%66%54%53%55%56%55%56%47%46%37%41%52%41%33%46%42%43%52%39%33%27%24%26%21%23%33%35%32%20%16%25%20%17%11%23%

8%16%10%

5%6%9%

























Figure AN-2AnesthesiologyPercent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Ranking Programs

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.84.54.64.54.44.44.64.44.54.54.44.44.24.34.13.83.84.24.23.84.04.23.93.93.94.13.83.83.94.34.03.53.63.63.63.53.43.53.93.73.44.1

100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%

89%81%84%74%78%65%63%66%62%76%57%61%52%49%47%48%47%53%54%53%35%35%29%26%29%19%35%24%15%32%26%26%21%19%

5%15%

2%27%

7%5%4%5%

























Figure AN-2AnesthesiologyPercent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Ranking Programs

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.74.54.44.44.34.44.54.44.44.44.34.34.24.24.23.84.13.84.33.83.84.03.93.83.73.93.94.03.64.34.23.73.53.84.14.13.63.73.83.93.63.94.4

100% 80% 60% 40% 20%0%

68%63%65%52%57%50%44%50%48%47%46%43%38%31%32%38%41%27%47%39%23%27%22%22%22%15%32%18%15%29%28%18%13%15%

6%13%

5%17%

8%7%3%4%8%


























Figure AN-3AnesthesiologyPercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%









93%

78%

67%

68%

50%

9%

4%

3%

82%

61%

72%

42%

34%

19%

13%

7%



Figure AN-4AnesthesiologyPercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Median number ofapplication submitted




31

1512 11

55

4 36

Matched Not Matched

0

10

20

30

40

50

60





52

8 8 7

40

2 2 2

Matched Not Matched

U.S. Seniors




Figure AN-5

U.S. Seniors


AnesthesiologyLikelihood to Pursue a Strategy If Applicant Did Not Match*By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*

1 2 3 4 5










4.4

3.9

2.5

2.4

1.7

1.8

1.6

1.6

1.1

5.0

4.0

2.3

3.3

1.6

1.4

1.3

1.8

1.0

Matched Not Matched

1 2 3 4 5










4.5

3.8

2.6

2.7

1.4

1.6

1.3

1.5

1.5

4.7

3.5

3.1

3.7

1.7

1.8

1.6

1.5

1.5

Matched Not Matched



Child Neurology


Figure CN-1Child NeurologyPercent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.54.14.44.44.84.54.34.53.64.24.14.54.03.84.24.24.03.84.04.44.14.24.13.84.43.83.03.44.54.53.43.63.72.93.83.53.73.33.53.05.0

100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%

87%83%77%64%77%74%62%66%74%60%53%43%53%51%57%51%43%57%47%45%62%62%32%32%30%28%6%

21%9%

17%15%23%17%19%9%4%

19%11%4%9%2%
























Figure CN-1Child NeurologyPercent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

3.94.14.74.44.84.74.54.53.94.84.04.44.24.13.94.64.23.64.44.34.34.33.64.14.23.84.04.54.34.53.33.73.64.03.53.84.24.22.74.0

3.0100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%

57%73%60%67%60%73%63%80%60%63%33%60%60%43%37%40%57%47%67%63%40%63%33%40%30%20%27%20%13%27%30%20%17%17%13%13%20%33%10%

3%0%

10%

























Figure CN-2Child NeurologyPercent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Ranking Programs

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.94.64.24.54.34.64.84.54.64.44.64.14.44.44.24.04.03.94.23.84.14.44.14.13.83.73.54.04.14.03.73.54.03.64.14.33.52.73.82.73.33.0

100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%

84%82%87%71%71%78%76%78%73%60%78%47%36%47%49%62%56%40%62%56%60%53%60%33%20%24%24%22%33%

9%13%31%11%29%18%

7%4%7%9%7%7%4%

























Figure CN-2Child NeurologyPercent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Ranking Programs

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.74.44.44.64.24.44.64.64.64.24.44.54.05.04.44.24.54.04.33.94.44.64.44.44.34.44.64.24.63.34.33.74.03.64.14.04.73.54.65.0

3.0100% 80% 60% 40% 20%0%

80%57%43%57%70%70%47%60%63%57%60%40%37%13%33%47%60%30%40%37%33%47%53%27%20%27%17%20%30%10%13%23%20%17%23%

7%10%

7%17%

3%0%0%7%


























Figure CN-3Child NeurologyPercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%









95%

84%

70%

66%

52%

5%

5%

0%

86%

62%

66%

41%

21%

24%

10%

7%



Figure CN-4Child NeurologyPercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type

0

10

20

30

40

50

60





2217

12 12

Matched Not Matched

0

10

20

30

40

50





26

107 7

46

5 4 4

Matched Not Matched

U.S. Seniors




Figure CN-5

U.S. Seniors


Child NeurologyLikelihood to Pursue a Strategy If Applicant Did Not Match*By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*

1 2 3 4 5










4.7

2.9

3.4

2.8

1.8

1.9

2.1

1.8

1.2

Matched Not Matched

1 2 3 4 5










4.3

3.2

3.3

2.7

1.9

2.2

1.2

2.0

1.9

3.8

2.6

3.0

2.4

2.1

1.9

1.4

1.7

2.3

Matched Not Matched



Dermatology


Figure DM-1DermatologyPercent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.54.14.84.54.34.64.44.53.84.34.04.54.13.94.24.14.03.73.84.33.84.03.74.04.13.84.03.74.34.13.43.43.43.73.63.23.83.63.34.24.0

100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%

82%75%72%62%57%62%63%66%56%54%49%49%40%46%49%41%46%45%41%51%39%44%28%29%35%24%30%23%15%26%14%15%15%19%12%7%

22%9%6%5%4%
























Figure DM-1DermatologyPercent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.44.04.74.54.44.64.24.53.64.53.74.64.04.14.24.14.23.64.04.24.14.13.54.34.14.24.33.94.33.93.83.64.13.93.84.04.13.93.84.03.55.0

100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%

74%62%72%66%43%62%57%70%43%47%49%49%30%28%40%34%40%38%47%45%36%49%13%23%38%23%34%28%15%23%23%15%21%26%13%13%17%19%11%

4%9%2%

























Figure DM-2DermatologyPercent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Ranking Programs

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.84.54.54.54.44.64.64.54.64.54.44.34.04.44.23.83.94.14.03.83.94.34.13.94.04.23.74.04.14.34.13.63.73.73.94.04.03.64.34.03.54.3

100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%

87%82%79%73%73%75%63%57%70%66%57%42%37%49%50%57%37%46%37%41%46%48%46%36%21%31%22%24%27%12%31%16%14%13%25%14%

8%8%5%4%2%4%

























Figure DM-2DermatologyPercent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Ranking Programs

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.94.64.34.54.24.44.84.74.84.14.44.44.14.04.44.43.94.24.23.74.74.54.14.04.04.03.64.64.24.74.64.13.54.54.53.65.04.34.85.0

4.3

100% 80% 60% 40% 20%0%

72%70%63%63%44%58%30%42%42%37%40%21%23%28%26%30%37%33%21%30%28%28%40%19%14%21%19%16%14%14%23%16%

5%9%

14%19%

5%9%9%2%0%7%0%


























Figure DM-3DermatologyPercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%









92%

73%

85%

52%

30%

25%

7%

7%

54%

54%

74%

23%

3%

8%

21%

8%



Figure DM-4DermatologyPercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type

0

10

20

30

40

50

60





85

10 9 9

95

5 5 5

Matched Not Matched

0

10

20

30

40

50

60





56

5 4 5

60

2 2 3

Matched Not Matched

U.S. Seniors




Figure DM-5

U.S. Seniors


DermatologyLikelihood to Pursue a Strategy If Applicant Did Not Match*By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*

1 2 3 4 5










3.8

3.2

3.3

2.0

2.4

1.6

1.5

1.6

1.0

4.2

2.7

3.3

2.0

3.0

1.6

1.4

2.0

1.1

Matched Not Matched

1 2 3 4 5










4.1

2.2

3.2

2.0

1.5

1.5

1.3

1.7

1.9

4.2

2.9

3.5

1.9

1.6

1.7

1.3

1.8

2.2

Matched Not Matched



Emergency Medicine


Figure EM-1Emergency MedicinePercent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.54.04.74.53.94.54.44.43.54.34.14.63.63.94.13.94.13.73.84.33.93.73.74.04.03.83.93.84.23.83.83.33.53.53.73.53.73.83.73.93.4

100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%

91%83%82%72%53%67%75%66%41%64%64%56%40%52%54%34%54%58%53%58%53%24%28%30%36%33%36%15%14%26%32%27%22%18%22%26%5%9%9%6%5%
























Figure EM-1Emergency MedicinePercent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.44.04.74.54.04.54.34.43.54.33.84.43.73.84.13.94.23.84.04.33.83.73.83.94.03.94.33.74.33.93.63.43.73.43.63.33.63.73.84.14.13.7

100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%

80%67%71%67%41%58%58%62%44%51%45%48%39%36%40%29%49%43%57%52%41%20%31%36%24%30%41%19%20%19%27%33%24%23%21%31%

9%19%10%

8%3%2%

























Figure EM-2Emergency MedicinePercent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Ranking Programs

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.84.54.64.54.14.44.54.44.64.44.04.04.04.34.23.63.84.23.73.84.14.33.93.93.84.13.94.03.94.04.13.53.93.63.93.63.83.73.83.73.93.9

100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%

90%83%83%77%70%69%61%68%62%70%42%28%42%46%50%34%46%52%27%47%44%49%20%23%20%27%12%28%23%11%29%25%25%15%

5%12%15%20%

5%4%4%3%

























Figure EM-2Emergency MedicinePercent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Ranking Programs

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.84.54.54.54.14.44.54.54.64.33.94.13.94.24.23.93.93.94.03.74.04.34.04.14.04.14.03.84.14.34.33.53.73.83.63.54.03.54.13.84.43.64.4

100% 80% 60% 40% 20%0%

80%76%72%64%53%59%48%52%50%54%30%22%26%34%41%35%47%33%25%40%29%39%14%22%19%20%13%27%14%17%34%24%22%15%

7%13%13%20%

9%3%4%4%2%


























Figure EM-3Emergency MedicinePercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%









92%

75%

80%

65%

43%

6%

4%

0%

84%

76%

77%

44%

26%

25%

15%

5%



Figure EM-4Emergency MedicinePercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type

0

10

20

30

40

50

60





39

1913 13

60

7 7 6

Matched Not Matched

0

10

20

30

40

50

60





50

9 8 8

53

3 2 3

Matched Not Matched

U.S. Seniors




Figure EM-5

U.S. Seniors


Emergency MedicineLikelihood to Pursue a Strategy If Applicant Did Not Match*By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*

1 2 3 4 5










4.4

3.3

2.6

2.8

2.0

2.0

1.8

1.7

1.1

4.5

3.9

2.6

3.1

1.7

1.7

1.8

1.7

1.2

Matched Not Matched

1 2 3 4 5










4.6

3.5

2.3

3.1

1.5

1.4

1.3

1.3

1.6

4.5

3.6

2.7

3.8

1.6

2.0

1.4

1.5

1.5

Matched Not Matched



Family Medicine


Figure FP-1Family MedicinePercent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.64.04.74.63.74.54.44.53.64.34.04.43.63.94.34.04.13.73.84.24.13.93.93.74.23.94.13.64.24.03.93.53.63.54.03.53.93.73.53.94.1

100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%

91%73%83%74%32%72%72%66%49%60%57%56%29%49%57%21%52%48%48%50%63%12%47%29%42%28%49%32%23%36%31%29%29%21%62%24%41%22%7%7%4%
























Figure FP-1Family MedicinePercent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.44.14.74.54.14.64.44.53.84.53.94.54.13.94.24.24.23.94.14.24.23.94.14.04.24.24.23.84.44.13.83.83.83.94.13.64.04.13.74.24.04.4

100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%

66%52%60%56%32%53%52%54%43%46%35%38%29%34%33%22%43%41%47%48%42%22%28%26%31%23%37%23%22%36%25%26%22%20%52%17%23%26%

9%10%

4%10%

























Figure FP-2Family MedicinePercent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Ranking Programs

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.94.64.74.64.24.54.64.44.64.44.04.24.14.54.23.83.94.13.83.84.24.23.73.84.04.23.84.04.14.24.23.63.93.74.03.84.23.74.04.03.94.1

100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%

89%80%81%76%59%71%57%61%61%66%25%15%40%51%39%36%43%44%20%35%53%42%11%24%38%33%27%24%30%20%39%24%24%21%34%14%48%15%13%

3%7%3%

























Figure FP-2Family MedicinePercent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Ranking Programs

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.84.64.54.54.34.54.54.54.64.44.24.34.14.44.44.04.24.04.24.04.34.34.14.04.24.24.04.34.14.34.33.94.03.94.24.04.33.94.24.14.24.24.6

100% 80% 60% 40% 20%0%

70%66%59%54%41%54%37%46%47%45%24%19%25%26%36%32%40%24%20%31%35%36%16%21%20%24%19%20%23%20%31%22%18%15%20%13%37%12%17%

7%6%3%6%


























Figure FP-3Family MedicinePercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%









93%

79%

54%

52%

34%

2%

6%

1%

71%

56%

68%

26%

17%

9%

25%

9%



Figure FP-4Family MedicinePercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type

0

10

20

30

40

50

60





2015

11 11

30

8 7 8

Matched Not Matched

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70





54

8 7 6

65

1 1 2

Matched Not Matched

U.S. Seniors




Figure FP-5

U.S. Seniors


Family MedicineLikelihood to Pursue a Strategy If Applicant Did Not Match*By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*

1 2 3 4 5










4.4

2.8

2.2

2.2

1.8

1.8

1.9

1.7

1.1

4.4

3.2

3.1

3.4

1.5

2.4

1.6

2.3

1.1

Matched Not Matched

1 2 3 4 5










4.7

3.3

2.7

3.1

1.8

1.9

1.5

1.5

1.5

4.5

3.6

3.3

3.7

2.5

2.3

1.7

1.9

1.7

Matched Not Matched



Internal Medicine


Figure IM-1Internal MedicinePercent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.54.34.64.54.74.64.24.43.64.23.94.54.44.34.24.54.13.63.94.34.04.34.03.74.03.83.63.64.13.93.73.43.53.53.73.33.83.73.53.73.8

100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%

86%88%80%68%83%70%59%59%46%56%51%61%73%59%53%65%52%49%51%59%46%56%45%28%35%33%18%24%35%28%20%21%18%19%11%11%16%16%7%3%3%
























Figure IM-1Internal MedicinePercent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.24.24.54.34.44.54.24.43.84.43.84.44.44.24.04.44.23.84.24.24.04.14.03.93.94.04.13.84.33.93.73.73.73.83.83.64.04.13.74.14.04.2

100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%

63%60%49%55%54%56%46%52%47%45%31%36%61%46%31%52%44%38%51%50%38%49%35%28%33%27%28%22%37%40%17%22%18%31%36%10%18%27%10%

5%5%

22%

























Figure IM-2Internal MedicinePercent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Ranking Programs

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.84.54.54.64.44.54.64.34.64.34.74.64.44.34.23.73.94.04.43.84.24.34.33.84.04.13.63.94.14.13.83.53.83.74.03.73.93.74.03.84.03.9

100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%

85%79%78%69%76%57%65%60%60%54%71%61%55%45%46%36%44%39%61%39%38%46%49%24%37%27%21%27%25%28%13%17%17%12%14%12%

7%7%

10%5%2%3%

























Figure IM-2Internal MedicinePercent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Ranking Programs

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.74.54.34.44.34.44.44.44.54.24.54.54.34.24.33.94.24.04.53.94.14.34.34.04.14.13.94.14.04.34.23.84.03.84.14.04.13.64.23.94.14.24.4

100% 80% 60% 40% 20%0%

66%68%56%51%56%49%35%46%50%41%46%49%39%27%39%38%44%24%55%33%31%40%44%24%27%25%18%22%28%34%23%18%11%14%15%22%24%

7%21%

7%3%5%

18%


























Figure IM-3Internal MedicinePercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%









91%

74%

66%

63%

52%

3%

5%

1%

75%

48%

71%

30%

22%

10%

17%

4%



Figure IM-4Internal MedicinePercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type

0

10

20

30

40

50

60





29

1512 11

39

3 3 4

Matched Not Matched

0

20

40

60

80

100

120





107

9 8 8

88

2 2 2

Matched Not Matched

U.S. Seniors




Figure IM-5

U.S. Seniors


Internal MedicineLikelihood to Pursue a Strategy If Applicant Did Not Match*By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*

1 2 3 4 5










4.1

2.7

2.9

2.1

1.9

2.0

1.8

1.7

1.1

4.7

3.4

2.6

3.3

1.4

1.8

2.0

1.5

1.1

Matched Not Matched

1 2 3 4 5










4.4

3.1

3.4

2.8

1.9

1.8

1.8

1.6

1.7

4.3

3.4

3.6

3.2

2.2

2.0

1.9

1.8

1.7

Matched Not Matched



Internal Medicine/Pediatrics


Figure MP-1Internal Medicine/PediatricsPercent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.44.04.74.64.44.54.24.33.64.43.94.54.04.04.14.14.03.43.94.44.14.03.93.64.23.84.03.24.04.04.13.33.63.63.73.34.03.53.63.53.3

100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%

90%78%81%73%72%71%71%60%62%63%69%57%46%51%61%45%54%60%56%59%60%29%37%20%45%30%18%13%30%38%46%20%22%28%20%16%32%19%4%5%3%
























Figure MP-1Internal Medicine/PediatricsPercent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.44.14.74.44.34.64.24.43.64.43.64.54.24.33.94.24.14.04.24.34.03.83.94.34.24.24.13.74.34.03.93.53.92.94.43.63.84.13.64.53.85.0

100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%

71%54%55%68%52%55%55%52%54%59%39%55%36%43%36%36%52%41%48%54%41%36%34%30%38%27%32%21%27%39%32%21%25%16%25%18%23%25%11%

4%9%7%

























Figure MP-2Internal Medicine/PediatricsPercent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Ranking Programs

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.94.54.44.64.14.44.54.54.64.24.44.14.14.44.13.73.94.03.93.54.34.44.03.73.74.23.43.74.14.03.73.24.13.63.93.83.43.63.64.04.33.3

100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%

91%87%85%77%69%57%67%75%66%63%67%44%48%51%52%47%47%54%41%45%57%59%27%19%32%43%

7%27%34%29%18%17%44%18%33%19%12%

9%11%

2%2%4%

























Figure MP-2Internal Medicine/PediatricsPercent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Ranking Programs

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

5.04.74.34.63.94.54.64.54.54.04.34.24.04.24.13.64.33.64.14.13.84.33.93.54.24.13.64.04.14.13.93.64.34.44.13.73.93.73.43.64.04.54.7

100% 80% 60% 40% 20%0%

76%67%59%61%43%54%56%57%48%43%52%39%39%26%28%41%46%30%41%37%46%33%30%33%30%24%19%17%33%26%20%20%24%15%26%17%22%11%15%

9%6%4%6%


























Figure MP-3Internal Medicine/PediatricsPercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%









93%

87%

70%

73%

50%

19%

3%

2%

82%

59%

63%

39%

31%

31%

4%

2%



Figure MP-4Internal Medicine/PediatricsPercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type

0

10

20

30

40

50

60





24

1511 11

19

9 7 7

Matched Not Matched

0

4

8

12

16

20

24

28

32





31

10 9 9

30

4 3 3

Matched Not Matched

U.S. Seniors




Figure MP-5

U.S. Seniors


Internal Medicine/PediatricsLikelihood to Pursue a Strategy If Applicant Did Not Match*By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*

1 2 3 4 5










4.5

2.9

2.7

3.1

1.8

1.9

2.1

1.7

1.1

4.4

2.7

2.7

3.1

1.7

2.4

1.9

2.1

1.2

Matched Not Matched

1 2 3 4 5










4.4

3.4

2.3

3.9

1.6

1.3

1.3

1.8

1.5

4.6

3.5

3.6

3.8

2.5

2.2

1.7

2.1

1.6

Matched Not Matched



Neurology


Figure NE-1NeurologyPercent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.44.34.64.44.74.64.24.53.74.33.84.54.24.04.24.43.93.63.84.24.34.14.23.84.03.93.43.74.33.93.63.63.53.63.63.23.33.83.24.13.9

100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%

88%87%77%72%80%73%56%71%62%57%61%54%62%55%50%58%55%51%58%52%57%59%35%31%34%30%14%32%15%27%17%22%22%17%7%8%

15%13%4%3%4%
























Figure NE-1NeurologyPercent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.24.24.44.34.54.54.14.43.84.53.84.34.34.14.04.44.33.84.14.14.04.13.94.03.94.04.13.84.53.73.93.64.03.53.63.43.94.03.73.74.24.1

100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%

66%67%51%56%62%58%45%61%49%44%34%39%58%45%29%52%44%45%53%48%41%57%30%29%28%21%24%31%23%32%14%21%18%26%16%

9%14%25%10%

4%5%

20%

























Figure NE-2NeurologyPercent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Ranking Programs

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.84.54.54.54.34.54.54.44.64.34.54.44.24.34.13.94.04.24.13.84.34.24.23.84.03.93.63.94.14.13.53.73.83.63.74.13.93.24.23.73.23.9

100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%

88%83%80%80%78%77%68%72%63%57%68%57%49%39%51%53%51%49%55%46%52%49%57%31%33%26%35%27%21%16%11%24%16%21%11%10%

7%7%7%2%3%4%

























Figure NE-2NeurologyPercent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Ranking Programs

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.74.64.34.54.44.54.44.54.64.34.64.44.34.14.43.84.33.94.43.84.14.34.34.04.04.13.94.14.04.44.13.84.03.84.13.84.13.14.13.94.34.34.3

100% 80% 60% 40% 20%0%

70%70%59%53%61%58%35%49%53%42%52%44%36%29%37%42%45%29%52%34%33%37%48%26%21%25%25%15%26%23%16%19%

8%14%12%16%

7%6%

19%6%3%3%

15%


























Figure NE-3NeurologyPercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%









91%

76%

63%

69%

59%

7%

6%

3%

73%

49%

72%

33%

22%

19%

13%

4%



Figure NE-4NeurologyPercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type

0

10

20

30

40

50

60





24

1712 11

21

9 7 7

Matched Not Matched

0

10

20

30

40

50

60





60

9 8 7

50

2 2 2

Matched Not Matched

U.S. Seniors




Figure NE-5

U.S. Seniors


NeurologyLikelihood to Pursue a Strategy If Applicant Did Not Match*By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*

1 2 3 4 5










4.1

3.5

2.8

2.2

1.8

1.9

1.6

1.7

1.1

2.5

2.0

3.5

1.5

4.5

1.0

3.5

3.0

2.5

Matched Not Matched

1 2 3 4 5










4.4

3.8

3.4

2.9

1.6

1.6

1.6

1.6

1.6

4.3

3.8

3.6

3.5

2.2

2.0

1.9

1.7

1.7

Matched Not Matched



Neurological Surgery


Figure NS-1Neurological SurgeryPercent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.14.24.74.54.64.54.04.63.64.33.74.63.84.13.84.24.33.43.84.14.04.33.84.23.83.94.13.63.64.13.43.33.63.53.72.92.83.73.92.53.7

100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%

77%84%83%77%79%69%52%79%70%68%56%57%45%60%44%51%66%56%56%39%57%69%22%53%27%34%53%32%6%

17%24%7%8%

25%2%5%4%8%7%2%7%
























Figure NS-1Neurological SurgeryPercent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

3.94.24.44.14.54.63.94.13.94.23.43.84.13.84.04.44.23.64.33.63.84.83.74.23.42.84.83.44.53.83.83.05.05.05.04.04.34.03.5

4.74.8

100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%

42%73%54%65%81%62%35%69%69%58%35%42%46%50%15%50%65%35%50%46%31%77%27%46%19%15%50%19%

8%27%19%

4%4%8%4%4%

12%31%

8%0%

12%19%

























Figure NS-2Neurological SurgeryPercent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Ranking Programs

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.84.54.34.74.44.64.74.34.54.14.64.54.34.14.44.04.03.94.23.54.14.24.44.23.74.13.94.04.34.74.33.53.73.64.53.84.03.33.84.3

4.0100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%

87%77%69%87%70%79%61%61%59%47%64%42%52%34%56%62%38%36%31%42%45%29%66%49%17%20%38%34%14%

5%40%

8%15%

7%3%

19%2%9%3%3%0%6%

























Figure NS-2Neurological SurgeryPercent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Ranking Programs

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.74.53.94.64.34.64.24.54.63.74.74.24.13.34.73.84.33.44.33.43.94.24.74.54.54.33.75.04.55.04.6

4.05.0

5.05.03.54.54.0

4.04.8

100% 80% 60% 40% 20%0%

62%65%46%69%65%62%38%50%50%31%58%46%42%12%38%46%46%27%31%23%31%19%54%35%

8%15%15%

4%23%

4%35%

0%8%4%0%4%4%8%

15%4%0%4%

19%


























Figure NS-3Neurological SurgeryPercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%









92%

80%

76%

77%

46%

9%

3%

2%

76%

40%

84%

24%

16%

20%

20%

4%



Figure NS-4Neurological SurgeryPercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type

0

10

20

30

40

50

60





53

23

16 16

63

10 9 9

Matched Not Matched

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80





80

9 7 7

75

3 2 2

Matched Not Matched

U.S. Seniors




Figure NS-5

U.S. Seniors


Neurological SurgeryLikelihood to Pursue a Strategy If Applicant Did Not Match*By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*

1 2 3 4 5










4.0

3.4

3.4

2.5

2.3

2.2

1.8

2.0

1.0

3.5

3.6

3.3

2.8

2.4

2.0

1.8

2.0

1.5

Matched Not Matched

1 2 3 4 5










4.3

3.4

3.9

2.1

1.9

1.8

1.6

1.4

2.4

4.7

4.6

2.8

2.5

1.5

1.7

1.2

1.7

1.4

Matched Not Matched



Obstetrics and Gynecology


Figure OB-1Obstetrics and GynecologyPercent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.54.24.74.54.44.54.24.43.84.23.94.54.14.04.24.34.03.53.74.13.94.23.73.84.03.64.03.54.43.93.73.23.33.63.73.23.33.53.53.73.8

100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%

90%84%76%73%73%66%58%62%73%52%57%49%64%62%60%60%50%49%42%52%49%50%30%27%38%24%37%30%23%33%35%22%23%20%21%3%9%9%4%6%6%
























Figure OB-1Obstetrics and GynecologyPercent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.24.24.64.54.04.64.24.43.84.33.64.34.14.04.04.44.23.94.04.23.84.03.54.03.84.04.33.64.53.73.93.43.53.83.73.23.53.83.24.44.34.6

100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%

70%54%58%57%41%53%41%47%53%45%31%37%40%39%32%31%44%33%46%46%31%32%23%29%23%20%31%22%21%31%23%20%18%15%43%

6%11%16%

3%9%6%

11%

























Figure OB-2Obstetrics and GynecologyPercent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Ranking Programs

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.94.64.54.64.34.44.64.44.64.24.54.44.14.34.13.93.74.04.23.64.04.24.23.93.74.03.63.94.04.34.23.23.83.53.43.83.93.73.73.63.73.9

100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%

89%85%81%77%71%67%62%61%65%56%61%59%52%56%51%61%44%43%53%40%42%47%45%25%24%32%26%23%32%19%34%19%26%20%

9%12%16%

1%6%3%5%5%

























Figure OB-2Obstetrics and GynecologyPercent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Ranking Programs

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.74.54.34.64.24.54.54.64.54.24.04.34.14.24.33.94.13.94.33.94.24.44.24.13.84.13.84.14.24.44.33.64.13.74.24.03.84.34.03.34.03.94.5

100% 80% 60% 40% 20%0%

73%71%60%58%46%53%38%43%50%38%31%38%34%32%37%43%43%24%34%29%20%37%31%27%12%19%19%17%16%21%30%17%14%13%

9%12%29%

1%10%

3%3%9%7%


























Figure OB-3Obstetrics and GynecologyPercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%









90%

77%

68%

70%

54%

5%

7%

2%

75%

59%

62%

38%

27%

16%

15%

6%



Figure OB-4Obstetrics and GynecologyPercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type

0

10

20

30

40

50

60





35

1613 12

42

10 8 9

Matched Not Matched

0

10

20

30

40

50

60





60

10 9 9

50

3 3 3

Matched Not Matched

U.S. Seniors




Figure OB-5

U.S. Seniors


Obstetrics and GynecologyLikelihood to Pursue a Strategy If Applicant Did Not Match*By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*

1 2 3 4 5










4.4

3.3

3.1

2.6

1.8

1.9

1.8

1.7

1.1

4.6

3.7

2.8

3.0

1.9

1.6

1.8

1.5

1.1

Matched Not Matched

1 2 3 4 5










4.5

3.6

2.8

3.1

1.5

1.5

1.3

1.4

1.6

4.5

3.8

3.0

3.5

2.1

1.8

1.6

1.6

1.5

Matched Not Matched



Orthopaedic Surgery


Figure OS-1Orthopaedic SurgeryPercent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.34.24.74.74.24.54.24.53.64.33.84.64.14.23.94.64.23.63.73.93.64.03.63.93.73.74.03.74.33.73.43.43.53.63.53.13.33.53.53.93.8

100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%

84%86%80%75%67%68%62%72%67%57%56%55%48%58%51%68%62%56%53%33%30%49%24%36%17%30%44%37%12%16%19%16%14%29%19%10%16%12%8%5%5%
























Figure OS-1Orthopaedic SurgeryPercent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.04.14.24.34.24.44.14.33.74.33.54.44.24.44.34.43.93.23.84.13.23.74.24.33.64.04.33.45.04.63.03.03.24.13.83.03.04.03.04.75.03.8

100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%

57%62%52%57%43%57%33%55%26%45%14%40%38%43%21%45%45%33%36%26%26%40%14%19%17%24%29%17%10%21%10%

7%14%19%10%

5%2%7%2%7%2%

14%

























Figure OS-2Orthopaedic SurgeryPercent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Ranking Programs

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.94.44.44.74.34.54.64.44.54.24.24.64.34.24.33.73.73.94.23.63.83.93.94.13.73.83.83.74.04.24.13.43.43.43.73.63.73.24.03.73.84.1

100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%

85%75%77%79%73%75%58%56%64%60%52%60%50%43%52%53%46%44%32%45%23%23%44%32%14%12%37%25%12%10%24%13%11%

9%12%21%14%

5%5%4%4%4%

























Figure OS-2Orthopaedic SurgeryPercent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Ranking Programs

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.64.54.44.54.54.24.44.34.34.44.34.54.44.44.34.24.74.04.34.64.04.54.34.33.83.93.03.74.34.64.53.54.03.64.03.84.03.03.33.05.0

3.8100% 80% 60% 40% 20%0%

70%60%63%70%57%65%40%60%45%35%40%40%45%20%38%18%30%23%33%25%10%13%43%15%13%20%13%23%15%13%25%

8%10%13%

3%13%10%

5%10%

3%3%0%

18%


























Figure OS-3Orthopaedic SurgeryPercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%









89%

71%

88%

60%

35%

9%

10%

5%

71%

61%

82%

24%

13%

26%

16%

11%



Figure OS-4Orthopaedic SurgeryPercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type

0

10

20

30

40

50

60





70

1512 12

75

7 6 7

Matched Not Matched

0

10

20

30

40

50

60





47

3 3 3

54

3 3 3

Matched Not Matched

U.S. Seniors




Figure OS-5

U.S. Seniors


Orthopaedic SurgeryLikelihood to Pursue a Strategy If Applicant Did Not Match*By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*

1 2 3 4 5










3.7

3.2

3.6

2.7

2.4

2.2

1.6

1.8

1.1

3.3

3.8

3.0

2.5

2.1

1.7

1.3

1.5

1.1

Matched Not Matched

1 2 3 4 5










2.9

2.8

3.6

2.1

1.1

1.9

1.6

1.3

2.4

4.3

3.6

3.7

2.6

1.7

1.9

1.4

1.3

1.9

Matched Not Matched



Otolaryngology


Figure OT-1OtolaryngologyPercent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.24.14.74.54.44.44.04.53.64.23.84.64.13.94.04.34.23.63.54.03.84.13.64.13.73.73.93.84.53.93.43.33.53.33.32.93.23.74.04.04.5

100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%

82%76%74%60%70%60%56%66%74%46%51%51%47%52%54%55%47%49%41%36%20%54%18%41%28%23%37%30%7%

17%26%16%12%20%4%7%

10%8%4%4%5%
























Figure OT-1OtolaryngologyPercent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.33.84.93.84.34.33.84.23.64.03.44.24.54.03.24.54.33.03.83.83.54.34.33.54.04.04.63.72.54.03.12.02.02.5

3.74.05.0

3.04.0

100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%

67%83%75%75%83%67%42%83%67%42%67%50%67%67%42%

100%33%25%42%42%33%92%25%33%25%17%50%33%25%25%58%

8%8%

17%8%0%

25%17%

8%0%

17%8%

























Figure OT-2OtolaryngologyPercent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Ranking Programs

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.84.44.44.64.14.44.64.24.34.04.44.34.14.24.43.83.63.84.13.53.73.94.24.03.53.63.63.83.54.23.93.03.33.33.73.43.62.84.03.44.23.7

100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%

88%80%80%71%68%77%61%53%52%55%53%53%46%49%48%58%38%44%34%45%15%32%50%39%12%20%36%21%18%

5%25%12%20%

7%8%

13%3%4%3%3%3%3%

























Figure OT-2OtolaryngologyPercent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Ranking Programs

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.94.44.04.34.04.44.54.04.84.34.24.44.03.44.54.03.24.04.33.03.64.04.53.74.03.73.53.05.05.04.03.03.02.5

3.0

100% 80% 60% 40% 20%0%

100%73%64%73%45%64%55%45%55%36%82%73%36%45%36%64%45%36%36%18%45%18%73%27%27%27%18%

9%9%9%

18%9%

45%18%

0%18%

0%0%0%0%0%0%0%


























Figure OT-3OtolaryngologyPercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%









85%

68%

86%

61%

34%

16%

9%

5%

91%

64%

82%

55%

9%

64%

0%

0%



Figure OT-4OtolaryngologyPercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type

0

10

20

30

40

50

60





67

1512 12

73

6 6 5

Matched Not Matched

0

20

40

60

80

100





98

10 8 8

84

3 3 3

Matched Not Matched

U.S. Seniors




Figure OT-5

U.S. Seniors


OtolaryngologyLikelihood to Pursue a Strategy If Applicant Did Not Match*By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*

1 2 3 4 5










3.9

3.1

3.2

2.9

2.3

2.2

1.6

1.6

1.0

3.4

3.3

2.8

3.3

1.7

1.8

1.4

1.6

1.3

Matched Not Matched

1 2 3 4 5










4.8

2.4

1.6

3.4

1.3

1.6

1.0

1.0

1.4

3.8

3.5

2.6

4.0

2.0

2.0

1.2

1.0

1.7

Matched Not Matched



Pathology


Figure PA-1PathologyPercent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.54.24.64.34.64.64.34.33.74.23.84.54.34.14.14.54.03.83.94.34.04.03.74.03.93.93.33.44.03.83.53.63.63.23.63.53.13.73.04.43.5

100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%

89%87%79%77%76%71%72%75%62%54%58%58%77%59%52%68%48%56%50%34%53%62%16%35%23%33%16%25%24%15%8%

36%26%17%3%8%5%9%6%7%4%
























Figure PA-1PathologyPercent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.24.14.54.24.54.64.14.43.64.43.74.34.24.14.14.44.23.64.04.34.04.13.74.13.84.13.83.84.43.83.83.73.93.53.63.74.04.03.74.23.94.4

100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%

65%60%46%51%59%54%49%61%49%38%27%30%55%47%27%52%39%38%46%33%43%56%15%33%27%24%19%18%21%33%16%20%21%16%11%

8%6%

22%5%5%5%

20%

























Figure PA-2PathologyPercent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Ranking Programs

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.84.64.54.44.34.44.54.24.64.44.64.54.14.34.24.04.14.14.44.04.14.34.24.23.54.23.73.84.04.23.83.74.43.84.83.83.63.84.34.64.24.0

100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%

83%78%80%73%74%76%65%58%57%68%62%62%48%43%36%43%50%45%67%50%41%29%51%34%13%18%25%34%17%26%13%31%

6%20%

6%9%3%3%8%3%9%3%

























Figure PA-2PathologyPercent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Ranking Programs

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.74.54.44.44.34.44.54.44.54.24.54.54.34.14.44.04.33.94.43.94.14.44.24.33.83.94.04.14.14.54.13.73.83.94.04.04.24.14.23.73.94.24.5

100% 80% 60% 40% 20%0%

67%67%58%51%54%59%29%40%54%43%51%50%38%21%32%39%38%18%48%31%28%31%46%26%10%19%15%21%17%21%13%23%

8%17%

3%9%6%6%

18%3%4%2%

20%


























Figure PA-3PathologyPercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%









91%

80%

53%

57%

42%

3%

7%

3%

75%

53%

61%

29%

18%

7%

17%

7%



Figure PA-4PathologyPercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type

0

10

20

30

40

50

60





22

1611 109

2 2 2

Matched Not Matched

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70





70

10 8 8

50

1 1 2

Matched Not Matched

U.S. Seniors




Figure PA-5

U.S. Seniors


PathologyLikelihood to Pursue a Strategy If Applicant Did Not Match*By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*

1 2 3 4 5










4.2

2.5

2.9

2.0

1.8

1.8

2.0

2.0

1.1

5.0

3.0

3.0

4.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

Matched Not Matched

1 2 3 4 5










4.4

2.8

3.4

2.4

1.9

1.9

1.4

1.7

1.7

4.6

3.4

3.5

3.1

2.2

2.3

1.7

1.7

1.7

Matched Not Matched



Pediatrics


Figure PD-1PediatricsPercent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.64.14.74.54.44.54.34.43.94.24.04.64.13.94.34.34.03.73.84.34.04.03.93.84.13.83.63.54.13.93.83.43.63.53.63.33.73.73.53.73.5

100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%

91%83%83%69%71%67%66%58%79%53%59%57%58%52%58%56%51%52%60%55%55%34%39%40%33%27%16%29%36%26%29%29%31%23%14%8%

18%12%6%6%3%
























Figure PD-1PediatricsPercent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.34.14.64.44.34.54.24.43.94.43.84.44.14.14.04.34.13.74.14.14.14.03.73.94.04.04.03.64.34.03.83.53.73.83.73.43.84.13.63.84.14.4

100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%

72%63%59%63%56%60%55%56%61%48%40%41%46%44%37%50%45%42%56%53%48%40%31%30%32%24%29%20%37%39%29%27%24%22%28%

9%18%21%

7%4%3%

14%

























Figure PD-2PediatricsPercent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Ranking Programs

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.94.64.64.64.24.44.74.34.64.44.44.44.14.44.24.04.04.14.23.84.14.34.03.94.14.23.64.04.14.13.83.53.93.63.83.73.93.63.63.73.83.8

100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%

88%85%83%75%70%60%68%61%64%65%56%47%43%53%47%66%54%45%46%47%49%47%31%36%27%26%25%23%23%31%12%25%26%24%17%14%10%

4%6%3%5%3%

























Figure PD-2PediatricsPercent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Ranking Programs

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.84.64.44.54.34.54.54.54.64.24.44.54.24.44.24.04.23.94.33.84.24.24.24.04.04.13.74.24.14.24.23.74.03.84.23.94.03.74.14.03.74.34.4

100% 80% 60% 40% 20%0%

71%73%62%59%54%54%41%50%53%47%42%45%36%26%43%51%48%27%38%35%37%38%34%23%22%23%14%20%26%33%20%22%23%16%16%16%16%

3%15%

5%2%3%

10%


























Figure PD-3PediatricsPercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%









92%

75%

68%

68%

51%

3%

4%

1%

79%

58%

64%

35%

25%

7%

13%

5%



Figure PD-4PediatricsPercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type

0

10

20

30

40

50

60





25

1512 11

35

6 5 7

Matched Not Matched

0

10

20

30

40

50

60





59

11 9 8

60

2 2 2

Matched Not Matched

U.S. Seniors




Figure PD-5

U.S. Seniors


PediatricsLikelihood to Pursue a Strategy If Applicant Did Not Match*By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*

1 2 3 4 5










4.3

2.7

2.8

2.2

1.9

2.0

1.9

1.7

1.1

4.5

3.3

2.8

2.6

1.6

1.8

1.8

1.9

1.1

Matched Not Matched

1 2 3 4 5










4.6

3.0

2.9

2.6

1.7

1.6

1.6

1.6

1.7

4.5

3.7

3.5

3.2

2.5

2.1

1.8

1.7

1.6

Matched Not Matched



Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation


Figure PM-1Physical Medicine and RehabilitationPercent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.64.24.84.54.34.54.64.53.84.44.34.73.94.04.24.34.13.93.94.14.23.83.93.84.04.04.13.84.24.23.93.93.93.93.73.63.83.74.04.23.8

100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%

88%84%85%71%56%73%80%70%61%73%71%59%63%56%56%57%49%54%58%48%55%44%39%39%42%32%42%57%28%26%17%36%31%21%13%23%25%11%10%9%

13%
























Figure PM-1Physical Medicine and RehabilitationPercent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.34.04.84.44.34.64.34.53.54.43.94.44.24.04.04.34.03.54.04.04.34.03.73.83.83.94.23.74.44.03.43.43.43.53.53.63.83.93.74.23.93.8

100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%

69%68%70%57%42%52%63%53%47%49%38%47%50%48%39%51%44%42%49%25%42%42%22%21%24%25%41%40%23%19%14%25%19%16%11%17%13%18%10%

5%8%3%

























Figure PM-2Physical Medicine and RehabilitationPercent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Ranking Programs

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.84.64.64.64.24.54.64.54.64.54.34.34.34.24.23.83.94.33.94.04.34.34.03.74.14.13.84.04.04.14.03.53.63.73.73.83.33.64.34.44.03.7

100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%

90%87%85%76%78%69%65%69%70%86%48%60%45%58%54%59%60%61%55%52%59%44%45%48%33%34%61%23%27%35%52%43%12%31%20%17%

8%12%

6%8%3%6%

























Figure PM-2Physical Medicine and RehabilitationPercent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Ranking Programs

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.94.64.44.54.14.64.54.64.74.44.24.44.24.24.13.74.04.04.23.64.34.14.03.83.73.73.54.13.84.24.23.53.43.64.13.63.63.84.23.74.24.05.0

100% 80% 60% 40% 20%0%

77%71%62%61%68%59%52%61%54%58%38%52%46%28%46%43%47%37%50%44%43%33%34%30%17%19%38%26%18%23%38%22%

9%15%15%13%

9%17%

8%5%4%7%2%


























Figure PM-3Physical Medicine and RehabilitationPercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%









91%

82%

65%

70%

51%

11%

9%

7%

75%

66%

73%

45%

35%

9%

12%

4%



Figure PM-4Physical Medicine and RehabilitationPercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type

0

10

20

30

40

50

60





30

1712 12

30

7 6 5

Matched Not Matched

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40





35

1411 10

36

3 2 2

Matched Not Matched

U.S. Seniors




Figure PM-5

U.S. Seniors


Physical Medicine and RehabilitationLikelihood to Pursue a Strategy If Applicant Did Not Match*By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*

1 2 3 4 5










4.1

4.1

2.8

2.5

1.6

1.9

1.5

1.6

1.0

4.6

4.1

3.0

2.8

1.6

1.5

2.0

2.6

1.0

Matched Not Matched

1 2 3 4 5










4.3

3.6

2.2

2.7

1.2

1.5

1.2

1.3

1.7

4.4

4.0

3.1

3.5

1.7

2.1

1.5

1.7

1.5

Matched Not Matched



Plastic Surgery


Figure PS-1Plastic Surgery (Integrated)Percent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.14.54.64.54.64.54.24.53.74.53.94.64.04.33.84.34.33.63.53.93.94.03.94.13.83.83.73.24.53.63.43.53.63.53.13.33.33.44.03.54.5

80%70%60%50%40%30%20%10%0%

77%77%72%68%70%56%54%73%63%56%54%52%37%56%37%58%56%46%35%42%30%56%15%48%21%21%41%27%15%15%32%17%17%14%10%14%11%8%3%3%6%
























Figure PS-1Plastic Surgery (Integrated)Percent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.54.24.64.64.74.43.74.94.04.34.54.54.34.34.04.04.63.04.04.04.54.84.74.33.54.03.6

4.53.73.03.53.73.0

4.5

5.0

3.5100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%

40%67%47%33%47%47%20%47%33%40%13%27%20%27%13%40%33%20%47%33%13%40%20%40%27%20%33%

0%13%20%27%13%20%13%

0%13%

0%0%0%7%0%

13%

























Figure PS-2Plastic Surgery (Integrated)Percent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Ranking Programs

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.74.54.34.74.54.74.54.54.54.34.54.44.24.34.43.93.84.33.93.93.64.13.84.13.73.83.73.93.84.44.03.63.73.33.33.73.04.73.34.03.53.0

100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%

93%77%84%91%83%87%64%72%71%58%70%54%57%35%59%64%43%49%46%46%45%38%65%46%17%19%22%22%17%10%38%12%42%

9%9%

23%12%

4%4%4%3%6%

























Figure PS-2Plastic Surgery (Integrated)Percent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Ranking Programs

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.84.84.24.14.54.24.63.84.64.74.84.24.74.04.84.05.04.74.03.34.34.54.34.55.05.0

3.74.05.04.03.53.83.0

3.0100% 80% 60% 40% 20%0%

67%53%33%60%40%80%47%40%33%20%33%33%20%

7%27%20%33%20%27%20%20%27%47%27%13%

7%0%

20%20%

7%13%13%27%

7%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%7%


























Figure PS-3Plastic Surgery (Integrated)Percentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%









99%

83%

84%

65%

43%

41%

4%

10%

67%

47%

87%

0%

0%

0%

20%

7%



Figure PS-4Plastic Surgery (Integrated)Percentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type

0

10

20

30

40

50

60





61

1813 13

65

3 3 3

Matched Not Matched

0

10

20

30

40

50





46

5 5 5

48

2 2 2

Matched Not Matched

U.S. Seniors




Figure PS-5

U.S. Seniors


Plastic Surgery (Integrated)Likelihood to Pursue a Strategy If Applicant Did Not Match*By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*

1 2 3 4 5










4.1

3.0

3.3

3.0

2.3

1.9

1.9

1.7

1.1

2.6

3.4

3.8

3.0

2.4

1.6

2.2

2.0

1.0

Matched Not Matched

1 2 3 4 5










2.3

2.3

4.7

1.0

1.0

2.3

2.3

1.0

2.0

3.5

2.1

3.9

3.0

2.8

2.4

2.6

2.3

2.3

Matched Not Matched



Psychiatry


Figure PY-1PsychiatryPercent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.64.14.74.54.44.54.44.43.74.44.04.54.04.04.14.34.03.63.94.44.24.03.93.84.23.83.63.84.23.93.63.43.73.43.73.63.54.04.03.84.4

100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%

88%80%81%71%70%66%73%70%50%62%60%57%63%48%53%46%49%58%55%54%61%38%25%32%40%27%9%

48%9%

32%14%33%30%20%19%39%18%14%11%6%3%
























Figure PY-1PsychiatryPercent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.34.14.54.44.34.54.34.43.64.43.94.44.14.04.04.24.33.84.04.34.04.03.83.94.14.14.03.94.44.13.83.73.63.83.83.93.84.13.74.24.34.3

100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%

62%58%58%55%47%55%50%56%41%48%34%37%48%38%32%35%45%39%45%46%42%40%22%27%35%21%14%31%16%41%16%24%21%19%32%21%13%25%10%

6%6%

14%

























Figure PY-2PsychiatryPercent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Ranking Programs

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.84.64.64.54.34.54.64.54.64.54.54.24.04.34.23.83.94.14.13.84.24.34.13.84.04.23.94.04.24.23.83.64.03.83.83.63.83.84.14.14.04.1

100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%

89%82%81%74%67%68%62%67%64%73%52%39%39%51%43%38%46%48%44%45%55%47%36%27%17%32%44%22%30%

8%7%

29%10%23%14%12%13%32%10%

6%5%4%

























Figure PY-2PsychiatryPercent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Ranking Programs

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.74.64.54.44.34.44.44.54.64.34.34.14.14.14.33.94.14.04.03.94.14.34.13.94.14.13.94.14.24.44.13.73.73.84.13.74.13.84.23.94.24.14.3

100% 80% 60% 40% 20%0%

71%70%57%54%52%57%36%48%49%49%39%33%30%28%37%28%44%28%41%33%35%41%33%22%18%28%27%18%30%14%11%19%11%16%

9%13%18%17%17%

7%4%5%

12%


























Figure PY-3PsychiatryPercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%









93%

78%

66%

63%

43%

2%

4%

2%

68%

46%

67%

33%

19%

8%

19%

7%



Figure PY-4PsychiatryPercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type

0

10

20

30

40

50

60





20

1310 9

25

85 4

Matched Not Matched

0

10

20

30

40

50

60





55

8 8 7

60

2 2 2

Matched Not Matched

U.S. Seniors




Figure PY-5

U.S. Seniors


PsychiatryLikelihood to Pursue a Strategy If Applicant Did Not Match*By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*

1 2 3 4 5










4.2

2.5

2.7

1.8

2.0

1.9

1.9

1.9

1.1

3.6

2.8

2.8

2.3

2.4

2.0

2.4

2.5

1.8

Matched Not Matched

1 2 3 4 5










4.5

3.0

2.9

2.6

1.9

1.8

1.4

1.8

1.6

4.5

3.6

3.5

3.3

2.4

2.3

1.5

1.6

1.7

Matched Not Matched



Radiation Oncology


Figure RD-1Radiation OncologyPercent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.24.44.74.44.64.74.34.53.64.23.84.43.84.34.14.13.83.74.04.04.24.63.73.94.03.93.63.44.63.84.13.33.53.53.34.04.14.33.74.23.3

100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%

82%77%76%71%74%65%64%71%60%62%44%59%16%59%43%15%53%51%56%29%44%74%34%32%22%36%30%22%14%14%13%19%16%19%7%7%8%

13%8%7%4%
























Figure RD-1Radiation OncologyPercent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.34.54.54.34.84.64.04.74.54.04.54.34.84.04.54.74.32.54.53.03.04.53.3

4.03.5

3.5

3.05.03.55.0

5.0

4.54.0

5.0100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%

60%40%40%60%

100%100%

60%60%40%80%40%60%80%40%40%60%60%40%40%20%20%40%60%

0%40%40%

0%40%

0%20%20%40%20%

0%0%

20%0%

40%20%

0%0%

20%

























Figure RD-2Radiation OncologyPercent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Ranking Programs

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.74.54.44.54.54.64.54.44.54.34.64.84.44.24.03.84.14.24.33.84.34.04.63.73.84.13.64.14.04.23.93.64.03.53.94.33.03.83.73.63.84.3

100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%

86%77%79%78%80%79%65%64%57%69%60%12%62%45%45%55%55%38%12%45%36%33%79%35%22%20%22%31%17%21%27%17%10%13%13%10%

1%6%8%6%5%5%

























Figure RD-2Radiation OncologyPercent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Ranking Programs

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

5.05.05.04.55.04.73.04.35.05.04.65.04.74.55.04.04.04.05.03.5

4.04.54.05.04.04.04.03.05.04.04.54.0

5.0

100% 80% 60% 40% 20%0%

40%60%20%40%40%60%20%80%20%20%

100%20%60%40%20%20%20%20%40%40%

0%20%40%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%40%20%

0%0%0%0%

40%0%0%0%0%0%


























Figure RD-3Radiation OncologyPercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%









92%

73%

80%

63%

45%

21%

5%

6%

40%

60%

60%

40%

40%

20%

20%

60%



Figure RD-4Radiation OncologyPercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type

0

10

20

30

40

50

60





60

15 13 13

64

6 5 6

Matched Not Matched

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45





32

4 4 4

41

1 1

6

Matched Not Matched

U.S. Seniors




Figure RD-5

U.S. Seniors


Radiation OncologyLikelihood to Pursue a Strategy If Applicant Did Not Match*By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*

1 2 3 4 5










3.9

3.4

3.2

2.5

2.2

1.6

1.6

1.6

1.0

4.8

4.3

3.8

3.8

2.0

2.0

2.5

1.8

1.0

Matched Not Matched

1 2 3 4 5










5.0

5.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

4.8

5.0

4.3

3.5

3.3

1.7

2.7

1.0

1.0

Matched Not Matched



Radiology-Diagnostic


Figure RO-1Radiology-DiagnosticPercent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.54.34.74.54.54.64.44.53.74.44.04.54.24.24.24.43.93.83.84.03.94.04.04.03.93.74.03.74.33.73.13.43.63.63.23.63.53.43.63.43.9

100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%

89%85%75%63%71%67%70%62%63%53%58%47%68%50%53%65%48%56%56%38%43%48%26%34%25%21%30%41%25%16%11%30%32%20%9%

31%6%9%7%6%6%
























Figure RO-1Radiology-DiagnosticPercent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.34.24.64.24.34.54.24.33.74.34.04.44.34.33.94.54.03.94.13.93.93.83.94.13.73.84.23.64.54.03.63.73.73.53.73.64.14.23.33.74.14.3

100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%

74%69%56%57%58%56%55%59%52%50%34%38%57%41%36%51%44%45%60%36%29%39%25%32%25%19%31%32%28%25%16%24%24%23%14%23%

6%18%

9%6%6%

16%

























Figure RO-2Radiology-DiagnosticPercent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Ranking Programs

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.74.54.64.54.44.44.64.34.64.34.44.44.24.44.34.03.94.14.33.93.94.04.14.03.94.13.93.94.04.44.13.63.53.63.93.83.33.73.64.03.83.7

100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%

85%80%83%71%77%66%54%59%59%67%62%61%46%43%46%59%52%51%53%51%37%36%42%33%19%19%35%22%17%25%31%24%

8%23%

5%11%

6%29%

7%5%5%5%

























Figure RO-2Radiology-DiagnosticPercent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Ranking Programs

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.74.54.54.34.34.44.54.44.54.44.54.34.34.14.33.84.14.14.34.13.84.24.14.23.94.33.84.24.04.44.23.93.54.04.03.83.63.94.13.73.43.94.6

100% 80% 60% 40% 20%0%

75%73%68%58%59%59%39%48%49%54%46%50%42%30%41%45%50%36%45%42%24%34%38%26%18%16%29%17%17%28%25%28%10%17%

6%16%10%22%11%

5%4%4%

14%


























Figure RO-3Radiology-DiagnosticPercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%









90%

78%

58%

73%

56%

7%

6%

4%

81%

61%

69%

46%

35%

17%

12%

9%



Figure RO-4Radiology-DiagnosticPercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type

0

10

20

30

40

50

60





40

25

15 15

40

6 5 5

Matched Not Matched

0

10

20

30

40

50

60





56

12 10 10

27

2 2 2

Matched Not Matched

U.S. Seniors




Figure RO-5

U.S. Seniors


Radiology-DiagnosticLikelihood to Pursue a Strategy If Applicant Did Not Match*By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*

1 2 3 4 5










4.1

3.7

2.6

2.3

1.8

1.7

1.6

1.7

1.1

4.3

3.2

3.6

1.8

1.5

2.0

2.3

2.0

1.0

Matched Not Matched

1 2 3 4 5










4.6

3.7

3.0

2.7

1.7

1.6

1.4

1.4

1.5

4.2

3.5

3.0

2.6

1.6

1.7

1.9

1.5

1.6

Matched Not Matched



Surgery-General


Figure SG-1Surgery-GeneralPercent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.34.14.64.54.34.44.04.43.64.23.84.54.14.34.14.54.23.43.74.13.84.13.64.03.93.63.93.44.13.93.63.33.43.53.73.53.63.93.43.63.9

100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%

84%83%79%69%69%66%45%66%55%59%52%59%58%67%47%65%57%46%49%46%41%60%27%38%27%27%34%17%44%22%25%17%16%17%23%10%5%

11%8%5%7%
























Figure SG-1Surgery-GeneralPercent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Selecting Programs for Application

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.14.24.74.44.14.63.94.43.84.53.74.54.44.34.14.44.23.64.14.23.93.94.24.23.93.84.23.74.44.03.93.43.53.73.73.73.93.83.54.64.04.4

100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%

64%58%55%58%47%51%38%56%49%50%31%40%44%46%28%44%42%34%51%36%34%44%23%37%20%26%28%11%29%29%19%15%12%16%34%

5%10%19%

5%5%4%

14%

























Figure SG-2Surgery-GeneralPercent of U.S. Seniors Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Ranking Programs

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.84.54.44.64.34.44.64.44.44.14.34.54.44.34.33.73.74.04.23.64.04.14.24.13.74.03.73.74.04.14.03.33.83.33.63.84.03.33.83.53.64.0

100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%

88%82%76%76%71%67%67%63%61%42%61%61%61%44%52%44%44%39%45%39%36%35%54%30%19%20%13%20%20%37%22%16%19%10%

3%11%17%

6%4%6%4%6%

























Figure SG-2Surgery-GeneralPercent of Independent Applicants Citing Each Factor And Mean Importance Rating* for Each Factor in Ranking Programs

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

4.84.54.24.54.44.54.54.44.54.14.44.54.34.14.33.94.23.74.43.84.24.34.14.44.14.03.73.94.14.44.23.84.03.54.33.73.93.74.33.44.34.24.2

100% 80% 60% 40% 20%0%

63%59%58%59%50%48%41%48%50%30%38%44%38%25%39%41%45%25%34%27%26%30%35%30%16%17%

8%24%21%27%24%14%13%

7%8%

12%18%

3%10%

2%2%5%9%


























Figure SG-3Surgery-GeneralPercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%









93%

77%

66%

67%

55%

6%

6%

2%

79%

60%

71%

37%

26%

17%

16%

12%



Figure SG-4Surgery-GeneralPercentage of Applicants Citing Different Ranking Strategies by Applicant Type

0

10

20

30

40

50

60





42

1813 13

51

7 7 7

Matched Not Matched

0

20

40

60

80

100





90

9 8 8

80

3 3 4

Matched Not Matched

U.S. Seniors




Figure SG-5

U.S. Seniors


Surgery-GeneralLikelihood to Pursue a Strategy If Applicant Did Not Match*By Applicant Type and Match Outcome*

1 2 3 4 5










4.4

3.8

2.9

2.3

1.9

1.8

1.8

1.5

1.1

4.3

3.8

2.7

2.5

1.4

1.6

1.6

1.7

1.0

Matched Not Matched

1 2 3 4 5










4.6

4.0

3.0

2.5

1.6

1.3

1.3

1.2

1.4

4.5

4.1

3.2

2.9

1.8

1.7

1.7

1.4

1.5

Matched Not Matched



results of the 2015 nrmp applicant · pdf fileresults of the 2015 nrmp applicant survey by...

Documents