results of the 2016 nrmp program director survey ...€¦ · introduction nrmp program director...

428
Results of the 2016 NRMP Program Director Survey Specialties Matching Service www.nrmp.org October 2016

Upload: truonghanh

Post on 04-Jun-2018

223 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Results of the 2016 NRMP Program Director SurveySpecialties Matching Service

www.nrmp.org

October 2016

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 M. Signer, President and CEO, NRMP, at [email protected].

Suggested CitationNational Resident Matching Program, Data Release and Research Committee: Results of the

2016 NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service. National Resident Matching Program, Washington, DC. 2016.

Copyright © 2016 National Resident Matching Program. 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.

Introduction .................................................................................................................................................... 1 Response rates ................................................................................................................................................. 2 All Specialties................................................................................................................................................. 3 Charts for Individual Specialties Abdominal Transplant Surgery ..................................................................................................................... 12 Adolescent Medicine ..................................................................................................................................... 21 Allergy and Immunology .............................................................................................................................. 30 Cardiovascular Disease ................................................................................................................................. 39 Child and Adolescent Psychiatry ................................................................................................................. 48 Colon and Rectal Surgery ............................................................................................................................. 57 Developmental-Behavioral Pediatrics ........................................................................................................... 66 Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Metabolism ................................................................................................... 75 Female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery .................................................................................... 84 Gastroenterology ........................................................................................................................................... 93 Geriatric Medicine ..................................................................................................................................... 102 Gynecologic Oncology ............................................................................................................................... 111 Hand Surgery ............................................................................................................................................. 120 Hematology and Oncology ......................................................................................................................... 129 Hospice and Palliative Medicine ................................................................................................................. 138 Infectious Disease ....................................................................................................................................... 147 Interventional Radiology ............................................................................................................................ 156 Maternal-Fetal Medicine ............................................................................................................................. 165 Neonatal-Perinatal Medicine ...................................................................................................................... 174 Nephrology.................................................................................................................................................. 183 Neuroradiology .......................................................................................................................................... 192 Obstetric Anesthesiology ........................................................................................................................... 201 Pain Medicine ............................................................................................................................................. 210 Pediatric Anesthesiology ............................................................................................................................ 219 Pediatric Cardiology .................................................................................................................................. 228 Pediatric Critical Care Medicine ................................................................................................................ 237 Pediatric Emergency Medicine .................................................................................................................. 246 Pediatric Endocrinology .............................................................................................................................. 255 Pediatric Gastroenterology ......................................................................................................................... 264 Pediatric Hematology/Oncology ................................................................................................................ 273 Pediatric Hospital Medicine ....................................................................................................................... 282 Pediatric Infectious Diseases ...................................................................................................................... 291 Pediatric Nephrology ................................................................................................................................. 300 Pediatric Pulmonology ............................................................................................................................... 309 Pediatric Rheumatology ............................................................................................................................. 318 Pediatric Surgery ........................................................................................................................................ 327 Psychosomatic Medicine ............................................................................................................................. 336 Pulmonary Disease and Critical Care Medicine ......................................................................................... 345 Reproductive Endocrinology ...................................................................................................................... 354 Rheumatology ............................................................................................................................................. 363 Sleep Medicine ............................................................................................................................................ 372 Sports Medicine ......................................................................................................................................... 381 Surgical Critical Care ................................................................................................................................. 390 Thoracic Surgery ......................................................................................................................................... 399 Vascular Neurology .................................................................................................................................... 408 Vascular Surgery ......................................................................................................................................... 417

Table of Contents

Introduction

1NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016

In May 2016, the National Resident Matching Program (NRMP) conducted its first survey of the directors of all programs participating in the Specialties Matching Service®. The primary purpose of the survey was to shed light on the factors that program directors use to (1) select applicants to interview and (2) rank applicants for their Fellowship Match. This survey is based largely on the Program Director Survey conducted for the Main Residency Match®.

The survey solicited information on: the factors used for both interview selection and for ranking applicants, the number of applications received, screened, and reviewed, as well as the number of interview invitations extended

and the number of applicants interviewed, whether the program typically interviews and ranks specific applicant groups, use of test scores in considering which applicants to interview and rank, dedicated time for research, and challenges faced by programs in recruting applicants to their specialty.

The survey was sent to 3,807 fellowship program directors and 1,474 responses were received for a 38.7 percent response rate. Response rates among specialties ranged from 0 percent (Oncology, 6 recipients and 0 responses) to 62.7 percent (Pediatric Hematology/Oncology 67 recipients and 42 responses). Specialties for which 10 or more fellowship program directors responded are included in this report. Response rates are listed in the table on the next page. Readers also should keep in mind that Fellowship Matches are conducted throughout the year and that some Match Days occur as long as one year prior to the start of training.

Results are presented for all subspecialties combined and by specialty. Specialty-specific results are included for selected items from the survey. Most graphs display responses to individual survey questions, and numbers of responses are presented. For graphs displaying data from multiple survey questions, the N's are shown. Graphs are suppressed for questions with fewer than three responses.

The NRMP hopes program directors and applicants find these data useful in discussions about and preparation for subspecialty training. _______________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/match-data/.

Specialty Surveys Sent Number Responding Response RateAbdominal Transplant Surgery 55 20 36.4%Adolescent Medicine 24 15 62.5%Allergy and Immunology 74 22 29.7%Cardiovascular Disease 185 57 30.8%Child and Adolescent Psychiatry  103 42 40.8%Colon and Rectal Surgery 53 18 34.0%Developmental‐Behavioral Pediatrics 34 16 47.1%Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Metabolism 122 51 41.8%Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery  45 16 35.6%Gastroenterology 151 54 35.8%Geriatric Medicine  130 45 34.6%Gynecologic Oncology 41 10 24.4%Hand Surgery  79 34 43.0%Hematology and Oncology 130 48 36.9%Hospice and Pall iative Medicine 106 42 39.6%Infectious Disease 133 59 44.4%Interventional Radiology  81 30 37.0%Maternal‐Fetal Medicine 73 26 35.6%Neonatal‐Perinatal Medicine  91 48 52.7%Nephrology 135 45 33.3%Neuroradiology  73 25 34.2%Obstetric Anesthesiology  25 10 40.0%Pain Medicine 84 21 25.0%Pediatric Anesthesiology  51 24 47.1%Pediatric Cardiology  55 28 50.9%Pediatric Critical Care Medicine  63 35 55.6%Pediatric Emergency Medicine  71 32 45.1%Pediatric Endocrinology  55 23 41.8%Pediatric Gastroenterology  54 23 42.6%Pediatric Hematology/Oncology  67 42 62.7%Pediatric Hospital Medicine  29 12 41.4%Pediatric Infectious Diseases  51 29 56.9%Pediatric Nephrology  41 17 41.5%Pediatric Pulmonology  46 20 43.5%Pediatric Rheumatology  28 10 35.7%Pediatric Surgery  37 12 32.4%Psychosomatic Medicine 50 17 34.0%Pulmonary Disease and Critical Care Medicine 136 58 42.6%Reproductive Endocrinology 34 12 35.3%Rheumatology 108 52 48.1%Sleep Medicine 67 26 38.8%Sports Medicine  143 62 43.4%Surgical Critical Care  101 36 35.6%Thoracic Surgery 58 18 31.0%Vascular Neurology 72 26 36.1%Vascular Surgery 92 24 26.1%All other 271 82 30.3%

Total 3,807 1,474 38.7%

Response Rates

2NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016

All Specialties Combined

Table 1 All SpecialtiesGeneral Information

4,036

9,320

9,893

Number of programs in the Match

Number of positions in the Match

Number of applicants ranking specialty

38.7%Response rate

Appointment Years

Number of responses 1,474

Match Information*

* Source: NRMP Data Warehouse

2016 Survey

2016 2015 2014

3,674

8,503

9,538

3,552

8,243

9,297

4NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016

100% 50% 0%

90%87%86%84%82%80%76%75%74%74%72%70%69%69%66%65%65%62%61%59%57%56%55%52%51%51%50%45%42%40%38%38%38%

36%31%26%22%20%19%14%

Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialty

Residency performance evaluation (Program Director letter)

Reputation of residency program

Demonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research

Perceived commitment to specialty

Personal statement

Perceived interest in program

Evidence of professionalism and ethics

USMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score

Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chapters

USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE score

Leadership qualities

Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicant

Oral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements

Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institution

Pass USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PE

Any failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX

USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 score

Interest in academic career

Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based)

Clinical/laboratory research experience

Awards or special honors in medical school

Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership

Other life experience

Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter)

Graduate of highly‐regarded medical school

Visa status*

Volunteer/extracurricular experiences

Awarded grant money for research

Grades in medical school

Lack of gaps in medical education

Medical school class ranking/quartile

Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP

Electives at your fellowship site

Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membership

Residency class ranking/quartile

Fluency in language spoken by your patient population

In‐Training Examination (ITE)

Residency program size

Having finished another fellowship

1 2 3 4 5

4.54.54.03.94.53.94.34.63.73.83.84.24.23.84.13.94.33.84.23.93.83.43.73.73.53.74.13.63.63.43.73.44.73.73.63.93.73.93.62.9

All SpecialtiesPercentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Selecting Applicants to Interview(N=1,228) Percent Citing Factor Average Rating

¹ Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).* International Medical Graduates only

5

Figure 1

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016

100% 50% 0%

91%91%79%77%73%73%71%71%68%65%64%59%57%56%52%51%50%49%49%44%44%44%43%42%40%33%32%32%32%30%30%29%28%28%28%27%22%20%20%19%17%16%14%13%12%

9%

Interactions with faculty during interview and visitInterpersonal skills

Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialtyInteractions with house staff during interview and visit

Perceived commitment to specialtyFeedback from current residents and fellows

Perceived interest in programDemonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research

Reputation of residency programResidency performance evaluation (Program Director letter)

Evidence of professionalism and ethicsPersonal statement

Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicantLeadership qualities

Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chaptersInterest in academic career

Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institutionUSMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score

USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE scoreAny failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX

Passing USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PEClinical/laboratory research experience

USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 scoreOral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements

Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based)Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership

Other life experienceMedical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter)

Second interview/visitAwards or special honors in medical school

Visa status*Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP

Graduate of highly‐regarded medical schoolElectives at your fellowship site

Awarded grant money for researchVolunteer/extracurricular experiencesMedical school class ranking/quartile

Lack of gaps in medical educationGrades in medical school

Residency class ranking/quartileFluency in language spoken by your patient population

Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membershipResidency program size

In‐Training Examination (ITE)Second interview/visit

Having finished another fellowship

All SpecialtiesPercentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Ranking Applicants(N=1,164)

1 2 3 4 5

4.94.84.54.74.64.74.54.04.04.44.74.04.34.44.04.34.13.83.94.33.94.03.93.94.03.83.83.74.13.64.24.83.94.13.83.93.53.93.53.93.93.83.74.04.13.4

Average RatingPercent Citing Factor

6

¹ Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).* International Medical Graduates only

Figure 2

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No, not required

69%

28%

4%

Scores required?

All SpecialtiesPrograms That Use USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) Scores When Considering Which Applicants to Interview

Programs That Use USMLE Step 1 Score

Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 (CK) Score

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No, not required

67%

29%

4%

Scores required?

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Never Seldom Often

17%

69%

15%

Would your program consider applicants who fail theexam on the first attempt?

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Never Seldom often

23%

66%

12%

Would your program consider applicants who fail theexam on the first attempt?

N=1,200N=1,175

N=1,203 N=1,174

N=214N=247N=280

IQR* of USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 CK Scores Programs Consider When Granting Interviews

N=243

170

180

190

200

210

220

230

240

250

260

Scores Below Which Programs Generally Do Not Grant Interviews

170

180

190

200

210

220

230

240

250

260

Scores Above Which Programs Almost Always Grant Interviews

*The boxes in the boxplots 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 x-shaped symbol in the box represents the mean.

USMLE Step 2 CKUSMLE Step 1USMLE Step 2 CKUSMLE Step 1

7

Figure 3

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

56%

17%

27%

COMLEX-USA Level 3*

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

59%

18%23%

COMLEX-USA Level 1*

N=140%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes No

96%

4%

USMLE Step 2 Clinical Skills (CS)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

59%

18%23%

COMLEX-USA Level 2-CE*

N=140%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

65%

23%

12%

USMLE Step 3

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

63%

14%

23%

COMLEX-USA Level 2-PE*

N=873 N=872

N=868 N=853

* Osteopathic applicants only

All SpecialtiesPrograms That Use USMLE Step 2 Clinical Skill (CS), Step 3, and COMLEX-USA Scores* When Considering Which Applicants to Interview

N=1,197 N=1,179

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 CS and Step 3 Scores

Percentage of Programs That Use COMLEX-USA Level 1 and Level 2-CE Scores

Percentage of Programs That Use COMLEX-USA Level 2-PE and Level 3 Scores

8

Figure 4

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016

All SpecialtiesPrograms That Use Core Specialty Certifying Examination When Considering Applicants for Interview

9

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Never Seldom Often

29%

60%

10%

Would your program consider applicants who fail theexam on the first attempt?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No, not required

23%

4%

72%

Scores required?

N=414N=589

39.5%Optional

60.5%Required

Program Requirement onDedicated Time for Research

N=1,469

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Accredited Locally Funded Integrated Other

12

109 9

Average Number of Months if Research Time isRequired

N=472 N=193 N=139 N=124

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

Accredited Positions Funded Positions

4.44.1

Average Number of Accredited Positions and Funded Positions

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Positions Filled BeforeMatch Day

Positions Offered Outsidethe Match

Positions Filled Outsidethe Match

70%

48%44%

Average Percentage of Accredited Positions Offered Outside ofthe Match

N=1,442 N=1,352 N=322 N=202 N=181

All SpecialtiesProgram Positions

Figure 6

All SpecialtiesDedicated Time for Research

Figure 7

Figure 5

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016

All SpecialtiesInterviews and Applications

0

20

40

60

80

100

Number of applicationsreceived

Number of interviewinvitations sent

Number of applicantsinterviewed

98

2319

Average Number of Applications Received, Interview Invitations Sent,and Applicants Interviewed

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Rejected based on a standardizedscreening process

In-depth review

34%

68%

Average Percentage of Applicants Rejected and Reviewed

N=1,307 N=1,312N=1,338 N=1,338 N=1,339

10

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

U.S. Graduate Osteopathic Physician Canadian Fifth Pathway U.S. IMG Non-U.S. IMG

97%

87%

64%

32%

75%

59%

Percentage of Programs that Typically Interview and Rank Each Applicant Type

N=1,269

29% of all programs consider all applicant groups

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-US IMG3% 4%

63%

23%

8%

22%6%

36%

32%

54%

49%

41%

91%

60%

5%

23%

43%37%

Often Seldom Never

Interview

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-US IMG3% 6%

65%

25%

10%

25%

5%

36%

30%

52%

49%

41%

92%

58%

5%

23%

42%34%

Often Seldom Never

Ranking

Frequency of Programs Interviewing and Ranking Candidates

n=1,210n=1,241

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

13%4% 2% 2% 3% 3%

12%

28%20%

8%2% 2%

Interview invitations sent

Interview Invitations Sent and Interviews Conducted

3% 6% 6% 3% 2% 1% 3%9%

25% 26%

8%2%

Interviews conducted

N=1,185

Figure 8

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016

All SpecialtiesNumber of Years as Program Director

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

80%

20%

13%

1%

1%

We consider those applicants on an individual basis

We give those applicants serious consideration if they have shownimprovement

We do not usually consider those applicants

We favor those applicants

Other

All SpecialtiesPotential Challenges in Recruiting Applicants to Your Specialty

11

1 2 3 4 5

Not enough applicants in the specialty

Undesirable income potential as a practicing physician

Undesirable work/life balance as a practicing physician

Long or irregular work hours required by specialty

Fellowship Match scheduled at inconvenient time of year

3.0

2.7

2.7

2.4

2.0

Average rating on a scale of 5 (1=least challenging; 5=most challenging)n=1,117

22.3%Less than 3

24.0%3 to 5

26.5%6 to 10

12.0%11 to 15

15.2%More than 15

At Any Fellowship Program

26.7%Less than 3

25.9%3 to 5

26.8%6 to 10

10.2%11 to 15

10.4%More than 15

At Current Fellowship Program

n=1,122

n=1,266 n=1,216

Figure 9

Figure 10 All SpecialtiesApplicants Who Applied in the Specialty in the Past but Did Not Match

Figure 11

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016

Abdominal Transplant Surgery

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 12

Abdominal Transplant SurgeryGeneral Information

Table 1

64

77

89

Number of programs in the Match

Number of positions in the Match

Number of applicants ranking specialty

36.4%Response rate

Appointment Years

Number of responses 20

Match Information*

* Source: NRMP Data Warehouse

2016 Survey

2016 2015 2014

56

70

81

62

73

98

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 13

Figure-1Abdominal Transplant SurgeryPercentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Selecting Applicants to Interview(N=14)

Average RatingPercent Citing Factor

¹ Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).* International Medical Graduates only

1 2 3 4 5

4.84.44.13.74.54.04.24.33.03.93.54.04.74.04.43.53.53.04.14.03.83.23.04.03.03.54.53.03.64.02.8

4.04.03.04.04.04.03.03.3

100% 50% 0%

86%79%86%79%57%50%71%71%29%57%29%71%64%50%36%29%14%29%50%64%36%36%21%29%21%14%50%14%36%14%29%

0%7%

14%7%7%

21%14%

7%21%

Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialty

Residency performance evaluation (Program Director letter)

Reputation of residency program

Demonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research

Perceived commitment to specialty

Personal statement

Perceived interest in program

Evidence of professionalism and ethics

USMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score

Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chapters

USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE score

Leadership qualities

Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicant

Oral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements

Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institution

Pass USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PE

Any failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX

USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 score

Interest in academic career

Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based)

Clinical/laboratory research experience

Awards or special honors in medical school

Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership

Other life experience

Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter)

Graduate of highly‐regarded medical school

Visa status*

Volunteer/extracurricular experiences

Awarded grant money for research

Grades in medical school

Lack of gaps in medical education

Medical school class ranking/quartile

Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP

Electives at your fellowship site

Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membership

Residency class ranking/quartile

Fluency in language spoken by your patient population

In‐Training Examination (ITE)

Residency program size

Having finished another fellowship

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 14

Abdominal Transplant SurgeryPercentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Ranking Applicants(N=14)

Figure-2

Average RatingPercent Citing Factor

¹ Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).* International Medical Graduates only

1 2 3 4 5

5.04.84.54.84.44.74.53.54.34.64.63.74.64.23.33.84.73.33.74.03.53.33.03.84.33.03.44.03.53.04.04.04.04.53.43.04.04.03.0

4.53.04.04.04.04.0

100% 50% 0%

100%85%77%92%62%54%46%62%85%54%62%54%54%46%54%31%23%31%23%15%31%54%31%31%31%8%

38%15%15%23%46%8%

15%15%38%15%8%

15%8%0%

15%8%8%8%8%8%

Interactions with faculty during interview and visitInterpersonal skills

Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialtyInteractions with house staff during interview and visit

Perceived commitment to specialtyFeedback from current residents and fellows

Perceived interest in programDemonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research

Reputation of residency programResidency performance evaluation (Program Director letter)

Evidence of professionalism and ethicsPersonal statement

Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicantLeadership qualities

Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chaptersInterest in academic career

Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institutionUSMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score

USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE scoreAny failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX

Passing USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PEClinical/laboratory research experience

USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 scoreOral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements

Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based)Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership

Other life experienceMedical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter)

Second interview/visitAwards or special honors in medical school

Visa status*Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP

Graduate of highly‐regarded medical schoolElectives at your fellowship site

Awarded grant money for researchVolunteer/extracurricular experiencesMedical school class ranking/quartile

Lack of gaps in medical educationGrades in medical school

Residency class ranking/quartileFluency in language spoken by your patient population

Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membershipResidency program size

In‐Training Examination (ITE)Second interview/visit

Having finished another fellowship

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 15

Abdominal Transplant SurgeryPrograms That Use USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) Scores When Considering Which Applicants to Interview

Figure-3

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 (CK) Score

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Never Seldom Often

8%

67%

25%

Would your program consider applicants who fail theexam on the first attempt?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Never Seldom often

8%

67%

25%

Would your program consider applicants who failthe exam on the first attempt?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

93%

0%7%

Scores required?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

93%

0%7%

Scores required?

N=14

N=12

N=14N=12

IQR* of Average USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 CK Scores Programs Consider When Granting Interviews

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 1 Score

*The boxes in the boxplots 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 x-shaped symbol is the mean.

Scores Above Which Programs Almost Always Grant Interviews

Scores Below Which Programs Generally Do Not Grant Interviews

USMLE Step 2 CK not reported

because of low response rate

USMLE Step 1 not reported because of low response

rate

USMLE Step 2 CK not reported

because of low response rate

USMLE Step 1 not reported because of low response

rate

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 16

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes No

93%

7%

USMLE Step 2 CS

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

93%

0%7%

USMLE Step 3

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

56%

0%

44%

COMLEX-USA Level 1*

Abdominal Transplant SurgeryPercentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 Clinical Skill (CS), Step 3, and COMLEX-USA Scores* When Considering Which Applicants to Interview

Figure-4

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

56%

0%

44%

COMLEX-USA Level 2-CE*

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

56%

0%

44%

COMLEX-USA Level 3*

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

56%

0%

44%

COMLEX-USA Level 2-PE*

N=14 N=14

N=9 N=9

N=9 N=9

* Osteopathic applicants only

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 CS and Step 3 Scores

Percentage of Programs That Use COMLEX-USA Level 1 and Level 2-CE Scores

Percentage of Programs That Use COMLEX-USA Level 2-PE and Level 3 Scores

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 17

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Never Seldom Often

0%

100%

0%

Would your program consider applicants who fail theexam on the first attempt?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No, not required

13%

0%

88%

Scores required?

N=2

N=8

85.0%Optional

15.0%Required

Program Requirement on Dedicated Time forResearch

N=20

0

4

8

12

16

20

24

Accredited Locally Funded Integrated Other

12

24

2

Average Number of Months if Research Time isRequired

N=1 N=0 N=1 N=1

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

Accredited Positions Funded Positions

1.31.4

Average Number of Accredited Positions and Funded Positions

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Positions Filled BeforeMatch Day

Positions Offered Outsidethe Match

Positions Filled Outsidethe Match

93%

67% 67%

Average Percentage of Accredited Positions Offered Outside ofthe Match

N=18 N=19 N=6 N=2 N=2

Abdominal Transplant SurgeryPrograms That Use Core Specialty Certifying Examination When Considering Applicants for Interview

Figure-5

Abdominal Transplant SurgeryPrograms Positions Figure-6

Abdominal Transplant SurgeryDedicated Time for Research Figure-7

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 18

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%88%

69%

81%

44%

63%

75%

U.S. Graduate OsteopathicPhysician

Canadian Fifth Pathway U.S. IMG Non-U.S. IMG

Percentage of Programs that Typically Interview and Rank Each Applicant Type

Figure-8Abdominal Transplant SurgeryProgram's Interview Activities

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Rejected based on astandardized screening

process

In-depth review

50%

65%

Average Percentage of Applicants Rejected and Reviewed

0

4

8

12

16

20

24

Number of applicationsreceived

Number of interviewinvitations sent

Number of applicantsinterviewed

23

9 9

Average Number of Positions, Applications Received, InterviewInvitations Sent, and Applicants Interviewed and Ranked

N=16N=16N=16N=16

N=16

44% of Abdominal Transplant Surgery programs consider all applicant groups

N=15

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-USIMG

21% 20%

82%

21% 21% 21%

7%27% 29%

43%

14%

71%53%

18%

50%36%

64%

Often Seldom Never

Interview

0%10%

20%

30%40%

50%60%

70%80%

90%100%

Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-USIMG

23% 21%

82%

15% 17% 23%

29% 38%50%

15%

77%

50%

18%

46%33%

62%

Often Seldom Never

Ranking

n=13

Frequency of Programs Interviewing and Ranking Candidates

n=14

N=13

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

11%

44%

13% 10% 10%0% 0% 0% 0%

8%0%

8%

Interview invitations

Interview Invitations Sent and Interviews Conducted

0% 1%

14%

41%

21%

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

15%

Interviews conducted

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 19

Figure-9Abdominal Transplant SurgeryPotential Challenges in Recruiting Applicants to Your Specialty

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

92%

33%

17%

0%

0%

We consider those applicants on an individual basis

We give those applicants serious consideration if they haveshown improvement

We do not usually consider those applicants

We favor those applicants

Other

0 1 2 3 4 5

Not enough applicants in the specialty

Undesirable income potential as a practicing physician

Undesirable work/life balance as a practicing physician

Long or irregular work hours required by specialty

Fellowship Match scheduled at inconvenient time of year

3.5

2.3

4.3

4.6

1.4

Average rating on a scale of 5 (1=least challenging; 5=most challenging)

n=12

28.6%Less than 3

21.4%3 to 5

35.7%6 to 10

7.1%11 to 157.1%

More than 15

At Any Fellowship Program

35.7%Less than 3

21.4%3 to 5

35.7%6 to 10

7.1%More than 15

At Current Fellowship Program

n=12

n=14 n=14

Abdominal Transplant SurgeryApplicants Who Applied in the Specialty in the Past But Did Not Match Figure-10

Abdominal Transplant SurgeryYears as Program Director Figure-11

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 20

Adolescent Medicine

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 21

Adolescent MedicineGeneral Information

Table 1

24

31

29

Number of programs in the Match

Number of positions in the Match

Number of applicants ranking specialty

62.5%Response rate

Appointment Years

Number of responses 15

Match Information*

* Source: NRMP Data Warehouse

2016 Survey

2016 2015 2014

25

36

31

23

35

22

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 22

Figure-1Adolescent MedicinePercentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Selecting Applicants to Interview(N=15)

Average RatingPercent Citing Factor

¹ Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).* International Medical Graduates only

1 2 3 4 5

4.95.03.43.95.04.44.64.83.23.83.34.33.93.63.94.04.63.64.43.33.63.73.43.43.43.43.83.53.43.33.33.64.73.93.43.73.72.03.73.3

100% 50% 0%

100%100%

93%100%

93%100%

93%87%67%87%67%93%

100%93%80%67%67%53%87%47%53%93%87%73%87%73%47%87%53%67%47%67%47%67%67%53%27%

7%27%20%

Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialty

Residency performance evaluation (Program Director letter)

Reputation of residency program

Demonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research

Perceived commitment to specialty

Personal statement

Perceived interest in program

Evidence of professionalism and ethics

USMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score

Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chapters

USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE score

Leadership qualities

Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicant

Oral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements

Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institution

Pass USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PE

Any failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX

USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 score

Interest in academic career

Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based)

Clinical/laboratory research experience

Awards or special honors in medical school

Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership

Other life experience

Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter)

Graduate of highly‐regarded medical school

Visa status*

Volunteer/extracurricular experiences

Awarded grant money for research

Grades in medical school

Lack of gaps in medical education

Medical school class ranking/quartile

Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP

Electives at your fellowship site

Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membership

Residency class ranking/quartile

Fluency in language spoken by your patient population

In‐Training Examination (ITE)

Residency program size

Having finished another fellowship

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 23

Adolescent MedicinePercentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Ranking Applicants(N=15)

Figure-2

Average RatingPercent Citing Factor

¹ Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).* International Medical Graduates only

1 2 3 4 5

5.04.94.84.54.94.74.94.44.15.04.84.34.34.73.94.84.03.33.34.44.43.93.43.93.54.03.64.34.43.94.54.64.24.13.63.84.03.53.73.43.04.43.7

4.03.0

100% 50% 0%

100%92%92%85%92%92%85%92%62%85%92%92%77%85%85%77%62%31%31%62%38%54%38%69%31%46%62%62%54%77%31%38%46%69%62%62%15%15%23%38%31%38%23%0%

31%31%

Interactions with faculty during interview and visitInterpersonal skills

Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialtyInteractions with house staff during interview and visit

Perceived commitment to specialtyFeedback from current residents and fellows

Perceived interest in programDemonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research

Reputation of residency programResidency performance evaluation (Program Director letter)

Evidence of professionalism and ethicsPersonal statement

Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicantLeadership qualities

Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chaptersInterest in academic career

Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institutionUSMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score

USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE scoreAny failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX

Passing USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PEClinical/laboratory research experience

USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 scoreOral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements

Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based)Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership

Other life experienceMedical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter)

Second interview/visitAwards or special honors in medical school

Visa status*Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP

Graduate of highly‐regarded medical schoolElectives at your fellowship site

Awarded grant money for researchVolunteer/extracurricular experiencesMedical school class ranking/quartile

Lack of gaps in medical educationGrades in medical school

Residency class ranking/quartileFluency in language spoken by your patient population

Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membershipResidency program size

In‐Training Examination (ITE)Second interview/visit

Having finished another fellowship

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 24

Adolescent MedicinePrograms That Use USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) Scores When Considering Which Applicants to Interview

Figure-3

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 (CK) Score

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Never Seldom Often

0%

50% 50%

Would your program consider applicants who fail theexam on the first attempt?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Never Seldom often

0%

67%

33%

Would your program consider applicants who failthe exam on the first attempt?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

93%

7%0%

Scores required?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

93%

7%0%

Scores required?

N=15

N=14

N=15N=15

IQR* of Average USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 CK Scores Programs Consider When Granting Interviews

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 1 Score

*The boxes in the boxplots 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 x-shaped symbol is the mean.

Scores Above Which Programs Almost Always Grant Interviews

Scores Below Which Programs Generally Do Not Grant Interviews

USMLE Step 2 CK not reported

because of low response rate

USMLE Step 1 not reported because of low response

rate

USMLE Step 2 CK not reported

because of low response rate

USMLE Step 1 not reported because of low response

rate

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 25

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes No

100%

0%

USMLE Step 2 CS

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

80%

7%13%

USMLE Step 3

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

67%

8%

25%

COMLEX-USA Level 1*

Adolescent MedicinePercentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 Clinical Skill (CS), Step 3, and COMLEX-USA Scores* When Considering Which Applicants to Interview

Figure-4

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

67%

8%

25%

COMLEX-USA Level 2-CE*

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

58%

8%

33%

COMLEX-USA Level 3*

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

67%

8%

25%

COMLEX-USA Level 2-PE*

N=15 N=15

N=12 N=12

N=12 N=12

* Osteopathic applicants only

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 CS and Step 3 Scores

Percentage of Programs That Use COMLEX-USA Level 1 and Level 2-CE Scores

Percentage of Programs That Use COMLEX-USA Level 2-PE and Level 3 Scores

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 26

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Never Seldom Often

20%

40% 40%

Would your program consider applicants who fail theexam on the first attempt?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No, not required

29%

0%

71%

Scores required?

N=5

N=7

13.3%Optional

86.7%Required

Program Requirement on Dedicated Time forResearch

N=15

0

4

8

12

16

20

Accredited Locally Funded Integrated Other

15

18 18

Average Number of Months if Research Time isRequired

N=6 N=0 N=2 N=1

0.0

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.6

2.0

2.4

2.8

Accredited Positions Funded Positions

2.7

2.1

Average Number of Accredited Positions and Funded Positions

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Positions Filled BeforeMatch Day

Positions Offered Outsidethe Match

Positions Filled Outsidethe Match

55% 54% 54%

Average Percentage of Accredited Positions Offered Outside ofthe Match

N=15 N=14 N=5 N=4 N=4

Adolescent MedicinePrograms That Use Core Specialty Certifying Examination When Considering Applicants for Interview

Figure-5

Adolescent MedicinePrograms Positions Figure-6

Adolescent MedicineDedicated Time for Research Figure-7

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 27

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%100%

87%

53%

0%

73%

40%

U.S. Graduate OsteopathicPhysician

Canadian Fifth Pathway U.S. IMG Non-U.S. IMG

Percentage of Programs that Typically Interview and Rank Each Applicant Type

Figure-8Adolescent MedicineProgram's Interview Activities

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Rejected based on astandardized screening

process

In-depth review

12%

89%

Average Percentage of Applicants Rejected and Reviewed

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Number of applicationsreceived

Number of interviewinvitations sent

Number of applicantsinterviewed

12

87

Average Number of Positions, Applications Received, InterviewInvitations Sent, and Applicants Interviewed and Ranked

N=15N=15N=15N=15

N=15

0% of Adolescent Medicine programs consider all applicant groups

N=15

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-USIMG

92%

21% 20%36%40%

8%

50%67%

64%

100%

60%

29%13%

Often Seldom Never

Interview

0%10%

20%

30%40%

50%60%

70%80%

90%100%

Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-USIMG

100%

21% 20%36%40%

50%67%

64%

100%

60%

29%13%

Often Seldom Never

Ranking

n=15

Frequency of Programs Interviewing and Ranking Candidates

n=15

N=14

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

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

29%

41%

29%

2% 0% 0%

Interview invitations

Interview Invitations Sent and Interviews Conducted

0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2%

17%

42%38%

1% 0%

Interviews conducted

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 28

Figure-9Adolescent MedicinePotential Challenges in Recruiting Applicants to Your Specialty

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

92%

17%

8%

0%

8%

We consider those applicants on an individual basis

We give those applicants serious consideration if they haveshown improvement

We do not usually consider those applicants

We favor those applicants

Other

0 1 2 3 4 5

Not enough applicants in the specialty

Undesirable income potential as a practicing physician

Undesirable work/life balance as a practicing physician

Long or irregular work hours required by specialty

Fellowship Match scheduled at inconvenient time of year

4.9

3.9

1.7

1.2

1.5

Average rating on a scale of 5 (1=least challenging; 5=most challenging)n=14

25.0%Less than 3

41.7%3 to 5

16.7%6 to 10

16.7%More than 15

At Any Fellowship Program

30.0%Less than 3

30.0%3 to 5

30.0%6 to 10

10.0%More than 15

At Current Fellowship Program

n=12

n=12 n=10

Adolescent MedicineApplicants Who Applied in the Specialty in the Past But Did Not Match Figure-10

Adolescent MedicineYears as Program Director Figure-11

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 29

Allergy and Immunology

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 30

Allergy and ImmunologyGeneral Information

Table 1

86

137

151

Number of programs in the Match

Number of positions in the Match

Number of applicants ranking specialty

29.7%Response rate

Appointment Years

Number of responses 22

Match Information*

* Source: NRMP Data Warehouse

2016 Survey

2016 2015 2014

82

126

155

81

132

179

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 31

Figure-1Allergy and ImmunologyPercentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Selecting Applicants to Interview(N=14)

Average RatingPercent Citing Factor

¹ Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).* International Medical Graduates only

1 2 3 4 5

4.54.34.14.34.44.04.84.94.14.24.14.34.44.34.74.34.54.24.44.14.23.84.03.53.93.94.03.34.33.74.03.34.74.23.73.94.3

4.05.0

100% 50% 0%

86%93%86%93%71%71%79%50%93%79%86%50%64%64%50%79%43%86%79%50%79%86%79%14%50%64%43%21%57%43%21%57%21%36%43%57%21%

0%14%

7%

Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialty

Residency performance evaluation (Program Director letter)

Reputation of residency program

Demonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research

Perceived commitment to specialty

Personal statement

Perceived interest in program

Evidence of professionalism and ethics

USMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score

Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chapters

USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE score

Leadership qualities

Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicant

Oral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements

Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institution

Pass USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PE

Any failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX

USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 score

Interest in academic career

Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based)

Clinical/laboratory research experience

Awards or special honors in medical school

Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership

Other life experience

Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter)

Graduate of highly‐regarded medical school

Visa status*

Volunteer/extracurricular experiences

Awarded grant money for research

Grades in medical school

Lack of gaps in medical education

Medical school class ranking/quartile

Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP

Electives at your fellowship site

Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membership

Residency class ranking/quartile

Fluency in language spoken by your patient population

In‐Training Examination (ITE)

Residency program size

Having finished another fellowship

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 32

Allergy and ImmunologyPercentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Ranking Applicants(N=14)

Figure-2

Average RatingPercent Citing Factor

¹ Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).* International Medical Graduates only

1 2 3 4 5

4.74.64.54.74.54.74.34.74.24.44.94.24.34.54.64.84.34.44.44.64.44.64.34.54.24.3

4.74.73.94.55.04.04.34.83.54.04.74.54.04.04.04.5

5.05.0

100% 50% 0%

93%100%86%71%57%86%86%71%71%64%57%36%57%29%64%64%50%57%57%50%50%57%64%57%36%57%0%

29%21%50%14%7%

43%21%43%14%29%21%14%29%7%

14%14%0%

21%7%

Interactions with faculty during interview and visitInterpersonal skills

Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialtyInteractions with house staff during interview and visit

Perceived commitment to specialtyFeedback from current residents and fellows

Perceived interest in programDemonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research

Reputation of residency programResidency performance evaluation (Program Director letter)

Evidence of professionalism and ethicsPersonal statement

Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicantLeadership qualities

Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chaptersInterest in academic career

Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institutionUSMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score

USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE scoreAny failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX

Passing USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PEClinical/laboratory research experience

USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 scoreOral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements

Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based)Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership

Other life experienceMedical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter)

Second interview/visitAwards or special honors in medical school

Visa status*Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP

Graduate of highly‐regarded medical schoolElectives at your fellowship site

Awarded grant money for researchVolunteer/extracurricular experiencesMedical school class ranking/quartile

Lack of gaps in medical educationGrades in medical school

Residency class ranking/quartileFluency in language spoken by your patient population

Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membershipResidency program size

In‐Training Examination (ITE)Second interview/visit

Having finished another fellowship

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 33

170

180

190

200

210

220

230

240

250

260

Allergy and ImmunologyPrograms That Use USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) Scores When Considering Which Applicants to Interview

Figure-3

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 (CK) Score

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Never Seldom Often

15%

85%

0%

Would your program consider applicants who fail theexam on the first attempt?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Never Seldom often

38%

62%

0%

Would your program consider applicants who failthe exam on the first attempt?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

36%

57%

7%

Scores required?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

36%

57%

7%

Scores required?

N=14

N=13

N=14N=13

N=5N=6 N=7 N=6

IQR* of Average USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 CK Scores Programs Consider When Granting Interviews

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 1 Score

170

180

190

200

210

220

230

240

250

260

USMLE Step 2 CKUSMLE Step 1 USMLE Step 1 USMLE Step 2 CK

*The boxes in the boxplots 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 x-shaped symbol is the mean.

Scores Above Which Programs Almost Always Grant Interviews

Scores Below Which Programs Generally Do Not Grant Interviews

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 34

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes No

93%

7%

USMLE Step 2 CS

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

36%

50%

14%

USMLE Step 3

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

11%

44% 44%

COMLEX-USA Level 1*

Allergy and ImmunologyPercentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 Clinical Skill (CS), Step 3, and COMLEX-USA Scores* When Considering Which Applicants to Interview

Figure-4

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

11%

44% 44%

COMLEX-USA Level 2-CE*

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

11%

33%

56%

COMLEX-USA Level 3*

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

22%

33%

44%

COMLEX-USA Level 2-PE*

N=14 N=14

N=9 N=9

N=9 N=9

* Osteopathic applicants only

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 CS and Step 3 Scores

Percentage of Programs That Use COMLEX-USA Level 1 and Level 2-CE Scores

Percentage of Programs That Use COMLEX-USA Level 2-PE and Level 3 Scores

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 35

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Never Seldom Often

33%

67%

0%

Would your program consider applicants who fail theexam on the first attempt?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No, not required

20% 20%

60%

Scores required?

N=6

N=10

13.6%Optional

86.4%Required

Program Requirement on Dedicated Time forResearch

N=22

0

4

8

12

16

20

24

Accredited Locally Funded Integrated Other

7

9

24

6

Average Number of Months if Research Time isRequired

N=11 N=7 N=1 N=1

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

Accredited Positions Funded Positions

3.8

3.3

Average Number of Accredited Positions and Funded Positions

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Positions Filled BeforeMatch Day

Positions Offered Outsidethe Match

Positions Filled Outsidethe Match

71%

29% 30%

Average Percentage of Accredited Positions Offered Outside ofthe Match

N=21 N=20 N=7 N=4 N=3

Allergy and ImmunologyPrograms That Use Core Specialty Certifying Examination When Considering Applicants for Interview

Figure-5

Allergy and ImmunologyPrograms Positions Figure-6

Allergy and ImmunologyDedicated Time for Research Figure-7

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 36

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100% 93%

64%57%

36%

71%

43%

U.S. Graduate OsteopathicPhysician

Canadian Fifth Pathway U.S. IMG Non-U.S. IMG

Percentage of Programs that Typically Interview and Rank Each Applicant Type

Figure-8Allergy and ImmunologyProgram's Interview Activities

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Rejected based on astandardized screening

process

In-depth review

49%60%

Average Percentage of Applicants Rejected and Reviewed

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Number of applicationsreceived

Number of interviewinvitations sent

Number of applicantsinterviewed

62

1815

Average Number of Positions, Applications Received, InterviewInvitations Sent, and Applicants Interviewed and Ranked

N=16N=15N=18N=18

N=14

29% of Allergy and Immunology programs consider all applicant groups

N=18

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-USIMG

13% 13%

53%

27%13%

47%

47%

47%

60%

53%

40%

88%

40%

13%33%

13%

Often Seldom Never

Interview

0%10%

20%

30%40%

50%60%

70%80%

90%100%

Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-USIMG

13%27%

53%33%

13%

47%

33%

47%

60%

53%

53%

87%

40%

7%

33%

Often Seldom Never

Ranking

n=15

Frequency of Programs Interviewing and Ranking Candidates

n=16

N=14

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%10%

58%

20%12%

0% 0%

Interview invitations

Interview Invitations Sent and Interviews Conducted

0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%8%

49%

30%

7%0%

Interviews conducted

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 37

Figure-9Allergy and ImmunologyPotential Challenges in Recruiting Applicants to Your Specialty

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

85%

15%

15%

0%

0%

We consider those applicants on an individual basis

We give those applicants serious consideration if they haveshown improvement

We do not usually consider those applicants

We favor those applicants

Other

0 1 2 3 4 5

Not enough applicants in the specialty

Undesirable income potential as a practicing physician

Undesirable work/life balance as a practicing physician

Long or irregular work hours required by specialty

Fellowship Match scheduled at inconvenient time of year

2.2

1.8

1.2

1.2

1.3

Average rating on a scale of 5 (1=least challenging; 5=most challenging)

n=14

26.7%3 to 5

40.0%6 to 10

13.3%11 to

15

20.0%More than 15

At Any Fellowship Program

7.1%Less than 3

21.4%3 to 5

35.7%6 to 10

14.3%11 to 15

21.4%More than 15

At Current Fellowship Program

n=13

n=15 n=14

Allergy and ImmunologyApplicants Who Applied in the Specialty in the Past But Did Not Match Figure-10

Allergy and ImmunologyYears as Program Director Figure-11

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 38

Cardiovascular Disease

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 39

Cardiovascular DiseaseGeneral Information

Table 1

193

844

1,108

Number of programs in the Match

Number of positions in the Match

Number of applicants ranking specialty

30.8%Response rate

Appointment Years

Number of responses 57

Match Information*

* Source: NRMP Data Warehouse

2016 Survey

2016 2015 2014

187

835

1,142

181

800

1,106

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 40

Figure-1Cardiovascular DiseasePercentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Selecting Applicants to Interview(N=48)

Average RatingPercent Citing Factor

¹ Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).* International Medical Graduates only

1 2 3 4 5

4.44.54.54.04.03.54.24.54.04.04.04.14.24.04.24.34.74.14.04.43.63.54.23.53.43.84.13.83.83.43.73.54.83.93.53.93.63.03.32.6

100% 50% 0%

81%88%94%90%60%69%73%67%81%79%83%77%67%71%79%63%83%79%52%75%52%54%52%46%46%54%44%31%40%23%48%31%52%27%25%56%19%10%10%19%

Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialty

Residency performance evaluation (Program Director letter)

Reputation of residency program

Demonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research

Perceived commitment to specialty

Personal statement

Perceived interest in program

Evidence of professionalism and ethics

USMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score

Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chapters

USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE score

Leadership qualities

Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicant

Oral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements

Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institution

Pass USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PE

Any failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX

USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 score

Interest in academic career

Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based)

Clinical/laboratory research experience

Awards or special honors in medical school

Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership

Other life experience

Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter)

Graduate of highly‐regarded medical school

Visa status*

Volunteer/extracurricular experiences

Awarded grant money for research

Grades in medical school

Lack of gaps in medical education

Medical school class ranking/quartile

Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP

Electives at your fellowship site

Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membership

Residency class ranking/quartile

Fluency in language spoken by your patient population

In‐Training Examination (ITE)

Residency program size

Having finished another fellowship

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 41

Cardiovascular DiseasePercentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Ranking Applicants(N=48)

Figure-2

Average RatingPercent Citing Factor

¹ Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).* International Medical Graduates only

1 2 3 4 5

4.84.74.54.84.64.64.54.14.44.54.83.84.64.44.24.34.04.24.24.64.24.04.34.14.34.14.13.74.23.74.34.84.14.24.14.03.64.43.34.54.44.03.84.04.34.5

100% 50% 0%

89%89%82%76%36%78%71%78%82%71%51%49%49%47%49%44%47%51%53%47%44%31%49%33%53%38%20%27%31%22%20%36%31%20%20%9%

18%16%13%27%11%4%9%4%7%4%

Interactions with faculty during interview and visitInterpersonal skills

Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialtyInteractions with house staff during interview and visit

Perceived commitment to specialtyFeedback from current residents and fellows

Perceived interest in programDemonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research

Reputation of residency programResidency performance evaluation (Program Director letter)

Evidence of professionalism and ethicsPersonal statement

Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicantLeadership qualities

Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chaptersInterest in academic career

Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institutionUSMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score

USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE scoreAny failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX

Passing USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PEClinical/laboratory research experience

USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 scoreOral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements

Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based)Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership

Other life experienceMedical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter)

Second interview/visitAwards or special honors in medical school

Visa status*Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP

Graduate of highly‐regarded medical schoolElectives at your fellowship site

Awarded grant money for researchVolunteer/extracurricular experiencesMedical school class ranking/quartile

Lack of gaps in medical educationGrades in medical school

Residency class ranking/quartileFluency in language spoken by your patient population

Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membershipResidency program size

In‐Training Examination (ITE)Second interview/visit

Having finished another fellowship

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 42

170

180

190

200

210

220

230

240

250

260

Cardiovascular DiseasePrograms That Use USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) Scores When Considering Which Applicants to Interview

Figure-3

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 (CK) Score

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Never Seldom Often

38%

58%

4%

Would your program consider applicants who fail theexam on the first attempt?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Never Seldom often

38%

58%

4%

Would your program consider applicants who failthe exam on the first attempt?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

46%

54%

0%

Scores required?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

46%54%

0%

Scores required?

N=48

N=48

N=48N=48

N=20N=24 N=18 N=14

IQR* of Average USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 CK Scores Programs Consider When Granting Interviews

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 1 Score

170

180

190

200

210

220

230

240

250

260

USMLE Step 2 CKUSMLE Step 1 USMLE Step 1 USMLE Step 2 CK

*The boxes in the boxplots 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 x-shaped symbol is the mean.

Scores Above Which Programs Almost Always Grant Interviews

Scores Below Which Programs Generally Do Not Grant Interviews

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 43

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes No

100%

0%

USMLE Step 2 CS

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

35%

52%

13%

USMLE Step 3

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

45%

32%24%

COMLEX-USA Level 1*

Cardiovascular DiseasePercentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 Clinical Skill (CS), Step 3, and COMLEX-USA Scores* When Considering Which Applicants to Interview

Figure-4

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

45%

32%24%

COMLEX-USA Level 2-CE*

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

37% 34%29%

COMLEX-USA Level 3*

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

54%

22% 24%

COMLEX-USA Level 2-PE*

N=48 N=46

N=38 N=38

N=37 N=35

* Osteopathic applicants only

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 CS and Step 3 Scores

Percentage of Programs That Use COMLEX-USA Level 1 and Level 2-CE Scores

Percentage of Programs That Use COMLEX-USA Level 2-PE and Level 3 Scores

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 44

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Never Seldom Often

44%50%

6%

Would your program consider applicants who fail theexam on the first attempt?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No, not required

23%

8%

69%

Scores required?

N=18

N=26

37.5%Optional

62.5%Required

Program Requirement on Dedicated Time forResearch

N=56

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Accredited Locally Funded Integrated Other

5

4

3

2

Average Number of Months if Research Time isRequired

N=20 N=9 N=5 N=6

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Accredited Positions Funded Positions

10.910.3

Average Number of Accredited Positions and Funded Positions

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Positions Filled BeforeMatch Day

Positions Offered Outsidethe Match

Positions Filled Outsidethe Match

58%

20%15%

Average Percentage of Accredited Positions Offered Outside ofthe Match

N=56 N=54 N=17 N=9 N=8

Cardiovascular DiseasePrograms That Use Core Specialty Certifying Examination When Considering Applicants for Interview

Figure-5

Cardiovascular DiseasePrograms Positions Figure-6

Cardiovascular DiseaseDedicated Time for Research Figure-7

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 45

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100% 96%

76%

53%

22%

69%73%

U.S. Graduate OsteopathicPhysician

Canadian Fifth Pathway U.S. IMG Non-U.S. IMG

Percentage of Programs that Typically Interview and Rank Each Applicant Type

Figure-8Cardiovascular DiseaseProgram's Interview Activities

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Rejected based on astandardized screening

process

In-depth review

53%

42%

Average Percentage of Applicants Rejected and Reviewed

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

Number of applicationsreceived

Number of interviewinvitations sent

Number of applicantsinterviewed

435

49 42

Average Number of Positions, Applications Received, InterviewInvitations Sent, and Applicants Interviewed and Ranked

N=49N=48N=51N=51

N=51

22% of Cardiovascular Disease programs consider all applicant groups

N=51

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-USIMG

2%13%

78%

24%8% 6%2%

44%

20%

59%

45%37%

96%

44%

2%17%

47%57%

Often Seldom Never

Interview

0%10%

20%

30%40%

50%60%

70%80%

90%100%

Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-USIMG

2%12%

79%

33%16% 8%

40%

17%

53%

35%36%

98%

48%

4%14%

49% 56%

Often Seldom Never

Ranking

n=50

Frequency of Programs Interviewing and Ranking Candidates

n=49

N=50

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

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

56%

28%

6%0% 2%

Interview invitations

Interview Invitations Sent and Interviews Conducted

1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 4%

49%40%

1% 0%

Interviews conducted

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 46

Figure-9Cardiovascular DiseasePotential Challenges in Recruiting Applicants to Your Specialty

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

71%

20%

20%

0%

0%

We consider those applicants on an individual basis

We give those applicants serious consideration if they haveshown improvement

We do not usually consider those applicants

We favor those applicants

Other

0 1 2 3 4 5

Not enough applicants in the specialty

Undesirable income potential as a practicing physician

Undesirable work/life balance as a practicing physician

Long or irregular work hours required by specialty

Fellowship Match scheduled at inconvenient time of year

1.4

1.5

2.9

2.8

1.9

Average rating on a scale of 5 (1=least challenging; 5=most challenging)

n=43

16.0%Less than 3

26.0%3 to 5

28.0%6 to 10

10.0%11 to

15

20.0%More than 15

At Any Fellowship Program

21.3%Less than 3

29.8%3 to 529.8%

6 to 10

10.6%11 to 15

8.5%More than 15

At Current Fellowship Program

n=45

n=50 n=47

Cardiovascular DiseaseApplicants Who Applied in the Specialty in the Past But Did Not Match Figure-10

Cardiovascular DiseaseYears as Program Director Figure-11

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 47

Child and Adolescent Psychiatry

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 48

Child and Adolescent PsychiatryGeneral Information

Table 1

107

340

309

Number of programs in the Match

Number of positions in the Match

Number of applicants ranking specialty

40.8%Response rate

Appointment Years

Number of responses 42

Match Information*

* Source: NRMP Data Warehouse

2016 Survey

2016 2015 2014

104

338

320

107

351

317

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 49

Figure-1Child and Adolescent PsychiatryPercentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Selecting Applicants to Interview(N=33)

Average RatingPercent Citing Factor

¹ Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).* International Medical Graduates only

1 2 3 4 5

4.34.83.63.14.64.24.44.83.23.43.34.14.03.54.13.63.53.43.53.13.13.53.43.93.83.34.03.83.43.33.73.34.83.53.33.73.83.53.03.0

100% 50% 0%

88%79%82%73%88%94%82%85%55%61%55%67%61%61%73%61%79%64%45%33%48%48%48%79%70%42%52%67%39%42%67%45%48%18%52%18%58%12%

6%12%

Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialty

Residency performance evaluation (Program Director letter)

Reputation of residency program

Demonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research

Perceived commitment to specialty

Personal statement

Perceived interest in program

Evidence of professionalism and ethics

USMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score

Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chapters

USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE score

Leadership qualities

Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicant

Oral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements

Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institution

Pass USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PE

Any failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX

USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 score

Interest in academic career

Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based)

Clinical/laboratory research experience

Awards or special honors in medical school

Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership

Other life experience

Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter)

Graduate of highly‐regarded medical school

Visa status*

Volunteer/extracurricular experiences

Awarded grant money for research

Grades in medical school

Lack of gaps in medical education

Medical school class ranking/quartile

Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP

Electives at your fellowship site

Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membership

Residency class ranking/quartile

Fluency in language spoken by your patient population

In‐Training Examination (ITE)

Residency program size

Having finished another fellowship

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 50

Child and Adolescent PsychiatryPercentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Ranking Applicants(N=33)

Figure-2

Average RatingPercent Citing Factor

¹ Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).* International Medical Graduates only

1 2 3 4 5

4.94.94.44.94.74.94.53.33.94.74.84.34.34.33.63.84.53.53.73.83.93.33.63.63.73.54.03.93.93.44.24.93.74.03.23.93.63.73.34.03.93.53.03.74.03.3

100% 50% 0%

100%100%69%

100%81%97%81%63%53%63%75%75%56%63%50%38%63%34%34%63%50%38%50%50%19%25%47%50%47%47%38%44%28%13%28%47%28%31%31%16%34%25%3%9%9%9%

Interactions with faculty during interview and visitInterpersonal skills

Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialtyInteractions with house staff during interview and visit

Perceived commitment to specialtyFeedback from current residents and fellows

Perceived interest in programDemonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research

Reputation of residency programResidency performance evaluation (Program Director letter)

Evidence of professionalism and ethicsPersonal statement

Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicantLeadership qualities

Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chaptersInterest in academic career

Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institutionUSMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score

USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE scoreAny failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX

Passing USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PEClinical/laboratory research experience

USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 scoreOral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements

Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based)Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership

Other life experienceMedical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter)

Second interview/visitAwards or special honors in medical school

Visa status*Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP

Graduate of highly‐regarded medical schoolElectives at your fellowship site

Awarded grant money for researchVolunteer/extracurricular experiencesMedical school class ranking/quartile

Lack of gaps in medical educationGrades in medical school

Residency class ranking/quartileFluency in language spoken by your patient population

Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membershipResidency program size

In‐Training Examination (ITE)Second interview/visit

Having finished another fellowship

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 51

Child and Adolescent PsychiatryPrograms That Use USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) Scores When Considering Which Applicants to Interview

Figure-3

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 (CK) Score

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Never Seldom Often

3%

45%52%

Would your program consider applicants who fail theexam on the first attempt?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Never Seldom often

3%

48% 48%

Would your program consider applicants who failthe exam on the first attempt?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

94%

6%0%

Scores required?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

94%

6%0%

Scores required?

N=33

N=33

N=33N=33

IQR* of Average USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 CK Scores Programs Consider When Granting Interviews

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 1 Score

*The boxes in the boxplots 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 x-shaped symbol is the mean.

Scores Above Which Programs Almost Always Grant Interviews

Scores Below Which Programs Generally Do Not Grant Interviews

USMLE Step 2 CK not reported

because of low response rate

USMLE Step 1 not reported because of low response

rate

USMLE Step 2 CK not reported

because of low response rate

USMLE Step 1 not reported because of low response

rate

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 52

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes No

100%

0%

USMLE Step 2 CS

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

91%

6% 3%

USMLE Step 3

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

88%

3%9%

COMLEX-USA Level 1*

Child and Adolescent PsychiatryPercentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 Clinical Skill (CS), Step 3, and COMLEX-USA Scores* When Considering Which Applicants to Interview

Figure-4

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

87%

3%10%

COMLEX-USA Level 2-CE*

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

84%

3%

13%

COMLEX-USA Level 3*

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

87%

3%10%

COMLEX-USA Level 2-PE*

N=33 N=33

N=32 N=31

N=31 N=31

* Osteopathic applicants only

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 CS and Step 3 Scores

Percentage of Programs That Use COMLEX-USA Level 1 and Level 2-CE Scores

Percentage of Programs That Use COMLEX-USA Level 2-PE and Level 3 Scores

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 53

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Never Seldom Often

0% 0%

100%

Would your program consider applicants who fail theexam on the first attempt?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No, not required

0% 0%

100%

Scores required?

N=2

N=12

81.0%Optional

19.0%Required

Program Requirement on Dedicated Time forResearch

N=42

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Accredited Locally Funded Integrated Other

1

5

1

7

Average Number of Months if Research Time isRequired

N=1 N=1 N=1 N=4

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Accredited Positions Funded Positions

6.0

5.5

Average Number of Accredited Positions and Funded Positions

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Positions Filled BeforeMatch Day

Positions Offered Outsidethe Match

Positions Filled Outsidethe Match

62%

43% 43%

Average Percentage of Accredited Positions Offered Outside ofthe Match

N=40 N=40 N=10 N=11 N=11

Child and Adolescent PsychiatryPrograms That Use Core Specialty Certifying Examination When Considering Applicants for Interview

Figure-5

Child and Adolescent PsychiatryPrograms Positions Figure-6

Child and Adolescent PsychiatryDedicated Time for Research Figure-7

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 54

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100% 97% 94%

74%

44%

94%85%

U.S. Graduate OsteopathicPhysician

Canadian Fifth Pathway U.S. IMG Non-U.S. IMG

Percentage of Programs that Typically Interview and Rank Each Applicant Type

Figure-8Child and Adolescent PsychiatryProgram's Interview Activities

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Rejected based on astandardized screening

process

In-depth review

23%

84%

Average Percentage of Applicants Rejected and Reviewed

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Number of applicationsreceived

Number of interviewinvitations sent

Number of applicantsinterviewed

46

2318

Average Number of Positions, Applications Received, InterviewInvitations Sent, and Applicants Interviewed and Ranked

N=38N=38N=38N=38

N=34

38% of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry programs consider all applicant groups

N=38

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-USIMG

3%

50%

23%6%

9% 18%

43%

55%

27%33%

88% 82%

7%23%

73%61%

Often Seldom Never

Interview

0%10%

20%

30%40%

50%60%

70%80%

90%100%

Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-USIMG

3%

53%

23%12%6% 13%

40%

58%

30%

27%

91% 87%

7%19%

70%61%

Often Seldom Never

Ranking

n=32

Frequency of Programs Interviewing and Ranking Candidates

n=34

N=32

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3%

21%

43%

25%

5%0%

Interview invitations

Interview Invitations Sent and Interviews Conducted

3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1%

18%

40%

28%

6%

Interviews conducted

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 55

Figure-9Child and Adolescent PsychiatryPotential Challenges in Recruiting Applicants to Your Specialty

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

88%

28%

6%

6%

3%

We consider those applicants on an individual basis

We give those applicants serious consideration if they haveshown improvement

We do not usually consider those applicants

We favor those applicants

Other

0 1 2 3 4 5

Not enough applicants in the specialty

Undesirable income potential as a practicing physician

Undesirable work/life balance as a practicing physician

Long or irregular work hours required by specialty

Fellowship Match scheduled at inconvenient time of year

4.5

3.0

2.0

1.8

2.1

Average rating on a scale of 5 (1=least challenging; 5=most challenging)

n=31

17.9%Less than 3

20.5%3 to 5

23.1%6 to 10

17.9%11 to 15

20.5%More than

15

At Any Fellowship Program

28.9%Less than 3

18.4%3 to 5

26.3%6 to 10

13.2%11 to 15

13.2%More than 15

At Current Fellowship Program

n=32

n=39 n=38

Child and Adolescent PsychiatryApplicants Who Applied in the Specialty in the Past But Did Not Match Figure-10

Child and Adolescent PsychiatryYears as Program Director Figure-11

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 56

Colon and Rectal Surgery

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 57

Colon and Rectal SurgeryGeneral Information

Table 1

54

93

110

Number of programs in the Match

Number of positions in the Match

Number of applicants ranking specialty

34.0%Response rate

Appointment Years

Number of responses 18

Match Information*

* Source: NRMP Data Warehouse

2016 Survey

2016 2015 2014

55

93

110

54

92

128

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 58

Figure-1Colon and Rectal SurgeryPercentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Selecting Applicants to Interview(N=17)

Average RatingPercent Citing Factor

¹ Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).* International Medical Graduates only

1 2 3 4 5

4.54.63.93.64.13.74.34.63.63.73.64.13.73.63.33.53.53.63.43.83.43.63.93.83.03.53.53.63.82.73.03.34.6

3.54.23.54.14.02.7

100% 50% 0%

100%82%82%94%71%82%71%82%71%88%76%82%59%71%18%65%47%59%41%35%71%53%53%71%35%35%35%47%29%18%24%35%29%

0%24%29%12%94%

6%18%

Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialty

Residency performance evaluation (Program Director letter)

Reputation of residency program

Demonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research

Perceived commitment to specialty

Personal statement

Perceived interest in program

Evidence of professionalism and ethics

USMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score

Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chapters

USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE score

Leadership qualities

Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicant

Oral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements

Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institution

Pass USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PE

Any failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX

USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 score

Interest in academic career

Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based)

Clinical/laboratory research experience

Awards or special honors in medical school

Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership

Other life experience

Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter)

Graduate of highly‐regarded medical school

Visa status*

Volunteer/extracurricular experiences

Awarded grant money for research

Grades in medical school

Lack of gaps in medical education

Medical school class ranking/quartile

Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP

Electives at your fellowship site

Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membership

Residency class ranking/quartile

Fluency in language spoken by your patient population

In‐Training Examination (ITE)

Residency program size

Having finished another fellowship

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 59

Colon and Rectal SurgeryPercentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Ranking Applicants(N=17)

Figure-2

Average RatingPercent Citing Factor

¹ Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).* International Medical Graduates only

1 2 3 4 5

4.84.84.34.64.14.44.43.63.74.14.53.54.14.33.63.5

4.04.04.24.04.03.53.82.54.74.22.74.33.54.05.04.05.04.04.54.04.5

4.54.05.0

4.03.52.0

100% 50% 0%

100%94%81%94%50%63%56%50%63%56%50%50%44%38%31%13%0%

25%25%31%19%13%25%25%13%19%31%19%19%25%25%19%13%6%

13%25%6%

13%0%

13%6%6%0%

69%13%6%

Interactions with faculty during interview and visitInterpersonal skills

Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialtyInteractions with house staff during interview and visit

Perceived commitment to specialtyFeedback from current residents and fellows

Perceived interest in programDemonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research

Reputation of residency programResidency performance evaluation (Program Director letter)

Evidence of professionalism and ethicsPersonal statement

Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicantLeadership qualities

Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chaptersInterest in academic career

Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institutionUSMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score

USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE scoreAny failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX

Passing USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PEClinical/laboratory research experience

USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 scoreOral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements

Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based)Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership

Other life experienceMedical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter)

Second interview/visitAwards or special honors in medical school

Visa status*Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP

Graduate of highly‐regarded medical schoolElectives at your fellowship site

Awarded grant money for researchVolunteer/extracurricular experiencesMedical school class ranking/quartile

Lack of gaps in medical educationGrades in medical school

Residency class ranking/quartileFluency in language spoken by your patient population

Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membershipResidency program size

In‐Training Examination (ITE)Second interview/visit

Having finished another fellowship

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 60

170

180

190

200

210

220

230

240

250

260

Colon and Rectal SurgeryPrograms That Use USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) Scores When Considering Which Applicants to Interview

Figure-3

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 (CK) Score

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Never Seldom Often

25%

63%

13%

Would your program consider applicants who fail theexam on the first attempt?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Never Seldom often

25%

63%

13%

Would your program consider applicants who failthe exam on the first attempt?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

35%

53%

12%

Scores required?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

35%

53%

12%

Scores required?

N=17

N=16

N=17N=16

N=6N=6 N=6 N=6

IQR* of Average USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 CK Scores Programs Consider When Granting Interviews

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 1 Score

170

180

190

200

210

220

230

240

250

260

USMLE Step 2 CKUSMLE Step 1 USMLE Step 1 USMLE Step 2 CK

*The boxes in the boxplots 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 x-shaped symbol is the mean.

Scores Above Which Programs Almost Always Grant Interviews

Scores Below Which Programs Generally Do Not Grant Interviews

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 61

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes No

88%

12%

USMLE Step 2 CS

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

47%41%

12%

USMLE Step 3

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

40%

10%

50%

COMLEX-USA Level 1*

Colon and Rectal SurgeryPercentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 Clinical Skill (CS), Step 3, and COMLEX-USA Scores* When Considering Which Applicants to Interview

Figure-4

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

40%

10%

50%

COMLEX-USA Level 2-CE*

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

40%

10%

50%

COMLEX-USA Level 3*

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

40%

10%

50%

COMLEX-USA Level 2-PE*

N=17 N=17

N=10 N=10

N=10 N=10

* Osteopathic applicants only

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 CS and Step 3 Scores

Percentage of Programs That Use COMLEX-USA Level 1 and Level 2-CE Scores

Percentage of Programs That Use COMLEX-USA Level 2-PE and Level 3 Scores

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 62

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Never Seldom Often

20%

60%

20%

Would your program consider applicants who fail theexam on the first attempt?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No, not required

29% 29%

43%

Scores required?

N=5

N=7

83.3%Optional

16.7%Required

Program Requirement on Dedicated Time forResearch

N=18

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Accredited Locally Funded Integrated Other

12

8

Average Number of Months if Research Time isRequired

N=0 N=1 N=2 N=0

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

Accredited Positions Funded Positions

1.6

1.5

Average Number of Accredited Positions and Funded Positions

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Positions Filled BeforeMatch Day

Positions Offered Outsidethe Match

Positions Filled Outsidethe Match

83%

61% 61%

Average Percentage of Accredited Positions Offered Outside ofthe Match

N=17 N=16 N=3 N=4 N=3

Colon and Rectal SurgeryPrograms That Use Core Specialty Certifying Examination When Considering Applicants for Interview

Figure-5

Colon and Rectal SurgeryPrograms Positions Figure-6

Colon and Rectal SurgeryDedicated Time for Research Figure-7

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 63

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100% 94%

81% 81%

44%

69%

50%

U.S. Graduate OsteopathicPhysician

Canadian Fifth Pathway U.S. IMG Non-U.S. IMG

Percentage of Programs that Typically Interview and Rank Each Applicant Type

Figure-8Colon and Rectal SurgeryProgram's Interview Activities

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Rejected based on astandardized screening

process

In-depth review

41%

66%

Average Percentage of Applicants Rejected and Reviewed

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Number of applicationsreceived

Number of interviewinvitations sent

Number of applicantsinterviewed

70

2723

Average Number of Positions, Applications Received, InterviewInvitations Sent, and Applicants Interviewed and Ranked

N=17N=17N=18N=18

N=16

38% of Colon and Rectal Surgery programs consider all applicant groups

N=18

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-USIMG

7%

53%

6%20%7%

50%

47%

38% 53%

60%87%

50% 56%47%

20%

Often Seldom Never

Interview

0%10%

20%

30%40%

50%60%

70%80%

90%100%

Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-USIMG

7% 7%

58%

14%25%

40%

42%

29% 57%

58%93%

53% 57%43%

17%

Often Seldom Never

Ranking

n=14

Frequency of Programs Interviewing and Ranking Candidates

n=15

N=15

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

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

27%

55%

18%

0% 0% 0%

Interview invitations

Interview Invitations Sent and Interviews Conducted

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

19%

54%

27%

0% 0%

Interviews conducted

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 64

Figure-9Colon and Rectal SurgeryPotential Challenges in Recruiting Applicants to Your Specialty

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

87%

33%

0%

0%

0%

We consider those applicants on an individual basis

We give those applicants serious consideration if they haveshown improvement

We do not usually consider those applicants

We favor those applicants

Other

0 1 2 3 4 5

Not enough applicants in the specialty

Undesirable income potential as a practicing physician

Undesirable work/life balance as a practicing physician

Long or irregular work hours required by specialty

Fellowship Match scheduled at inconvenient time of year

2.0

1.9

2.1

2.5

2.1

Average rating on a scale of 5 (1=least challenging; 5=most challenging)

n=15

8.3%Less than 3

8.3%3 to 5

50.0%6 to 10

8.3%11 to 15

25.0%More than

15

At Any Fellowship Program

8.3%Less than 3

8.3%3 to 5

58.3%6 to 10

8.3%11 to 15

16.7%More than 15

At Current Fellowship Program

n=15

n=12 n=12

Colon and Rectal SurgeryApplicants Who Applied in the Specialty in the Past But Did Not Match Figure-10

Colon and Rectal SurgeryYears as Program Director Figure-11

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 65

Developmental-Behavioral Pediatrics

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 66

Developmental-Behavioral PediatricsGeneral Information

Table 1

36

48

28

Number of programs in the Match

Number of positions in the Match

Number of applicants ranking specialty

47.1%Response rate

Appointment Years

Number of responses 16

Match Information*

* Source: NRMP Data Warehouse

2016 Survey

2016 2015 2014

33

41

38

29

38

28

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 67

Figure-1Developmental-Behavioral PediatricsPercentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Selecting Applicants to Interview(N=14)

Average RatingPercent Citing Factor

¹ Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).* International Medical Graduates only

1 2 3 4 5

4.74.83.53.84.84.54.55.03.43.73.64.74.03.53.93.63.93.94.33.83.73.93.63.83.33.54.53.73.73.44.03.45.03.74.04.03.43.02.03.0

100% 50% 0%

86%86%93%79%93%

100%93%86%57%79%50%93%79%71%71%50%57%50%71%29%64%64%50%64%64%71%79%79%50%50%14%50%21%50%36%21%50%

7%7%7%

Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialty

Residency performance evaluation (Program Director letter)

Reputation of residency program

Demonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research

Perceived commitment to specialty

Personal statement

Perceived interest in program

Evidence of professionalism and ethics

USMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score

Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chapters

USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE score

Leadership qualities

Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicant

Oral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements

Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institution

Pass USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PE

Any failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX

USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 score

Interest in academic career

Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based)

Clinical/laboratory research experience

Awards or special honors in medical school

Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership

Other life experience

Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter)

Graduate of highly‐regarded medical school

Visa status*

Volunteer/extracurricular experiences

Awarded grant money for research

Grades in medical school

Lack of gaps in medical education

Medical school class ranking/quartile

Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP

Electives at your fellowship site

Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membership

Residency class ranking/quartile

Fluency in language spoken by your patient population

In‐Training Examination (ITE)

Residency program size

Having finished another fellowship

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 68

Developmental-Behavioral PediatricsPercentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Ranking Applicants(N=14)

Figure-2

Average RatingPercent Citing Factor

¹ Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).* International Medical Graduates only

1 2 3 4 5

4.94.94.74.54.94.44.74.23.44.94.94.54.04.94.04.54.03.83.84.73.64.03.93.83.04.04.03.74.04.04.55.03.73.74.33.94.05.03.73.83.64.0

4.0

4.0100% 50% 0%

93%86%93%79%86%79%79%86%71%64%86%71%50%79%57%71%57%36%43%43%50%50%50%50%7%

43%64%43%29%29%43%21%50%43%43%57%21%7%

50%29%50%36%0%7%0%7%

Interactions with faculty during interview and visitInterpersonal skills

Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialtyInteractions with house staff during interview and visit

Perceived commitment to specialtyFeedback from current residents and fellows

Perceived interest in programDemonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research

Reputation of residency programResidency performance evaluation (Program Director letter)

Evidence of professionalism and ethicsPersonal statement

Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicantLeadership qualities

Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chaptersInterest in academic career

Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institutionUSMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score

USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE scoreAny failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX

Passing USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PEClinical/laboratory research experience

USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 scoreOral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements

Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based)Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership

Other life experienceMedical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter)

Second interview/visitAwards or special honors in medical school

Visa status*Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP

Graduate of highly‐regarded medical schoolElectives at your fellowship site

Awarded grant money for researchVolunteer/extracurricular experiencesMedical school class ranking/quartile

Lack of gaps in medical educationGrades in medical school

Residency class ranking/quartileFluency in language spoken by your patient population

Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membershipResidency program size

In‐Training Examination (ITE)Second interview/visit

Having finished another fellowship

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 69

Developmental-Behavioral PediatricsPrograms That Use USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) Scores When Considering Which Applicants to Interview

Figure-3

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 (CK) Score

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Never Seldom Often

7%

86%

7%

Would your program consider applicants who fail theexam on the first attempt?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Never Seldom often

14%

79%

7%

Would your program consider applicants who failthe exam on the first attempt?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

77%

15%8%

Scores required?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

77%

15%8%

Scores required?

N=13

N=14

N=13N=14

IQR* of Average USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 CK Scores Programs Consider When Granting Interviews

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 1 Score

*The boxes in the boxplots 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 x-shaped symbol is the mean.

Scores Above Which Programs Almost Always Grant Interviews

Scores Below Which Programs Generally Do Not Grant Interviews

USMLE Step 2 CK not reported

because of low response rate

USMLE Step 1 not reported because of low response

rate

USMLE Step 2 CK not reported

because of low response rate

USMLE Step 1 not reported because of low response

rate

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 70

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes No

92%

8%

USMLE Step 2 CS

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

77%

15%8%

USMLE Step 3

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

67%

17% 17%

COMLEX-USA Level 1*

Developmental-Behavioral PediatricsPercentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 Clinical Skill (CS), Step 3, and COMLEX-USA Scores* When Considering Which Applicants to Interview

Figure-4

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

75%

8%

17%

COMLEX-USA Level 2-CE*

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

67%

17% 17%

COMLEX-USA Level 3*

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

75%

8%

17%

COMLEX-USA Level 2-PE*

N=13 N=13

N=12 N=12

N=12 N=12

* Osteopathic applicants only

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 CS and Step 3 Scores

Percentage of Programs That Use COMLEX-USA Level 1 and Level 2-CE Scores

Percentage of Programs That Use COMLEX-USA Level 2-PE and Level 3 Scores

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 71

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Never Seldom Often

17%

83%

0%

Would your program consider applicants who fail theexam on the first attempt?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No, not required

0% 0%

100%

Scores required?

N=6

N=8

6.3%Optional

93.8%Required

Program Requirement on Dedicated Time forResearch

N=16

0

4

8

12

16

20

24

Accredited Locally Funded Integrated Other

15

21

12

14

Average Number of Months if Research Time isRequired

N=3 N=4 N=2 N=1

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

Accredited Positions Funded Positions

3.6

2.6

Average Number of Accredited Positions and Funded Positions

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Positions Filled BeforeMatch Day

Positions Offered Outsidethe Match

Positions Filled Outsidethe Match

58%

Average Percentage of Accredited Positions Offered Outside ofthe Match

N=16 N=16 N=2 N=0 N=0

Developmental-Behavioral PediatricsPrograms That Use Core Specialty Certifying Examination When Considering Applicants for Interview

Figure-5

Developmental-Behavioral PediatricsPrograms Positions Figure-6

Developmental-Behavioral PediatricsDedicated Time for Research Figure-7

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 72

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%100% 100%

54%

23%

69%

38%

U.S. Graduate OsteopathicPhysician

Canadian Fifth Pathway U.S. IMG Non-U.S. IMG

Percentage of Programs that Typically Interview and Rank Each Applicant Type

Figure-8Developmental-Behavioral PediatricsProgram's Interview Activities

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Rejected based on astandardized screening

process

In-depth review

14%

88%

Average Percentage of Applicants Rejected and Reviewed

0

2

4

6

8

10

Number of applicationsreceived

Number of interviewinvitations sent

Number of applicantsinterviewed

8

65

Average Number of Positions, Applications Received, InterviewInvitations Sent, and Applicants Interviewed and Ranked

N=14N=14N=14N=14

N=13

15% of Developmental-Behavioral Pediatrics programs consider all applicant groups

N=14

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-USIMG

14%

85%

54%

29%46%

21%

15%

31%

21%

23%86% 79%

15%

50%31%

Often Seldom Never

Interview

0%10%

20%

30%40%

50%60%

70%80%

90%100%

Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-USIMG

14%

83%

58%

23%

50%

21%

17%

25%

31%

17%86% 79%

17%

46%33%

Often Seldom Never

Ranking

n=14

Frequency of Programs Interviewing and Ranking Candidates

n=14

N=14

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

0% 0% 0% 0% 0%7% 5%

34%40%

9%4% 1%

Interview invitations

Interview Invitations Sent and Interviews Conducted

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

23%

54%

8%1%

Interviews conducted

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 73

Figure-9Developmental-Behavioral PediatricsPotential Challenges in Recruiting Applicants to Your Specialty

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

100%

7%

0%

0%

0%

We consider those applicants on an individual basis

We give those applicants serious consideration if they haveshown improvement

We do not usually consider those applicants

We favor those applicants

Other

0 1 2 3 4 5

Not enough applicants in the specialty

Undesirable income potential as a practicing physician

Undesirable work/life balance as a practicing physician

Long or irregular work hours required by specialty

Fellowship Match scheduled at inconvenient time of year

4.7

4.2

2.2

1.4

1.4

Average rating on a scale of 5 (1=least challenging; 5=most challenging)

n=14

20.0%Less than 3

6.7%3 to 5

26.7%6 to 1020.0%

11 to 15

26.7%More than 15

At Any Fellowship Program

20.0%Less than 3

20.0%3 to 5

33.3%6 to 10

26.7%11 to 15

At Current Fellowship Program

n=14

n=15 n=15

Developmental-Behavioral PediatricsApplicants Who Applied in the Specialty in the Past But Did Not Match Figure-10

Developmental-Behavioral PediatricsYears as Program Director Figure-11

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 74

Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Metabolism

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 75

Endocrinology, Diabetes, and MetabolismGeneral Information

Table 1

136

270

325

Number of programs in the Match

Number of positions in the Match

Number of applicants ranking specialty

41.8%Response rate

Appointment Years

Number of responses 51

Match Information*

* Source: NRMP Data Warehouse

2016 Survey

2016 2015 2014

134

271

324

128

261

306

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 76

Figure-1Endocrinology, Diabetes, and MetabolismPercentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Selecting Applicants to Interview(N=45)

Average RatingPercent Citing Factor

¹ Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).* International Medical Graduates only

1 2 3 4 5

4.34.74.24.24.53.94.44.64.04.34.04.24.33.94.24.04.44.14.23.84.23.44.03.63.74.34.23.44.13.63.53.44.83.73.34.33.83.03.22.9

100% 50% 0%

87%78%84%89%82%80%76%67%69%87%71%62%78%82%82%60%80%62%60%71%58%64%62%42%58%62%73%47%44%51%44%47%36%51%31%29%22%

9%20%16%

Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialty

Residency performance evaluation (Program Director letter)

Reputation of residency program

Demonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research

Perceived commitment to specialty

Personal statement

Perceived interest in program

Evidence of professionalism and ethics

USMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score

Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chapters

USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE score

Leadership qualities

Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicant

Oral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements

Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institution

Pass USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PE

Any failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX

USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 score

Interest in academic career

Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based)

Clinical/laboratory research experience

Awards or special honors in medical school

Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership

Other life experience

Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter)

Graduate of highly‐regarded medical school

Visa status*

Volunteer/extracurricular experiences

Awarded grant money for research

Grades in medical school

Lack of gaps in medical education

Medical school class ranking/quartile

Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP

Electives at your fellowship site

Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membership

Residency class ranking/quartile

Fluency in language spoken by your patient population

In‐Training Examination (ITE)

Residency program size

Having finished another fellowship

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 77

Endocrinology, Diabetes, and MetabolismPercentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Ranking Applicants(N=45)

Figure-2

Average RatingPercent Citing Factor

¹ Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).* International Medical Graduates only

1 2 3 4 5

4.94.94.54.84.74.84.64.24.34.54.73.94.34.44.04.54.33.93.94.43.84.24.03.94.04.63.53.73.83.84.24.84.24.23.83.93.33.73.84.33.94.63.03.05.02.8

100% 50% 0%

93%93%73%78%76%71%93%88%68%71%76%68%68%63%63%61%73%51%59%44%46%56%44%54%59%29%32%39%32%34%49%37%37%34%32%17%32%27%17%20%24%15%17%5%5%

10%

Interactions with faculty during interview and visitInterpersonal skills

Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialtyInteractions with house staff during interview and visit

Perceived commitment to specialtyFeedback from current residents and fellows

Perceived interest in programDemonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research

Reputation of residency programResidency performance evaluation (Program Director letter)

Evidence of professionalism and ethicsPersonal statement

Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicantLeadership qualities

Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chaptersInterest in academic career

Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institutionUSMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score

USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE scoreAny failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX

Passing USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PEClinical/laboratory research experience

USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 scoreOral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements

Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based)Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership

Other life experienceMedical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter)

Second interview/visitAwards or special honors in medical school

Visa status*Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP

Graduate of highly‐regarded medical schoolElectives at your fellowship site

Awarded grant money for researchVolunteer/extracurricular experiencesMedical school class ranking/quartile

Lack of gaps in medical educationGrades in medical school

Residency class ranking/quartileFluency in language spoken by your patient population

Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membershipResidency program size

In‐Training Examination (ITE)Second interview/visit

Having finished another fellowship

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 78

170

180

190

200

210

220

230

240

250

260

Endocrinology, Diabetes, and MetabolismPrograms That Use USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) Scores When Considering Which Applicants to Interview

Figure-3

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 (CK) Score

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Never Seldom Often

17%

81%

2%

Would your program consider applicants who fail theexam on the first attempt?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Never Seldom often

35%

63%

2%

Would your program consider applicants who failthe exam on the first attempt?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

55%

45%

0%

Scores required?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

57%

43%

0%

Scores required?

N=42

N=42

N=42N=43

N=12N=14 N=12 N=10

IQR* of Average USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 CK Scores Programs Consider When Granting Interviews

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 1 Score

170

180

190

200

210

220

230

240

250

260

USMLE Step 2 CKUSMLE Step 1 USMLE Step 1 USMLE Step 2 CK

*The boxes in the boxplots 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 x-shaped symbol is the mean.

Scores Above Which Programs Almost Always Grant Interviews

Scores Below Which Programs Generally Do Not Grant Interviews

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 79

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes No

100%

0%

USMLE Step 2 CS

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

49%44%

7%

USMLE Step 3

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

45%

21%

34%

COMLEX-USA Level 1*

Endocrinology, Diabetes, and MetabolismPercentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 Clinical Skill (CS), Step 3, and COMLEX-USA Scores* When Considering Which Applicants to Interview

Figure-4

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

46%

21%

32%

COMLEX-USA Level 2-CE*

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

38%

28%34%

COMLEX-USA Level 3*

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

46%

18%

36%

COMLEX-USA Level 2-PE*

N=42 N=41

N=29 N=28

N=28 N=29

* Osteopathic applicants only

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 CS and Step 3 Scores

Percentage of Programs That Use COMLEX-USA Level 1 and Level 2-CE Scores

Percentage of Programs That Use COMLEX-USA Level 2-PE and Level 3 Scores

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 80

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Never Seldom Often

38%

63%

0%

Would your program consider applicants who fail theexam on the first attempt?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No, not required

0% 0%

100%

Scores required?

N=8

N=16

26.0%Optional

74.0%Required

Program Requirement on Dedicated Time forResearch

N=50

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Accredited Locally Funded Integrated Other

1110

8

6

Average Number of Months if Research Time isRequired

N=16 N=13 N=9 N=6

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

Accredited Positions Funded Positions

3.63.5

Average Number of Accredited Positions and Funded Positions

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Positions Filled BeforeMatch Day

Positions Offered Outsidethe Match

Positions Filled Outsidethe Match

78%

42%50%

Average Percentage of Accredited Positions Offered Outside ofthe Match

N=49 N=44 N=10 N=4 N=3

Endocrinology, Diabetes, and MetabolismPrograms That Use Core Specialty Certifying Examination When Considering Applicants for Interview

Figure-5

Endocrinology, Diabetes, and MetabolismPrograms Positions Figure-6

Endocrinology, Diabetes, and MetabolismDedicated Time for Research Figure-7

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 81

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100% 98%

77%70%

39%

82%75%

U.S. Graduate OsteopathicPhysician

Canadian Fifth Pathway U.S. IMG Non-U.S. IMG

Percentage of Programs that Typically Interview and Rank Each Applicant Type

Figure-8Endocrinology, Diabetes, and MetabolismProgram's Interview Activities

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Rejected based on astandardized screening

process

In-depth review

49% 49%

Average Percentage of Applicants Rejected and Reviewed

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Number of applicationsreceived

Number of interviewinvitations sent

Number of applicantsinterviewed

116

24 19

Average Number of Positions, Applications Received, InterviewInvitations Sent, and Applicants Interviewed and Ranked

N=43N=43N=45N=43

N=44

36% of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Metabolism programs consider all applicant groups

N=45

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-USIMG

9%

57%

12%2% 7%7%

42%

38%

70%

39% 30%

93%

49%

5%19%

59% 63%

Often Seldom Never

Interview

0%10%

20%

30%40%

50%60%

70%80%

90%100%

Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-USIMG

12%

57%

20%5% 8%10%

40%

43%

65%

40% 33%

90%

49%

15%

55% 60%

Often Seldom Never

Ranking

n=41

Frequency of Programs Interviewing and Ranking Candidates

n=44

N=40

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

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

14%

44%37%

6%0% 0%

Interview invitations

Interview Invitations Sent and Interviews Conducted

0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%6%

48%38%

6%0%

Interviews conducted

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 82

Figure-9Endocrinology, Diabetes, and MetabolismPotential Challenges in Recruiting Applicants to Your Specialty

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

78%

7%

17%

0%

0%

We consider those applicants on an individual basis

We give those applicants serious consideration if they haveshown improvement

We do not usually consider those applicants

We favor those applicants

Other

0 1 2 3 4 5

Not enough applicants in the specialty

Undesirable income potential as a practicing physician

Undesirable work/life balance as a practicing physician

Long or irregular work hours required by specialty

Fellowship Match scheduled at inconvenient time of year

3.4

3.8

2.0

1.8

2.0

Average rating on a scale of 5 (1=least challenging; 5=most challenging)

n=37

29.8%Less than 3

23.4%3 to 5

36.2%6 to10

2.1%11 to 158.5%

More than 15

At Any Fellowship Program

36.2%Less than 3

27.7%3 to

5

27.7%6 to 10

8.5%More than 15

At Current Fellowship Program

n=41

n=47 n=47

Endocrinology, Diabetes, and MetabolismApplicants Who Applied in the Specialty in the Past But Did Not Match Figure-10

Endocrinology, Diabetes, and MetabolismYears as Program Director Figure-11

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 83

Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 84

Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery General Information

Table 1

48

54

77

Number of programs in the Match

Number of positions in the Match

Number of applicants ranking specialty

35.6%Response rate

Appointment Years

Number of responses 16

Match Information*

* Source: NRMP Data Warehouse

2016 Survey

2016 2015 2014

53

58

77

50

55

61

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 85

Figure-1Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery Percentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Selecting Applicants to Interview(N=12)

Average RatingPercent Citing Factor

¹ Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).* International Medical Graduates only

1 2 3 4 5

4.74.13.24.44.33.54.14.73.24.73.24.63.94.33.73.14.03.34.43.34.43.43.34.03.53.54.24.34.33.03.04.04.04.03.04.04.04.0

4.0100% 50% 0%

100%92%83%

100%92%83%75%92%83%75%83%92%75%83%25%83%50%58%75%67%75%58%58%50%17%33%42%33%50%17%33%

8%8%

25%33%

8%25%33%

0%8%

Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialty

Residency performance evaluation (Program Director letter)

Reputation of residency program

Demonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research

Perceived commitment to specialty

Personal statement

Perceived interest in program

Evidence of professionalism and ethics

USMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score

Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chapters

USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE score

Leadership qualities

Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicant

Oral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements

Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institution

Pass USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PE

Any failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX

USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 score

Interest in academic career

Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based)

Clinical/laboratory research experience

Awards or special honors in medical school

Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership

Other life experience

Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter)

Graduate of highly‐regarded medical school

Visa status*

Volunteer/extracurricular experiences

Awarded grant money for research

Grades in medical school

Lack of gaps in medical education

Medical school class ranking/quartile

Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP

Electives at your fellowship site

Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membership

Residency class ranking/quartile

Fluency in language spoken by your patient population

In‐Training Examination (ITE)

Residency program size

Having finished another fellowship

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 86

Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery Percentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Ranking Applicants(N=12)

Figure-2

Average RatingPercent Citing Factor

¹ Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).* International Medical Graduates only

1 2 3 4 5

4.94.84.65.04.44.84.14.53.44.34.84.04.54.74.04.63.03.03.03.03.54.23.54.03.34.04.3

4.53.05.05.0

4.33.54.0

3.0

4.04.04.04.04.0

100% 50% 0%

82%91%91%73%91%82%82%91%45%64%91%64%36%82%55%73%9%9%9%9%

18%45%18%45%55%9%

27%0%

36%9%9%9%0%

27%18%27%0%9%0%0%

18%9%9%9%

18%0%

Interactions with faculty during interview and visitInterpersonal skills

Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialtyInteractions with house staff during interview and visit

Perceived commitment to specialtyFeedback from current residents and fellows

Perceived interest in programDemonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research

Reputation of residency programResidency performance evaluation (Program Director letter)

Evidence of professionalism and ethicsPersonal statement

Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicantLeadership qualities

Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chaptersInterest in academic career

Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institutionUSMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score

USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE scoreAny failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX

Passing USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PEClinical/laboratory research experience

USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 scoreOral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements

Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based)Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership

Other life experienceMedical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter)

Second interview/visitAwards or special honors in medical school

Visa status*Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP

Graduate of highly‐regarded medical schoolElectives at your fellowship site

Awarded grant money for researchVolunteer/extracurricular experiencesMedical school class ranking/quartile

Lack of gaps in medical educationGrades in medical school

Residency class ranking/quartileFluency in language spoken by your patient population

Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membershipResidency program size

In‐Training Examination (ITE)Second interview/visit

Having finished another fellowship

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 87

Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery Programs That Use USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) Scores When Considering Which Applicants to Interview

Figure-3

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 (CK) Score

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Never Seldom Often

33%

58%

8%

Would your program consider applicants who fail theexam on the first attempt?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Never Seldom often

33%

58%

8%

Would your program consider applicants who failthe exam on the first attempt?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

67%

17% 17%

Scores required?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

67%

17% 17%

Scores required?

N=12

N=12

N=12N=12

IQR* of Average USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 CK Scores Programs Consider When Granting Interviews

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 1 Score

*The boxes in the boxplots 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 x-shaped symbol is the mean.

Scores Above Which Programs Almost Always Grant Interviews

Scores Below Which Programs Generally Do Not Grant Interviews

USMLE Step 2 CK not reported

because of low response rate

USMLE Step 1 not reported because of low response

rate

USMLE Step 2 CK not reported

because of low response rate

USMLE Step 1 not reported because of low response

rate

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 88

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes No

83%

17%

USMLE Step 2 CS

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

67%

8%

25%

USMLE Step 3

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

50%

10%

40%

COMLEX-USA Level 1*

Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 Clinical Skill (CS), Step 3, and COMLEX-USA Scores* When Considering Which Applicants to Interview

Figure-4

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

50%

10%

40%

COMLEX-USA Level 2-CE*

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

50%

10%

40%

COMLEX-USA Level 3*

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

50%

10%

40%

COMLEX-USA Level 2-PE*

N=12 N=12

N=10 N=10

N=10 N=10

* Osteopathic applicants only

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 CS and Step 3 Scores

Percentage of Programs That Use COMLEX-USA Level 1 and Level 2-CE Scores

Percentage of Programs That Use COMLEX-USA Level 2-PE and Level 3 Scores

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 89

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Never Seldom Often

60%

40%

0%

Would your program consider applicants who fail theexam on the first attempt?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No, not required

38%

0%

63%

Scores required?

N=5

N=8

100.0%Required

Program Requirement on Dedicated Time forResearch

N=16

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Accredited Locally Funded Integrated Other

12 12 12 12

Average Number of Months if Research Time isRequired

N=13 N=1 N=1 N=1

0.0

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.6

2.0

2.4

2.8

3.2

Accredited Positions Funded Positions

3.1

2.7

Average Number of Accredited Positions and Funded Positions

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Positions Filled BeforeMatch Day

Positions Offered Outsidethe Match

Positions Filled Outsidethe Match

78%

Average Percentage of Accredited Positions Offered Outside ofthe Match

N=16 N=15 N=3 N=0 N=0

Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery Programs That Use Core Specialty Certifying Examination When Considering Applicants for Interview

Figure-5

Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery Programs Positions Figure-6

Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery Dedicated Time for Research Figure-7

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 90

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%100%

85%

54%

15%

46%

31%

U.S. Graduate OsteopathicPhysician

Canadian Fifth Pathway U.S. IMG Non-U.S. IMG

Percentage of Programs that Typically Interview and Rank Each Applicant Type

Figure-8Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery Program's Interview Activities

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Rejected based on astandardized screening

process

In-depth review

21%

86%

Average Percentage of Applicants Rejected and Reviewed

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Number of applicationsreceived

Number of interviewinvitations sent

Number of applicantsinterviewed

41

20

15

Average Number of Positions, Applications Received, InterviewInvitations Sent, and Applicants Interviewed and Ranked

N=16N=16N=16N=16

N=13

8% of Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery programs consider all applicant groups

N=16

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-USIMG

70%

25% 23%

50%

15%

38%

30%

67%

46%

50%

85%

62%

8%

31%

Often Seldom Never

Interview

0%10%

20%

30%40%

50%60%

70%80%

90%100%

Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-USIMG

73%

25% 23%

50%

17%

46%

27%

67%

46%

50%

83%

54%

8%

31%

Often Seldom Never

Ranking

n=12

Frequency of Programs Interviewing and Ranking Candidates

n=13

N=14

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

0%7%

55%

16% 14%

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

Interview invitations

Interview Invitations Sent and Interviews Conducted

0% 0% 0%

25%

57%

10%0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

8%

Interviews conducted

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 91

Figure-9Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery Potential Challenges in Recruiting Applicants to Your Specialty

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

75%

25%

17%

0%

0%

We consider those applicants on an individual basis

We give those applicants serious consideration if they haveshown improvement

We do not usually consider those applicants

We favor those applicants

Other

0 1 2 3 4 5

Not enough applicants in the specialty

Undesirable income potential as a practicing physician

Undesirable work/life balance as a practicing physician

Long or irregular work hours required by specialty

Fellowship Match scheduled at inconvenient time of year

2.0

2.0

1.5

1.7

2.5

Average rating on a scale of 5 (1=least challenging; 5=most challenging)

n=12

26.7%Less than 3

20.0%3 to 5

33.3%6 to 10

13.3%11 to 15

6.7%More than 15

At Any Fellowship Program

30.8%Less than 3

30.8%3 to 5

23.1%6 to 10

7.7%11 to 157.7%

More than15

At Current Fellowship Program

n=12

n=15 n=13

Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery Applicants Who Applied in the Specialty in the Past But Did Not Match Figure-10

Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery Years as Program Director Figure-11

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 92

Gastroenterology

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 93

GastroenterologyGeneral Information

Table 1

179

466

718

Number of programs in the Match

Number of positions in the Match

Number of applicants ranking specialty

35.8%Response rate

Appointment Years

Number of responses 54

Match Information*

* Source: NRMP Data Warehouse

2016 Survey

2016 2015 2014

181

464

717

173

461

703

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 94

Figure-1GastroenterologyPercentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Selecting Applicants to Interview(N=43)

Average RatingPercent Citing Factor

¹ Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).* International Medical Graduates only

1 2 3 4 5

4.54.54.34.14.33.54.34.54.14.14.24.14.04.13.94.34.64.24.34.33.93.73.74.13.83.84.63.93.63.64.03.84.83.73.54.33.63.33.33.5

100% 50% 0%

88%93%93%91%72%79%70%81%81%86%77%72%60%81%72%63%72%63%65%81%63%58%65%42%53%58%47%44%42%44%56%42%40%30%28%47%16%21%12%

5%

Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialty

Residency performance evaluation (Program Director letter)

Reputation of residency program

Demonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research

Perceived commitment to specialty

Personal statement

Perceived interest in program

Evidence of professionalism and ethics

USMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score

Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chapters

USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE score

Leadership qualities

Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicant

Oral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements

Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institution

Pass USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PE

Any failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX

USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 score

Interest in academic career

Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based)

Clinical/laboratory research experience

Awards or special honors in medical school

Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership

Other life experience

Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter)

Graduate of highly‐regarded medical school

Visa status*

Volunteer/extracurricular experiences

Awarded grant money for research

Grades in medical school

Lack of gaps in medical education

Medical school class ranking/quartile

Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP

Electives at your fellowship site

Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membership

Residency class ranking/quartile

Fluency in language spoken by your patient population

In‐Training Examination (ITE)

Residency program size

Having finished another fellowship

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 95

GastroenterologyPercentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Ranking Applicants(N=43)

Figure-2

Average RatingPercent Citing Factor

¹ Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).* International Medical Graduates only

1 2 3 4 5

4.84.84.34.74.74.74.44.24.24.44.63.84.44.24.34.44.14.04.04.54.14.24.14.34.14.04.23.53.93.84.44.93.63.94.24.13.73.93.84.23.83.33.53.64.03.0

100% 50% 0%

93%95%73%73%44%68%54%78%76%63%61%39%46%51%61%49%56%54%54%49%46%46%41%56%61%39%22%51%29%34%29%29%20%22%24%24%27%37%24%37%12%17%10%12%5%5%

Interactions with faculty during interview and visitInterpersonal skills

Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialtyInteractions with house staff during interview and visit

Perceived commitment to specialtyFeedback from current residents and fellows

Perceived interest in programDemonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research

Reputation of residency programResidency performance evaluation (Program Director letter)

Evidence of professionalism and ethicsPersonal statement

Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicantLeadership qualities

Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chaptersInterest in academic career

Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institutionUSMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score

USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE scoreAny failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX

Passing USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PEClinical/laboratory research experience

USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 scoreOral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements

Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based)Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership

Other life experienceMedical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter)

Second interview/visitAwards or special honors in medical school

Visa status*Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP

Graduate of highly‐regarded medical schoolElectives at your fellowship site

Awarded grant money for researchVolunteer/extracurricular experiencesMedical school class ranking/quartile

Lack of gaps in medical educationGrades in medical school

Residency class ranking/quartileFluency in language spoken by your patient population

Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membershipResidency program size

In‐Training Examination (ITE)Second interview/visit

Having finished another fellowship

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 96

170

180

190

200

210

220

230

240

250

260

GastroenterologyPrograms That Use USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) Scores When Considering Which Applicants to Interview

Figure-3

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 (CK) Score

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Never Seldom Often

17%

79%

5%

Would your program consider applicants who fail theexam on the first attempt?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Never Seldom often

45%52%

2%

Would your program consider applicants who failthe exam on the first attempt?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

43%

55%

2%

Scores required?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

45%52%

2%

Scores required?

N=44

N=42

N=44N=42

N=17N=21 N=14 N=11

IQR* of Average USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 CK Scores Programs Consider When Granting Interviews

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 1 Score

170

180

190

200

210

220

230

240

250

260

USMLE Step 2 CKUSMLE Step 1 USMLE Step 1 USMLE Step 2 CK

*The boxes in the boxplots 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 x-shaped symbol is the mean.

Scores Above Which Programs Almost Always Grant Interviews

Scores Below Which Programs Generally Do Not Grant Interviews

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 97

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes No

93%

7%

USMLE Step 2 CS

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

43% 40%

17%

USMLE Step 3

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

50%

35%

15%

COMLEX-USA Level 1*

GastroenterologyPercentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 Clinical Skill (CS), Step 3, and COMLEX-USA Scores* When Considering Which Applicants to Interview

Figure-4

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

54%

31%

15%

COMLEX-USA Level 2-CE*

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

48%

24%28%

COMLEX-USA Level 3*

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

62%

19% 19%

COMLEX-USA Level 2-PE*

N=41 N=42

N=26 N=26

N=26 N=25

* Osteopathic applicants only

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 CS and Step 3 Scores

Percentage of Programs That Use COMLEX-USA Level 1 and Level 2-CE Scores

Percentage of Programs That Use COMLEX-USA Level 2-PE and Level 3 Scores

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 98

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Never Seldom Often

50%43%

7%

Would your program consider applicants who fail theexam on the first attempt?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No, not required

31%

0%

69%

Scores required?

N=14

N=16

16.7%Optional

83.3%Required

Program Requirement on Dedicated Time forResearch

N=54

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Accredited Locally Funded Integrated Other

7

4

5

4

Average Number of Months if Research Time isRequired

N=24 N=9 N=9 N=7

0

2

4

6

8

10

Accredited Positions Funded Positions

8.37.8

Average Number of Accredited Positions and Funded Positions

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Positions Filled BeforeMatch Day

Positions Offered Outsidethe Match

Positions Filled Outsidethe Match

82%

12% 12%

Average Percentage of Accredited Positions Offered Outside ofthe Match

N=53 N=48 N=6 N=5 N=4

GastroenterologyPrograms That Use Core Specialty Certifying Examination When Considering Applicants for Interview

Figure-5

GastroenterologyPrograms Positions Figure-6

GastroenterologyDedicated Time for Research Figure-7

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 99

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100% 98%

75%

50%

36%

70%61%

U.S. Graduate OsteopathicPhysician

Canadian Fifth Pathway U.S. IMG Non-U.S. IMG

Percentage of Programs that Typically Interview and Rank Each Applicant Type

Figure-8GastroenterologyProgram's Interview Activities

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Rejected based on astandardized screening

process

In-depth review

55%

42%

Average Percentage of Applicants Rejected and Reviewed

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Number of applicationsreceived

Number of interviewinvitations sent

Number of applicantsinterviewed

380

34 30

Average Number of Positions, Applications Received, InterviewInvitations Sent, and Applicants Interviewed and Ranked

N=46N=46N=47N=47

N=44

32% of Gastroenterology programs consider all applicant groups

N=47

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-USIMG

7%

44%

21%7% 14%

5%

51%

56%

69%

55% 45%

95%

42%

10%

39% 41%

Often Seldom Never

Interview

0%10%

20%

30%40%

50%60%

70%80%

90%100%

Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-USIMG

12%

51%

26%11% 16%

2%

47%

46%

64%

52% 50%

98%

42%

3% 10%

36% 34%

Often Seldom Never

Ranking

n=43

Frequency of Programs Interviewing and Ranking Candidates

n=44

N=42

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1%

14%

53%

25%

5% 1% 0%

Interview invitations

Interview Invitations Sent and Interviews Conducted

0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 2%

39%47%

8%0%

Interviews conducted

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 100

Figure-9GastroenterologyPotential Challenges in Recruiting Applicants to Your Specialty

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

85%

25%

10%

0%

0%

We consider those applicants on an individual basis

We give those applicants serious consideration if they haveshown improvement

We do not usually consider those applicants

We favor those applicants

Other

0 1 2 3 4 5

Not enough applicants in the specialty

Undesirable income potential as a practicing physician

Undesirable work/life balance as a practicing physician

Long or irregular work hours required by specialty

Fellowship Match scheduled at inconvenient time of year

1.2

1.5

2.2

2.1

1.8

Average rating on a scale of 5 (1=least challenging; 5=most challenging)

n=39

26.1%Less than 3

23.9%3 to 5

23.9%6 to 10

8.7%11 to 15

17.4%More than 15

At Any Fellowship Program

31.8%Less than 3

20.5%3 to 5

25.0%6 to 10

11.4%11 to 15

11.4%More than 15

At Current Fellowship Program

n=40

n=46 n=44

GastroenterologyApplicants Who Applied in the Specialty in the Past But Did Not Match Figure-10

GastroenterologyYears as Program Director Figure-11

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 101

Geriatric Medicine

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 102

Geriatric MedicineGeneral Information

Table 1

137

385

213

Number of programs in the Match

Number of positions in the Match

Number of applicants ranking specialty

34.6%Response rate

Appointment Years

Number of responses 45

Match Information*

* Source: NRMP Data Warehouse

2016 Survey

2016 2015 2014

126

353

163

109

297

132

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 103

Figure-1Geriatric MedicinePercentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Selecting Applicants to Interview(N=42)

Average RatingPercent Citing Factor

¹ Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).* International Medical Graduates only

1 2 3 4 5

4.34.63.73.34.64.44.64.73.23.03.44.24.33.44.33.63.93.53.73.23.03.03.53.93.53.54.33.42.43.53.73.34.93.53.44.03.94.33.02.4

100% 50% 0%

74%81%67%48%93%90%88%83%81%38%79%52%62%43%64%69%62%64%45%36%24%48%29%48%45%36%45%33%21%38%38%29%36%19%21%

7%26%

7%5%

12%

Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialty

Residency performance evaluation (Program Director letter)

Reputation of residency program

Demonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research

Perceived commitment to specialty

Personal statement

Perceived interest in program

Evidence of professionalism and ethics

USMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score

Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chapters

USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE score

Leadership qualities

Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicant

Oral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements

Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institution

Pass USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PE

Any failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX

USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 score

Interest in academic career

Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based)

Clinical/laboratory research experience

Awards or special honors in medical school

Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership

Other life experience

Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter)

Graduate of highly‐regarded medical school

Visa status*

Volunteer/extracurricular experiences

Awarded grant money for research

Grades in medical school

Lack of gaps in medical education

Medical school class ranking/quartile

Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP

Electives at your fellowship site

Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membership

Residency class ranking/quartile

Fluency in language spoken by your patient population

In‐Training Examination (ITE)

Residency program size

Having finished another fellowship

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 104

Geriatric MedicinePercentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Ranking Applicants(N=42)

Figure-2

Average RatingPercent Citing Factor

¹ Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).* International Medical Graduates only

1 2 3 4 5

5.04.84.44.84.74.74.63.93.74.34.84.34.54.33.24.24.53.63.74.13.63.23.63.53.72.83.93.44.23.34.24.84.03.93.43.62.73.93.03.84.24.0

4.54.3

100% 50% 0%

88%90%60%74%88%67%79%38%55%71%69%83%52%43%21%33%50%43%43%36%43%14%38%19%17%12%26%21%31%19%40%33%14%19%12%21%14%24%14%12%21%7%0%5%

14%0%

Interactions with faculty during interview and visitInterpersonal skills

Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialtyInteractions with house staff during interview and visit

Perceived commitment to specialtyFeedback from current residents and fellows

Perceived interest in programDemonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research

Reputation of residency programResidency performance evaluation (Program Director letter)

Evidence of professionalism and ethicsPersonal statement

Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicantLeadership qualities

Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chaptersInterest in academic career

Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institutionUSMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score

USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE scoreAny failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX

Passing USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PEClinical/laboratory research experience

USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 scoreOral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements

Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based)Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership

Other life experienceMedical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter)

Second interview/visitAwards or special honors in medical school

Visa status*Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP

Graduate of highly‐regarded medical schoolElectives at your fellowship site

Awarded grant money for researchVolunteer/extracurricular experiencesMedical school class ranking/quartile

Lack of gaps in medical educationGrades in medical school

Residency class ranking/quartileFluency in language spoken by your patient population

Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membershipResidency program size

In‐Training Examination (ITE)Second interview/visit

Having finished another fellowship

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 105

Geriatric MedicinePrograms That Use USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) Scores When Considering Which Applicants to Interview

Figure-3

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 (CK) Score

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Never Seldom Often

2%

73%

24%

Would your program consider applicants who fail theexam on the first attempt?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Never Seldom often

5%

76%

20%

Would your program consider applicants who failthe exam on the first attempt?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

84%

14%

2%

Scores required?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

81%

16%

2%

Scores required?

N=43

N=41

N=43N=41

IQR* of Average USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 CK Scores Programs Consider When Granting Interviews

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 1 Score

*The boxes in the boxplots 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 x-shaped symbol is the mean.

Scores Above Which Programs Almost Always Grant Interviews

Scores Below Which Programs Generally Do Not Grant Interviews

USMLE Step 2 CK not reported

because of low response rate

USMLE Step 1 not reported because of low response

rate

USMLE Step 2 CK not reported

because of low response rate

USMLE Step 1 not reported because of low response

rate

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 106

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes No

98%

2%

USMLE Step 2 CS

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

79%

12% 10%

USMLE Step 3

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

71%

7%

21%

COMLEX-USA Level 1*

Geriatric MedicinePercentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 Clinical Skill (CS), Step 3, and COMLEX-USA Scores* When Considering Which Applicants to Interview

Figure-4

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

71%

7%

21%

COMLEX-USA Level 2-CE*

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

75%

4%

21%

COMLEX-USA Level 3*

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

71%

7%

21%

COMLEX-USA Level 2-PE*

N=43 N=42

N=28 N=28

N=28 N=28

* Osteopathic applicants only

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 CS and Step 3 Scores

Percentage of Programs That Use COMLEX-USA Level 1 and Level 2-CE Scores

Percentage of Programs That Use COMLEX-USA Level 2-PE and Level 3 Scores

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 107

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Never Seldom Often

0%

72%

28%

Would your program consider applicants who fail theexam on the first attempt?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No, not required

20%

0%

80%

Scores required?

N=18

N=20

86.7%Optional

13.3%Required

Program Requirement on Dedicated Time forResearch

N=45

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Accredited Locally Funded Integrated Other

1

12

2

Average Number of Months if Research Time isRequired

N=0 N=1 N=4 N=1

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

Accredited Positions Funded Positions

3.7

3.4

Average Number of Accredited Positions and Funded Positions

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Positions Filled BeforeMatch Day

Positions Offered Outsidethe Match

Positions Filled Outsidethe Match

43% 40% 41%

Average Percentage of Accredited Positions Offered Outside ofthe Match

N=45 N=44 N=10 N=16 N=15

Geriatric MedicinePrograms That Use Core Specialty Certifying Examination When Considering Applicants for Interview

Figure-5

Geriatric MedicinePrograms Positions Figure-6

Geriatric MedicineDedicated Time for Research Figure-7

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 108

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100% 98%91%

60%

35%

74%

53%

U.S. Graduate OsteopathicPhysician

Canadian Fifth Pathway U.S. IMG Non-U.S. IMG

Percentage of Programs that Typically Interview and Rank Each Applicant Type

Figure-8Geriatric MedicineProgram's Interview Activities

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Rejected based on astandardized screening

process

In-depth review

26%

77%

Average Percentage of Applicants Rejected and Reviewed

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Number of applicationsreceived

Number of interviewinvitations sent

Number of applicantsinterviewed

17

10

8

Average Number of Positions, Applications Received, InterviewInvitations Sent, and Applicants Interviewed and Ranked

N=43N=42N=44N=44

N=43

28% of Geriatric Medicine programs consider all applicant groups

N=44

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-USIMG

5%

66%

28%10%

24%5%

21%

21%

53%

28%

21%

95%

74%

13% 20%

63% 55%

Often Seldom Never

Interview

0%10%

20%

30%40%

50%60%

70%80%

90%100%

Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-USIMG

3%

65%

24%8%

24%

3%

20%

24%

43%

26%

19%

98%78%

12%

32%

66%57%

Often Seldom Never

Ranking

n=40

Frequency of Programs Interviewing and Ranking Candidates

n=42

N=38

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

3% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1%7%

26%

38%

14%3% 7%

Interview invitations

Interview Invitations Sent and Interviews Conducted

0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1%7%

25%34%

13%8%

Interviews conducted

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 109

Figure-9Geriatric MedicinePotential Challenges in Recruiting Applicants to Your Specialty

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

92%

17%

6%

0%

0%

We consider those applicants on an individual basis

We give those applicants serious consideration if they haveshown improvement

We do not usually consider those applicants

We favor those applicants

Other

0 1 2 3 4 5

Not enough applicants in the specialty

Undesirable income potential as a practicing physician

Undesirable work/life balance as a practicing physician

Long or irregular work hours required by specialty

Fellowship Match scheduled at inconvenient time of year

4.8

4.5

2.0

1.6

2.3

Average rating on a scale of 5 (1=least challenging; 5=most challenging)

n=39

29.3%Less than 3

17.1%3 to 5

19.5%6 to 10

12.2%11 to 15

22.0%More than 15

At Any Fellowship Program

35.1%Less than 3

16.2%3 to 5

27.0%6 to 10

10.8%11 to 15

10.8%More than 15

At Current Fellowship Program

n=36

n=41 n=37

Geriatric MedicineApplicants Who Applied in the Specialty in the Past But Did Not Match Figure-10

Geriatric MedicineYears as Program Director Figure-11

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 110

Gynecologic Oncology

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 111

Gynecologic OncologyGeneral Information

Table 1

41

56

80

Number of programs in the Match

Number of positions in the Match

Number of applicants ranking specialty

24.4%Response rate

Appointment Years

Number of responses 10

Match Information*

* Source: NRMP Data Warehouse

2016 Survey

2016 2015 2014

44

52

91

40

53

87

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 112

Figure-1Gynecologic OncologyPercentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Selecting Applicants to Interview(N=9)

Average RatingPercent Citing Factor

¹ Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).* International Medical Graduates only

1 2 3 4 5

4.84.04.34.44.73.54.04.63.64.13.64.45.04.03.53.54.83.64.54.44.43.53.43.62.83.84.53.83.03.04.04.04.85.03.73.5

4.53.02.0

100% 50% 0%

78%78%

100%100%

78%67%44%78%78%

100%78%89%56%78%56%67%67%78%89%78%78%56%78%56%67%56%67%44%56%22%33%33%56%22%44%22%

0%67%22%11%

Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialty

Residency performance evaluation (Program Director letter)

Reputation of residency program

Demonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research

Perceived commitment to specialty

Personal statement

Perceived interest in program

Evidence of professionalism and ethics

USMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score

Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chapters

USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE score

Leadership qualities

Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicant

Oral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements

Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institution

Pass USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PE

Any failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX

USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 score

Interest in academic career

Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based)

Clinical/laboratory research experience

Awards or special honors in medical school

Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership

Other life experience

Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter)

Graduate of highly‐regarded medical school

Visa status*

Volunteer/extracurricular experiences

Awarded grant money for research

Grades in medical school

Lack of gaps in medical education

Medical school class ranking/quartile

Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP

Electives at your fellowship site

Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membership

Residency class ranking/quartile

Fluency in language spoken by your patient population

In‐Training Examination (ITE)

Residency program size

Having finished another fellowship

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 113

Gynecologic OncologyPercentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Ranking Applicants(N=9)

Figure-2

Average RatingPercent Citing Factor

¹ Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).* International Medical Graduates only

1 2 3 4 5

4.94.94.54.94.74.84.74.33.83.85.03.04.84.84.24.53.53.53.54.73.33.83.54.34.03.34.03.53.53.54.34.75.04.54.04.3

3.0

4.03.0

100% 50% 0%

100%100%86%

100%100%71%86%

100%71%71%86%29%71%86%86%86%29%57%57%43%43%71%57%57%57%57%29%29%29%29%43%43%14%29%43%43%0%

14%0%0%0%0%0%

43%14%0%

Interactions with faculty during interview and visitInterpersonal skills

Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialtyInteractions with house staff during interview and visit

Perceived commitment to specialtyFeedback from current residents and fellows

Perceived interest in programDemonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research

Reputation of residency programResidency performance evaluation (Program Director letter)

Evidence of professionalism and ethicsPersonal statement

Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicantLeadership qualities

Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chaptersInterest in academic career

Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institutionUSMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score

USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE scoreAny failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX

Passing USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PEClinical/laboratory research experience

USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 scoreOral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements

Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based)Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership

Other life experienceMedical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter)

Second interview/visitAwards or special honors in medical school

Visa status*Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP

Graduate of highly‐regarded medical schoolElectives at your fellowship site

Awarded grant money for researchVolunteer/extracurricular experiencesMedical school class ranking/quartile

Lack of gaps in medical educationGrades in medical school

Residency class ranking/quartileFluency in language spoken by your patient population

Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membershipResidency program size

In‐Training Examination (ITE)Second interview/visit

Having finished another fellowship

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 114

Gynecologic OncologyPrograms That Use USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) Scores When Considering Which Applicants to Interview

Figure-3

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 (CK) Score

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Never Seldom Often

22%

56%

22%

Would your program consider applicants who fail theexam on the first attempt?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Never Seldom often

44% 44%

11%

Would your program consider applicants who failthe exam on the first attempt?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

56%

33%

11%

Scores required?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

56%

33%

11%

Scores required?

N=9

N=9

N=9N=9

IQR* of Average USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 CK Scores Programs Consider When Granting Interviews

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 1 Score

*The boxes in the boxplots 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 x-shaped symbol is the mean.

Scores Above Which Programs Almost Always Grant Interviews

Scores Below Which Programs Generally Do Not Grant Interviews

USMLE Step 2 CK not reported

because of low response rate

USMLE Step 1 not reported because of low response

rate

USMLE Step 2 CK not reported

because of low response rate

USMLE Step 1 not reported because of low response

rate

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 115

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes No

89%

11%

USMLE Step 2 CS

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

56%

33%

11%

USMLE Step 3

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

71%

14% 14%

COMLEX-USA Level 1*

Gynecologic OncologyPercentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 Clinical Skill (CS), Step 3, and COMLEX-USA Scores* When Considering Which Applicants to Interview

Figure-4

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

71%

14% 14%

COMLEX-USA Level 2-CE*

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

71%

14% 14%

COMLEX-USA Level 3*

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

71%

14% 14%

COMLEX-USA Level 2-PE*

N=9 N=9

N=7 N=7

N=7 N=7

* Osteopathic applicants only

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 CS and Step 3 Scores

Percentage of Programs That Use COMLEX-USA Level 1 and Level 2-CE Scores

Percentage of Programs That Use COMLEX-USA Level 2-PE and Level 3 Scores

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 116

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Never Seldom Often

33%

67%

0%

Would your program consider applicants who fail theexam on the first attempt?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No, not required

20% 20%

60%

Scores required?

N=3

N=5

100.0%Required

Program Requirement on Dedicated Time forResearch

N=10

0

4

8

12

16

20

24

Accredited Locally Funded Integrated Other

16

12

22

Average Number of Months if Research Time isRequired

N=8 N=3 N=2 N=0

0.0

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.6

2.0

Accredited Positions Funded Positions

1.91.8

Average Number of Accredited Positions and Funded Positions

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Positions Filled BeforeMatch Day

Positions Offered Outsidethe Match

Positions Filled Outsidethe Match

100%

33%

67%

Average Percentage of Accredited Positions Offered Outside ofthe Match

N=9 N=8 N=1 N=1 N=1

Gynecologic OncologyPrograms That Use Core Specialty Certifying Examination When Considering Applicants for Interview

Figure-5

Gynecologic OncologyPrograms Positions Figure-6

Gynecologic OncologyDedicated Time for Research Figure-7

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 117

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%100%

80%

90%

40%

80%

70%

U.S. Graduate OsteopathicPhysician

Canadian Fifth Pathway U.S. IMG Non-U.S. IMG

Percentage of Programs that Typically Interview and Rank Each Applicant Type

Figure-8Gynecologic OncologyProgram's Interview Activities

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Rejected based on astandardized screening

process

In-depth review

33%

89%

Average Percentage of Applicants Rejected and Reviewed

0

20

40

60

80

100

Number of applicationsreceived

Number of interviewinvitations sent

Number of applicantsinterviewed

87

23 21

Average Number of Positions, Applications Received, InterviewInvitations Sent, and Applicants Interviewed and Ranked

N=10N=10N=10N=10

N=10

40% of Gynecologic Oncology programs consider all applicant groups

N=10

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-USIMG

60%

10% 10%30%

90%

40%

50%

80%

70%

100%

10%

40%

10%

Often Seldom Never

Interview

0%10%

20%

30%40%

50%60%

70%80%

90%100%

Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-USIMG

10%

70%

10% 10%

40%

70%

30%

50%

80%

50%

100%

20%40%

10% 10%

Often Seldom Never

Ranking

n=10

Frequency of Programs Interviewing and Ranking Candidates

n=10

N=10

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

0% 0% 0%

35%

53%

12%

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

Interview invitations

Interview Invitations Sent and Interviews Conducted

0% 0% 0% 0%10%

25%

45%

20%

0% 0% 0% 0%

Interviews conducted

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 118

Figure-9Gynecologic OncologyPotential Challenges in Recruiting Applicants to Your Specialty

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

71%

29%

14%

0%

0%

We consider those applicants on an individual basis

We give those applicants serious consideration if they haveshown improvement

We do not usually consider those applicants

We favor those applicants

Other

0 1 2 3 4 5

Not enough applicants in the specialty

Undesirable income potential as a practicing physician

Undesirable work/life balance as a practicing physician

Long or irregular work hours required by specialty

Fellowship Match scheduled at inconvenient time of year

1.5

1.7

2.2

2.5

1.5

Average rating on a scale of 5 (1=least challenging; 5=most challenging)

n=6

12.5%Less than 3

50.0%3 to 5

37.5%More than 15

At Any Fellowship Program

25.0%Less than 3

37.5%3 to 5

37.5%More than 15

At Current Fellowship Program

n=7

n=8 n=8

Gynecologic OncologyApplicants Who Applied in the Specialty in the Past But Did Not Match Figure-10

Gynecologic OncologyYears as Program Director Figure-11

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 119

Hand Surgery

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 120

Hand SurgeryGeneral Information

Table 1

82

168

199

Number of programs in the Match

Number of positions in the Match

Number of applicants ranking specialty

43.0%Response rate

Appointment Years

Number of responses 34

Match Information*

* Source: NRMP Data Warehouse

2016 Survey

2016 2015 2014

83

166

173

80

160

205

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 121

Figure-1Hand SurgeryPercentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Selecting Applicants to Interview(N=33)

Average RatingPercent Citing Factor

¹ Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).* International Medical Graduates only

1 2 3 4 5

4.74.53.84.04.33.94.34.73.53.73.44.43.93.63.83.94.13.44.13.83.73.33.33.93.43.04.33.83.23.13.73.34.84.03.43.73.43.23.32.4

100% 50% 0%

97%85%94%88%76%88%70%70%79%70%76%67%76%61%36%58%30%48%58%45%55%73%73%67%61%48%36%61%39%52%30%58%45%18%30%33%21%18%

9%21%

Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialty

Residency performance evaluation (Program Director letter)

Reputation of residency program

Demonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research

Perceived commitment to specialty

Personal statement

Perceived interest in program

Evidence of professionalism and ethics

USMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score

Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chapters

USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE score

Leadership qualities

Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicant

Oral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements

Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institution

Pass USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PE

Any failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX

USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 score

Interest in academic career

Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based)

Clinical/laboratory research experience

Awards or special honors in medical school

Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership

Other life experience

Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter)

Graduate of highly‐regarded medical school

Visa status*

Volunteer/extracurricular experiences

Awarded grant money for research

Grades in medical school

Lack of gaps in medical education

Medical school class ranking/quartile

Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP

Electives at your fellowship site

Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membership

Residency class ranking/quartile

Fluency in language spoken by your patient population

In‐Training Examination (ITE)

Residency program size

Having finished another fellowship

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 122

Hand SurgeryPercentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Ranking Applicants(N=33)

Figure-2

Average RatingPercent Citing Factor

¹ Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).* International Medical Graduates only

1 2 3 4 5

4.84.74.74.84.44.84.33.84.04.54.64.04.04.43.74.03.83.83.94.93.93.63.73.83.53.74.13.64.03.14.44.93.33.83.53.93.43.83.33.73.73.52.02.83.74.0

100% 50% 0%

97%97%97%90%74%77%68%87%71%74%61%77%61%61%61%45%26%55%39%23%32%45%32%42%35%48%42%45%23%45%23%35%19%16%23%39%29%16%29%19%10%19%3%

16%10%13%

Interactions with faculty during interview and visitInterpersonal skills

Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialtyInteractions with house staff during interview and visit

Perceived commitment to specialtyFeedback from current residents and fellows

Perceived interest in programDemonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research

Reputation of residency programResidency performance evaluation (Program Director letter)

Evidence of professionalism and ethicsPersonal statement

Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicantLeadership qualities

Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chaptersInterest in academic career

Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institutionUSMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score

USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE scoreAny failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX

Passing USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PEClinical/laboratory research experience

USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 scoreOral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements

Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based)Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership

Other life experienceMedical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter)

Second interview/visitAwards or special honors in medical school

Visa status*Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP

Graduate of highly‐regarded medical schoolElectives at your fellowship site

Awarded grant money for researchVolunteer/extracurricular experiencesMedical school class ranking/quartile

Lack of gaps in medical educationGrades in medical school

Residency class ranking/quartileFluency in language spoken by your patient population

Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membershipResidency program size

In‐Training Examination (ITE)Second interview/visit

Having finished another fellowship

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 123

170

180

190

200

210

220

230

240

250

260

Hand SurgeryPrograms That Use USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) Scores When Considering Which Applicants to Interview

Figure-3

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 (CK) Score

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Never Seldom Often

33%

63%

3%

Would your program consider applicants who fail theexam on the first attempt?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Never Seldom often

40%

57%

3%

Would your program consider applicants who failthe exam on the first attempt?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

65%

29%

6%

Scores required?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

73%

23%

3%

Scores required?

N=31

N=30

N=30N=30

N=7N=8 N=8 N=7

IQR* of Average USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 CK Scores Programs Consider When Granting Interviews

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 1 Score

170

180

190

200

210

220

230

240

250

260

USMLE Step 2 CKUSMLE Step 1 USMLE Step 1 USMLE Step 2 CK

*The boxes in the boxplots 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 x-shaped symbol is the mean.

Scores Above Which Programs Almost Always Grant Interviews

Scores Below Which Programs Generally Do Not Grant Interviews

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 124

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes No

94%

6%

USMLE Step 2 CS

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

72%

10%17%

USMLE Step 3

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

27%

0%

73%

COMLEX-USA Level 1*

Hand SurgeryPercentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 Clinical Skill (CS), Step 3, and COMLEX-USA Scores* When Considering Which Applicants to Interview

Figure-4

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

27%

0%

73%

COMLEX-USA Level 2-CE*

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

27%

0%

73%

COMLEX-USA Level 3*

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

27%

0%

73%

COMLEX-USA Level 2-PE*

N=31 N=29

N=11 N=11

N=11 N=11

* Osteopathic applicants only

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 CS and Step 3 Scores

Percentage of Programs That Use COMLEX-USA Level 1 and Level 2-CE Scores

Percentage of Programs That Use COMLEX-USA Level 2-PE and Level 3 Scores

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 125

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Never Seldom Often

56%

44%

0%

Would your program consider applicants who fail theexam on the first attempt?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No, not required

10%

0%

90%

Scores required?

N=9

N=10

47.1%Optional

52.9%Required

Program Requirement on Dedicated Time forResearch

N=34

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

Accredited Locally Funded Integrated Other

3

3

4

2

Average Number of Months if Research Time isRequired

N=5 N=5 N=4 N=2

0.0

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.6

2.0

2.4

2.8

Accredited Positions Funded Positions

2.52.3

Average Number of Accredited Positions and Funded Positions

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Positions Filled BeforeMatch Day

Positions Offered Outsidethe Match

Positions Filled Outsidethe Match

100%

Average Percentage of Accredited Positions Offered Outside ofthe Match

N=34 N=28 N=10 N=0 N=0

Hand SurgeryPrograms That Use Core Specialty Certifying Examination When Considering Applicants for Interview

Figure-5

Hand SurgeryPrograms Positions Figure-6

Hand SurgeryDedicated Time for Research Figure-7

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 126

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%100%

70%77%

17% 17% 13%

U.S. Graduate OsteopathicPhysician

Canadian Fifth Pathway U.S. IMG Non-U.S. IMG

Percentage of Programs that Typically Interview and Rank Each Applicant Type

Figure-8Hand SurgeryProgram's Interview Activities

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Rejected based on astandardized screening

process

In-depth review

31%

79%

Average Percentage of Applicants Rejected and Reviewed

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Number of applicationsreceived

Number of interviewinvitations sent

Number of applicantsinterviewed

75

3530

Average Number of Positions, Applications Received, InterviewInvitations Sent, and Applicants Interviewed and Ranked

N=33N=33N=33N=33

N=30

7% of Hand Surgery programs consider all applicant groups

N=33

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-USIMG

6% 13%

64%

7%

31%45%

13%

50%

36%

53%

66%55%

81%

38% 40%

3%

Often Seldom Never

Interview

0%10%

20%

30%40%

50%60%

70%80%

90%100%

Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-USIMG

3%23%

68%

7%

36%54%

14%

50%

29%

53%

57%

46%

83%

27%

4%

40%

7%

Often Seldom Never

Ranking

n=29

Frequency of Programs Interviewing and Ranking Candidates

n=32

N=31

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

77%

8%0%

5%0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 2% 6%

Interview invitations

Interview Invitations Sent and Interviews Conducted

13%

50%

23%

5% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3%

Interviews conducted

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 127

Figure-9Hand SurgeryPotential Challenges in Recruiting Applicants to Your Specialty

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

77%

20%

13%

0%

0%

We consider those applicants on an individual basis

We give those applicants serious consideration if they haveshown improvement

We do not usually consider those applicants

We favor those applicants

Other

0 1 2 3 4 5

Not enough applicants in the specialty

Undesirable income potential as a practicing physician

Undesirable work/life balance as a practicing physician

Long or irregular work hours required by specialty

Fellowship Match scheduled at inconvenient time of year

1.5

2.2

2.4

2.5

1.9

Average rating on a scale of 5 (1=least challenging; 5=most challenging)

n=31

17.2%Less than

3

13.8%3 to 5

24.1%6 to 1013.8%

11 to 15

31.0%More than 15

At Any Fellowship Program

14.3%Less than 3

14.3%3 to 5

35.7%6 to 10

3.6%11 to 15

32.1%More than 15

At Current Fellowship Program

n=30

n=29 n=28

Hand SurgeryApplicants Who Applied in the Specialty in the Past But Did Not Match Figure-10

Hand SurgeryYears as Program Director Figure-11

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 128

Hematology and Oncology

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 129

Hematology and OncologyGeneral Information

Table 1

131

521

693

Number of programs in the Match

Number of positions in the Match

Number of applicants ranking specialty

36.9%Response rate

Appointment Years

Number of responses 48

Match Information*

* Source: NRMP Data Warehouse

2016 Survey

2016 2015 2014

134

521

725

130

517

689

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 130

Figure-1Hematology and OncologyPercentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Selecting Applicants to Interview(N=36)

Average RatingPercent Citing Factor

¹ Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).* International Medical Graduates only

1 2 3 4 5

4.24.44.14.14.53.84.44.73.94.34.04.14.34.14.14.04.53.84.54.14.03.64.03.63.73.74.03.23.83.34.03.54.73.53.43.93.8

3.22.8

100% 50% 0%

72%89%92%94%61%67%69%61%83%75%81%50%69%67%83%75%81%72%67%81%75%39%56%56%50%64%56%33%50%31%36%39%36%42%25%22%22%

0%17%14%

Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialty

Residency performance evaluation (Program Director letter)

Reputation of residency program

Demonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research

Perceived commitment to specialty

Personal statement

Perceived interest in program

Evidence of professionalism and ethics

USMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score

Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chapters

USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE score

Leadership qualities

Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicant

Oral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements

Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institution

Pass USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PE

Any failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX

USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 score

Interest in academic career

Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based)

Clinical/laboratory research experience

Awards or special honors in medical school

Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership

Other life experience

Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter)

Graduate of highly‐regarded medical school

Visa status*

Volunteer/extracurricular experiences

Awarded grant money for research

Grades in medical school

Lack of gaps in medical education

Medical school class ranking/quartile

Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP

Electives at your fellowship site

Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membership

Residency class ranking/quartile

Fluency in language spoken by your patient population

In‐Training Examination (ITE)

Residency program size

Having finished another fellowship

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 131

Hematology and OncologyPercentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Ranking Applicants(N=36)

Figure-2

Average RatingPercent Citing Factor

¹ Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).* International Medical Graduates only

1 2 3 4 5

5.04.84.34.74.54.54.34.23.94.44.63.94.44.24.24.44.13.93.94.74.04.13.94.14.13.73.73.84.34.04.34.93.94.23.93.83.44.53.74.04.03.03.5

5.03.3

100% 50% 0%

85%85%58%73%61%76%61%91%67%64%64%55%48%48%67%64%52%64%58%52%58%67%48%42%45%36%21%18%27%21%36%27%24%18%42%12%21%6%9%

21%21%12%6%0%3%9%

Interactions with faculty during interview and visitInterpersonal skills

Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialtyInteractions with house staff during interview and visit

Perceived commitment to specialtyFeedback from current residents and fellows

Perceived interest in programDemonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research

Reputation of residency programResidency performance evaluation (Program Director letter)

Evidence of professionalism and ethicsPersonal statement

Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicantLeadership qualities

Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chaptersInterest in academic career

Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institutionUSMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score

USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE scoreAny failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX

Passing USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PEClinical/laboratory research experience

USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 scoreOral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements

Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based)Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership

Other life experienceMedical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter)

Second interview/visitAwards or special honors in medical school

Visa status*Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP

Graduate of highly‐regarded medical schoolElectives at your fellowship site

Awarded grant money for researchVolunteer/extracurricular experiencesMedical school class ranking/quartile

Lack of gaps in medical educationGrades in medical school

Residency class ranking/quartileFluency in language spoken by your patient population

Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membershipResidency program size

In‐Training Examination (ITE)Second interview/visit

Having finished another fellowship

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 132

170

180

190

200

210

220

230

240

250

260

Hematology and OncologyPrograms That Use USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) Scores When Considering Which Applicants to Interview

Figure-3

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 (CK) Score

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Never Seldom Often

17%

81%

3%

Would your program consider applicants who fail theexam on the first attempt?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Never Seldom often

26%

71%

3%

Would your program consider applicants who failthe exam on the first attempt?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

63%

37%

0%

Scores required?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

67%

33%

0%

Scores required?

N=35

N=36

N=36N=35

N=11N=12 N=9 N=8

IQR* of Average USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 CK Scores Programs Consider When Granting Interviews

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 1 Score

170

180

190

200

210

220

230

240

250

260

USMLE Step 2 CKUSMLE Step 1 USMLE Step 1 USMLE Step 2 CK

*The boxes in the boxplots 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 x-shaped symbol is the mean.

Scores Above Which Programs Almost Always Grant Interviews

Scores Below Which Programs Generally Do Not Grant Interviews

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 133

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes No

100%

0%

USMLE Step 2 CS

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

51%

37%

11%

USMLE Step 3

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

64%

32%

5%

COMLEX-USA Level 1*

Hematology and OncologyPercentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 Clinical Skill (CS), Step 3, and COMLEX-USA Scores* When Considering Which Applicants to Interview

Figure-4

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

64%

32%

5%

COMLEX-USA Level 2-CE*

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

55%

36%

9%

COMLEX-USA Level 3*

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

68%

27%

5%

COMLEX-USA Level 2-PE*

N=36 N=35

N=22 N=22

N=22 N=22

* Osteopathic applicants only

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 CS and Step 3 Scores

Percentage of Programs That Use COMLEX-USA Level 1 and Level 2-CE Scores

Percentage of Programs That Use COMLEX-USA Level 2-PE and Level 3 Scores

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 134

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Never Seldom Often

25%

63%

13%

Would your program consider applicants who fail theexam on the first attempt?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No, not required

15%8%

77%

Scores required?

N=8

N=13

31.3%Optional

68.8%Required

Program Requirement on Dedicated Time forResearch

N=48

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Accredited Locally Funded Integrated Other

12

10

7 7

Average Number of Months if Research Time isRequired

N=14 N=11 N=5 N=5

0

2

4

6

8

10

Accredited Positions Funded Positions

9.0 8.8

Average Number of Accredited Positions and Funded Positions

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Positions Filled BeforeMatch Day

Positions Offered Outsidethe Match

Positions Filled Outsidethe Match

68%

31% 31%

Average Percentage of Accredited Positions Offered Outside ofthe Match

N=47 N=45 N=8 N=6 N=6

Hematology and OncologyPrograms That Use Core Specialty Certifying Examination When Considering Applicants for Interview

Figure-5

Hematology and OncologyPrograms Positions Figure-6

Hematology and OncologyDedicated Time for Research Figure-7

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 135

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100% 93%84%

72%

42%

88%84%

U.S. Graduate OsteopathicPhysician

Canadian Fifth Pathway U.S. IMG Non-U.S. IMG

Percentage of Programs that Typically Interview and Rank Each Applicant Type

Figure-8Hematology and OncologyProgram's Interview Activities

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Rejected based on astandardized screening

process

In-depth review

51%41%

Average Percentage of Applicants Rejected and Reviewed

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

320

Number of applicationsreceived

Number of interviewinvitations sent

Number of applicantsinterviewed

302

44 37

Average Number of Positions, Applications Received, InterviewInvitations Sent, and Applicants Interviewed and Ranked

N=42N=41N=44N=44

N=43

40% of Hematology and Oncology programs consider all applicant groups

N=44

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-USIMG

2%

56%

13% 5%5%

52%

38%

64%

44%17%

93%

48%

5%23%

56%

78%

Often Seldom Never

Interview

0%10%

20%

30%40%

50%60%

70%80%

90%100%

Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-USIMG

3% 3%

55%

13%3% 8%

48%

39%

63%

46%23%

98%

50%

5%24%

51%69%

Often Seldom Never

Ranking

n=40

Frequency of Programs Interviewing and Ranking Candidates

n=42

N=37

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

0% 0% 0% 0% 3% 0%11%

47%

34%

6%1% 0%

Interview invitations

Interview Invitations Sent and Interviews Conducted

0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%5%

38%46%

3% 0%

Interviews conducted

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 136

Figure-9Hematology and OncologyPotential Challenges in Recruiting Applicants to Your Specialty

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

77%

16%

16%

0%

3%

We consider those applicants on an individual basis

We give those applicants serious consideration if they haveshown improvement

We do not usually consider those applicants

We favor those applicants

Other

0 1 2 3 4 5

Not enough applicants in the specialty

Undesirable income potential as a practicing physician

Undesirable work/life balance as a practicing physician

Long or irregular work hours required by specialty

Fellowship Match scheduled at inconvenient time of year

1.4

1.7

2.8

2.4

1.8

Average rating on a scale of 5 (1=least challenging; 5=most challenging)

n=31

13.6%Less than 3

27.3%3 to 5

25.0%6 to 10

13.6%11 to 15

20.5%More than

15

At Any Fellowship Program

17.1%Less than 3

29.3%3 to 5

22.0%6 to 10

14.6%11 to 15

17.1%More than 15

At Current Fellowship Program

n=31

n=44 n=41

Hematology and OncologyApplicants Who Applied in the Specialty in the Past But Did Not Match Figure-10

Hematology and OncologyYears as Program Director Figure-11

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 137

Hospice and Palliative Medicine

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 138

Hospice and Palliative MedicineGeneral Information

Table 1

122

280

259

Number of programs in the Match

Number of positions in the Match

Number of applicants ranking specialty

39.6%Response rate

Appointment Years

Number of responses 42

Match Information*

* Source: NRMP Data Warehouse

2016 Survey

2016 2015 2014

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 139

Figure-1Hospice and Palliative MedicinePercentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Selecting Applicants to Interview(N=38)

Average RatingPercent Citing Factor

¹ Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).* International Medical Graduates only

1 2 3 4 5

4.44.44.03.54.74.64.54.83.63.63.74.14.13.74.03.94.33.63.73.93.23.43.94.13.63.84.53.84.03.53.53.34.74.24.23.53.73.03.53.2

100% 50% 0%

92%89%79%66%95%95%79%82%61%55%53%71%71%63%55%55%58%45%34%34%16%63%47%76%63%61%45%50%13%47%32%42%39%45%37%24%39%

8%5%

26%

Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialty

Residency performance evaluation (Program Director letter)

Reputation of residency program

Demonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research

Perceived commitment to specialty

Personal statement

Perceived interest in program

Evidence of professionalism and ethics

USMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score

Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chapters

USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE score

Leadership qualities

Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicant

Oral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements

Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institution

Pass USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PE

Any failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX

USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 score

Interest in academic career

Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based)

Clinical/laboratory research experience

Awards or special honors in medical school

Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership

Other life experience

Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter)

Graduate of highly‐regarded medical school

Visa status*

Volunteer/extracurricular experiences

Awarded grant money for research

Grades in medical school

Lack of gaps in medical education

Medical school class ranking/quartile

Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP

Electives at your fellowship site

Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membership

Residency class ranking/quartile

Fluency in language spoken by your patient population

In‐Training Examination (ITE)

Residency program size

Having finished another fellowship

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 140

Hospice and Palliative MedicinePercentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Ranking Applicants(N=38)

Figure-2

Average RatingPercent Citing Factor

¹ Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).* International Medical Graduates only

1 2 3 4 5

4.94.94.54.84.74.74.63.54.04.54.84.74.24.44.13.94.13.63.64.33.93.63.73.83.83.74.23.94.23.84.34.83.94.54.23.83.73.83.54.04.33.83.04.04.43.6

100% 50% 0%

92%92%81%68%89%59%81%35%54%54%73%76%59%46%35%30%46%27%30%41%27%14%27%35%30%30%46%43%24%30%24%30%27%30%14%27%19%11%16%22%27%22%3%5%

14%19%

Interactions with faculty during interview and visitInterpersonal skills

Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialtyInteractions with house staff during interview and visit

Perceived commitment to specialtyFeedback from current residents and fellows

Perceived interest in programDemonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research

Reputation of residency programResidency performance evaluation (Program Director letter)

Evidence of professionalism and ethicsPersonal statement

Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicantLeadership qualities

Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chaptersInterest in academic career

Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institutionUSMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score

USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE scoreAny failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX

Passing USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PEClinical/laboratory research experience

USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 scoreOral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements

Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based)Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership

Other life experienceMedical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter)

Second interview/visitAwards or special honors in medical school

Visa status*Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP

Graduate of highly‐regarded medical schoolElectives at your fellowship site

Awarded grant money for researchVolunteer/extracurricular experiencesMedical school class ranking/quartile

Lack of gaps in medical educationGrades in medical school

Residency class ranking/quartileFluency in language spoken by your patient population

Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membershipResidency program size

In‐Training Examination (ITE)Second interview/visit

Having finished another fellowship

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 141

Hospice and Palliative MedicinePrograms That Use USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) Scores When Considering Which Applicants to Interview

Figure-3

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 (CK) Score

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Never Seldom Often

23%

52%

26%

Would your program consider applicants who fail theexam on the first attempt?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Never Seldom often

26%

55%

19%

Would your program consider applicants who failthe exam on the first attempt?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

74%

20%

6%

Scores required?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

74%

20%

6%

Scores required?

N=35

N=31

N=35N=31

IQR* of Average USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 CK Scores Programs Consider When Granting Interviews

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 1 Score

*The boxes in the boxplots 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 x-shaped symbol is the mean.

Scores Above Which Programs Almost Always Grant Interviews

Scores Below Which Programs Generally Do Not Grant Interviews

USMLE Step 2 CK not reported

because of low response rate

USMLE Step 1 not reported because of low response

rate

USMLE Step 2 CK not reported

because of low response rate

USMLE Step 1 not reported because of low response

rate

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 142

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes No

94%

6%

USMLE Step 2 CS

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

78%

17%

6%

USMLE Step 3

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

76%

12% 12%

COMLEX-USA Level 1*

Hospice and Palliative MedicinePercentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 Clinical Skill (CS), Step 3, and COMLEX-USA Scores* When Considering Which Applicants to Interview

Figure-4

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

76%

12% 12%

COMLEX-USA Level 2-CE*

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

75%

13% 13%

COMLEX-USA Level 3*

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

76%

12% 12%

COMLEX-USA Level 2-PE*

N=35 N=36

N=25 N=25

N=25 N=24

* Osteopathic applicants only

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 CS and Step 3 Scores

Percentage of Programs That Use COMLEX-USA Level 1 and Level 2-CE Scores

Percentage of Programs That Use COMLEX-USA Level 2-PE and Level 3 Scores

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 143

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Never Seldom Often

22%

61%

17%

Would your program consider applicants who fail theexam on the first attempt?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No, not required

57%

0%

43%

Scores required?

N=18

N=21

73.2%Optional

26.8%Required

Program Requirement on Dedicated Time forResearch

N=41

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

Accredited Locally Funded Integrated Other

3

1

1 1

Average Number of Months if Research Time isRequired

N=5 N=2 N=2 N=2

0.0

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.6

2.0

2.4

2.8

3.2

Accredited Positions Funded Positions

3.02.8

Average Number of Accredited Positions and Funded Positions

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Positions Filled BeforeMatch Day

Positions Offered Outsidethe Match

Positions Filled Outsidethe Match

72%

57% 57%

Average Percentage of Accredited Positions Offered Outside ofthe Match

N=42 N=41 N=13 N=14 N=14

Hospice and Palliative MedicinePrograms That Use Core Specialty Certifying Examination When Considering Applicants for Interview

Figure-5

Hospice and Palliative MedicinePrograms Positions Figure-6

Hospice and Palliative MedicineDedicated Time for Research Figure-7

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 144

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100% 97% 97%

47%

13%

68%

39%

U.S. Graduate OsteopathicPhysician

Canadian Fifth Pathway U.S. IMG Non-U.S. IMG

Percentage of Programs that Typically Interview and Rank Each Applicant Type

Figure-8Hospice and Palliative MedicineProgram's Interview Activities

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Rejected based on astandardized screening

process

In-depth review

30%

76%

Average Percentage of Applicants Rejected and Reviewed

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Number of applicationsreceived

Number of interviewinvitations sent

Number of applicantsinterviewed

33

1613

Average Number of Positions, Applications Received, InterviewInvitations Sent, and Applicants Interviewed and Ranked

N=38N=37N=39N=39

N=38

11% of Hospice and Palliative Medicine programs consider all applicant groups

N=39

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-USIMG

3%

79%

44%

16%35%

16%

15%

31%

51%

46%100%

82%

6%25% 32%

19%

Often Seldom Never

Interview

0%10%

20%

30%40%

50%60%

70%80%

90%100%

Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-USIMG

3% 3%

82%

49%

17%

50%

16%

12%

29%

53%

39%

97%81%

6%23% 31%

11%

Often Seldom Never

Ranking

n=37

Frequency of Programs Interviewing and Ranking Candidates

n=37

N=38

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

1% 1% 0% 0% 1% 3%

16%

35%24%

8% 6% 3%

Interview invitations

Interview Invitations Sent and Interviews Conducted

0% 0% 3% 0% 0% 0% 1%

17%

33% 31%

7% 6%

Interviews conducted

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 145

Figure-9Hospice and Palliative MedicinePotential Challenges in Recruiting Applicants to Your Specialty

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

91%

27%

0%

0%

0%

We consider those applicants on an individual basis

We give those applicants serious consideration if they haveshown improvement

We do not usually consider those applicants

We favor those applicants

Other

0 1 2 3 4 5

Not enough applicants in the specialty

Undesirable income potential as a practicing physician

Undesirable work/life balance as a practicing physician

Long or irregular work hours required by specialty

Fellowship Match scheduled at inconvenient time of year

3.8

2.6

2.3

1.7

2.5

Average rating on a scale of 5 (1=least challenging; 5=most challenging)

n=34

27.5%Less than 3

32.5%3 to 5

30.0%6 to 10

7.5%11 to

15 2.5%More than 15

At Any Fellowship Program

33.3%Less than

3

35.9%3 to 5

25.6%6 to 10

5.1%11 to 15

At Current Fellowship Program

n=33

n=40 n=39

Hospice and Palliative MedicineApplicants Who Applied in the Specialty in the Past But Did Not Match Figure-10

Hospice and Palliative MedicineYears as Program Director Figure-11

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 146

Infectious Disease

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 147

Infectious DiseaseGeneral Information

Table 1

142

335

229

Number of programs in the Match

Number of positions in the Match

Number of applicants ranking specialty

44.4%Response rate

Appointment Years

Number of responses 59

Match Information*

* Source: NRMP Data Warehouse

2016 Survey

2016 2015 2014

138

327

254

134

328

276

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 148

Figure-1Infectious DiseasePercentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Selecting Applicants to Interview(N=50)

Average RatingPercent Citing Factor

¹ Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).* International Medical Graduates only

1 2 3 4 5

4.34.43.94.04.33.94.44.63.53.83.64.14.33.84.33.64.13.54.24.14.03.53.83.93.54.04.03.53.43.43.73.54.73.53.84.13.64.43.73.0

100% 50% 0%

84%90%82%62%82%78%66%68%74%58%74%48%56%52%66%72%72%70%40%68%52%48%50%44%60%46%42%42%36%36%34%44%36%24%26%30%22%10%24%

6%

Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialty

Residency performance evaluation (Program Director letter)

Reputation of residency program

Demonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research

Perceived commitment to specialty

Personal statement

Perceived interest in program

Evidence of professionalism and ethics

USMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score

Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chapters

USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE score

Leadership qualities

Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicant

Oral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements

Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institution

Pass USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PE

Any failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX

USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 score

Interest in academic career

Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based)

Clinical/laboratory research experience

Awards or special honors in medical school

Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership

Other life experience

Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter)

Graduate of highly‐regarded medical school

Visa status*

Volunteer/extracurricular experiences

Awarded grant money for research

Grades in medical school

Lack of gaps in medical education

Medical school class ranking/quartile

Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP

Electives at your fellowship site

Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membership

Residency class ranking/quartile

Fluency in language spoken by your patient population

In‐Training Examination (ITE)

Residency program size

Having finished another fellowship

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 149

Infectious DiseasePercentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Ranking Applicants(N=50)

Figure-2

Average RatingPercent Citing Factor

¹ Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).* International Medical Graduates only

1 2 3 4 5

4.84.84.44.64.64.54.34.04.14.34.73.94.44.44.14.24.33.83.94.23.84.13.84.14.03.93.83.54.23.54.14.83.93.33.73.83.63.93.53.84.13.94.04.74.73.5

100% 50% 0%

90%83%79%63%79%65%67%69%77%69%56%48%52%35%40%44%56%60%58%42%46%46%58%40%58%35%27%35%27%31%29%29%31%17%23%29%31%17%27%25%15%21%17%6%6%4%

Interactions with faculty during interview and visitInterpersonal skills

Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialtyInteractions with house staff during interview and visit

Perceived commitment to specialtyFeedback from current residents and fellows

Perceived interest in programDemonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research

Reputation of residency programResidency performance evaluation (Program Director letter)

Evidence of professionalism and ethicsPersonal statement

Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicantLeadership qualities

Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chaptersInterest in academic career

Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institutionUSMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score

USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE scoreAny failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX

Passing USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PEClinical/laboratory research experience

USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 scoreOral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements

Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based)Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership

Other life experienceMedical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter)

Second interview/visitAwards or special honors in medical school

Visa status*Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP

Graduate of highly‐regarded medical schoolElectives at your fellowship site

Awarded grant money for researchVolunteer/extracurricular experiencesMedical school class ranking/quartile

Lack of gaps in medical educationGrades in medical school

Residency class ranking/quartileFluency in language spoken by your patient population

Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membershipResidency program size

In‐Training Examination (ITE)Second interview/visit

Having finished another fellowship

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 150

170

180

190

200

210

220

230

240

250

260

Infectious DiseasePrograms That Use USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) Scores When Considering Which Applicants to Interview

Figure-3

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 (CK) Score

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Never Seldom Often

10%

60%

30%

Would your program consider applicants who fail theexam on the first attempt?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Never Seldom often

12%

58%

30%

Would your program consider applicants who failthe exam on the first attempt?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

80%

16%

4%

Scores required?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

80%

16%

4%

Scores required?

N=50

N=50

N=50N=50

N=6N=6 N=6 N=6

IQR* of Average USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 CK Scores Programs Consider When Granting Interviews

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 1 Score

170

180

190

200

210

220

230

240

250

260

USMLE Step 2 CKUSMLE Step 1 USMLE Step 1 USMLE Step 2 CK

*The boxes in the boxplots 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 x-shaped symbol is the mean.

Scores Above Which Programs Almost Always Grant Interviews

Scores Below Which Programs Generally Do Not Grant Interviews

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 151

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes No

96%

4%

USMLE Step 2 CS

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

75%

13% 13%

USMLE Step 3

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

74%

5%

21%

COMLEX-USA Level 1*

Infectious DiseasePercentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 Clinical Skill (CS), Step 3, and COMLEX-USA Scores* When Considering Which Applicants to Interview

Figure-4

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

74%

5%

21%

COMLEX-USA Level 2-CE*

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

69%

6%

25%

COMLEX-USA Level 3*

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

74%

5%

21%

COMLEX-USA Level 2-PE*

N=49 N=48

N=39 N=38

N=39 N=36

* Osteopathic applicants only

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 CS and Step 3 Scores

Percentage of Programs That Use COMLEX-USA Level 1 and Level 2-CE Scores

Percentage of Programs That Use COMLEX-USA Level 2-PE and Level 3 Scores

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 152

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Never Seldom Often

7%

67%

27%

Would your program consider applicants who fail theexam on the first attempt?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No, not required

23%

0%

77%

Scores required?

N=15

N=22

17.2%Optional

82.8%Required

Program Requirement on Dedicated Time forResearch

N=58

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Accredited Locally Funded Integrated Other

9

8

7

11

Average Number of Months if Research Time isRequired

N=28 N=11 N=4 N=7

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

Accredited Positions Funded Positions

4.24.0

Average Number of Accredited Positions and Funded Positions

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Positions Filled BeforeMatch Day

Positions Offered Outsidethe Match

Positions Filled Outsidethe Match

52%59%

46%

Average Percentage of Accredited Positions Offered Outside ofthe Match

N=58 N=55 N=20 N=20 N=18

Infectious DiseasePrograms That Use Core Specialty Certifying Examination When Considering Applicants for Interview

Figure-5

Infectious DiseasePrograms Positions Figure-6

Infectious DiseaseDedicated Time for Research Figure-7

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 153

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100% 98%90%

66%

40%

92%

80%

U.S. Graduate OsteopathicPhysician

Canadian Fifth Pathway U.S. IMG Non-U.S. IMG

Percentage of Programs that Typically Interview and Rank Each Applicant Type

Figure-8Infectious DiseaseProgram's Interview Activities

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Rejected based on astandardized screening

process

In-depth review

22%

80%

Average Percentage of Applicants Rejected and Reviewed

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Number of applicationsreceived

Number of interviewinvitations sent

Number of applicantsinterviewed

42

24

15

Average Number of Positions, Applications Received, InterviewInvitations Sent, and Applicants Interviewed and Ranked

N=54N=55N=55N=55

N=50

36% of Infectious Disease programs consider all applicant groups

N=54

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-USIMG

2% 4%

51%31%

2% 10%6%

30%

45%

46%

38% 26%

92%

66%

4%23%

60% 64%

Often Seldom Never

Interview

0%10%

20%

30%40%

50%60%

70%80%

90%100%

Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-USIMG

2% 4%

57%

32%

2%10%2%

34%

38%

38%

37%31%

96%

62%

4%

30%

61% 59%

Often Seldom Never

Ranking

n=49

Frequency of Programs Interviewing and Ranking Candidates

n=50

N=48

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

2% 0% 1% 1% 0% 0%

31%36%

19%9%

1% 0%

Interview invitations

Interview Invitations Sent and Interviews Conducted

0% 1% 2% 1% 0% 0% 1%

15%

38% 35%

4% 0%

Interviews conducted

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 154

Figure-9Infectious DiseasePotential Challenges in Recruiting Applicants to Your Specialty

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

76%

20%

24%

0%

2%

We consider those applicants on an individual basis

We give those applicants serious consideration if they haveshown improvement

We do not usually consider those applicants

We favor those applicants

Other

0 1 2 3 4 5

Not enough applicants in the specialty

Undesirable income potential as a practicing physician

Undesirable work/life balance as a practicing physician

Long or irregular work hours required by specialty

Fellowship Match scheduled at inconvenient time of year

4.9

4.7

3.3

3.0

1.9

Average rating on a scale of 5 (1=least challenging; 5=most challenging)

n=46

19.6%Less than 3

21.6%3 to 5

25.5%6 to 10

13.7%11 to 15

19.6%More than

15

At Any Fellowship Program

23.5%Less than 3

21.6%3 to 5

25.5%6 to 10

15.7%11 to 15

13.7%More than 15

At Current Fellowship Program

n=46

n=51 n=51

Infectious DiseaseApplicants Who Applied in the Specialty in the Past But Did Not Match Figure-10

Infectious DiseaseYears as Program Director Figure-11

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 155

Interventional Radiology

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 156

Interventional RadiologyGeneral Information

Table 1

81

238

240

Number of programs in the Match

Number of positions in the Match

Number of applicants ranking specialty

37.0%Response rate

Appointment Years

Number of responses 30

Match Information*

* Source: NRMP Data Warehouse

2016 Survey

2016 2015 2014

82

234

270

81

227

275

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 157

Figure-1Interventional RadiologyPercentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Selecting Applicants to Interview(N=24)

Average RatingPercent Citing Factor

¹ Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).* International Medical Graduates only

1 2 3 4 5

4.84.54.03.64.53.94.34.43.63.83.64.34.43.74.43.43.93.43.83.53.52.93.13.92.73.14.03.63.63.23.03.44.83.63.84.23.75.04.03.0

100% 50% 0%

92%88%92%

100%79%79%88%63%79%83%71%79%71%75%67%63%67%50%46%54%63%63%63%58%67%46%50%46%46%42%29%42%38%46%17%25%13%

4%8%

17%

Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialty

Residency performance evaluation (Program Director letter)

Reputation of residency program

Demonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research

Perceived commitment to specialty

Personal statement

Perceived interest in program

Evidence of professionalism and ethics

USMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score

Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chapters

USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE score

Leadership qualities

Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicant

Oral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements

Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institution

Pass USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PE

Any failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX

USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 score

Interest in academic career

Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based)

Clinical/laboratory research experience

Awards or special honors in medical school

Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership

Other life experience

Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter)

Graduate of highly‐regarded medical school

Visa status*

Volunteer/extracurricular experiences

Awarded grant money for research

Grades in medical school

Lack of gaps in medical education

Medical school class ranking/quartile

Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP

Electives at your fellowship site

Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membership

Residency class ranking/quartile

Fluency in language spoken by your patient population

In‐Training Examination (ITE)

Residency program size

Having finished another fellowship

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 158

Interventional RadiologyPercentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Ranking Applicants(N=24)

Figure-2

Average RatingPercent Citing Factor

¹ Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).* International Medical Graduates only

1 2 3 4 5

4.94.84.74.64.84.64.83.94.24.34.74.24.64.54.23.94.23.73.64.33.83.83.94.23.73.74.13.03.93.64.04.43.84.14.34.03.93.53.04.13.63.03.53.04.02.7

100% 50% 0%

96%96%92%92%75%88%71%54%71%58%67%50%67%79%54%46%50%46%42%29%42%25%42%50%25%29%42%13%33%25%13%21%17%42%25%29%33%8%8%

33%21%4%

17%4%8%

13%

Interactions with faculty during interview and visitInterpersonal skills

Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialtyInteractions with house staff during interview and visit

Perceived commitment to specialtyFeedback from current residents and fellows

Perceived interest in programDemonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research

Reputation of residency programResidency performance evaluation (Program Director letter)

Evidence of professionalism and ethicsPersonal statement

Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicantLeadership qualities

Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chaptersInterest in academic career

Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institutionUSMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score

USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE scoreAny failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX

Passing USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PEClinical/laboratory research experience

USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 scoreOral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements

Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based)Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership

Other life experienceMedical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter)

Second interview/visitAwards or special honors in medical school

Visa status*Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP

Graduate of highly‐regarded medical schoolElectives at your fellowship site

Awarded grant money for researchVolunteer/extracurricular experiencesMedical school class ranking/quartile

Lack of gaps in medical educationGrades in medical school

Residency class ranking/quartileFluency in language spoken by your patient population

Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membershipResidency program size

In‐Training Examination (ITE)Second interview/visit

Having finished another fellowship

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 159

170

180

190

200

210

220

230

240

250

260

Interventional RadiologyPrograms That Use USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) Scores When Considering Which Applicants to Interview

Figure-3

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 (CK) Score

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Never Seldom Often

25%

71%

4%

Would your program consider applicants who fail theexam on the first attempt?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Never Seldom often

25%

71%

4%

Would your program consider applicants who failthe exam on the first attempt?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

44%

56%

0%

Scores required?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

60%

40%

0%

Scores required?

N=25

N=24

N=25N=24

N=8 N=7

IQR* of Average USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 CK Scores Programs Consider When Granting Interviews

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 1 Score

170

180

190

200

210

220

230

240

250

260

USMLE Step 1 USMLE Step 1

*The boxes in the boxplots 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 x-shaped symbol is the mean.

Scores Above Which Programs Almost Always Grant Interviews

Scores Below Which Programs Generally Do Not Grant Interviews

USMLE Step 2 CK not reported

because of low response rate

USMLE Step 2 CK not reported

because of low response rate

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 160

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes No

100%

0%

USMLE Step 2 CS

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

64%

24%

12%

USMLE Step 3

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

50%

14%

36%

COMLEX-USA Level 1*

Interventional RadiologyPercentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 Clinical Skill (CS), Step 3, and COMLEX-USA Scores* When Considering Which Applicants to Interview

Figure-4

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

50%

14%

36%

COMLEX-USA Level 2-CE*

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

48%

10%

43%

COMLEX-USA Level 3*

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

50%

14%

36%

COMLEX-USA Level 2-PE*

N=25 N=25

N=22 N=22

N=22 N=21

* Osteopathic applicants only

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 CS and Step 3 Scores

Percentage of Programs That Use COMLEX-USA Level 1 and Level 2-CE Scores

Percentage of Programs That Use COMLEX-USA Level 2-PE and Level 3 Scores

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 161

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Never Seldom Often

36%

64%

0%

Would your program consider applicants who fail theexam on the first attempt?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No, not required

29%

6%

65%

Scores required?

N=11

N=17

90.0%Optional

10.0%Required

Program Requirement on Dedicated Time forResearch

N=30

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Accredited Locally Funded Integrated Other

1

0

Average Number of Months if Research Time isRequired

N=3 N=0 N=1 N=0

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

Accredited Positions Funded Positions

3.83.6

Average Number of Accredited Positions and Funded Positions

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Positions Filled BeforeMatch Day

Positions Offered Outsidethe Match

Positions Filled Outsidethe Match

77%

40%44%

Average Percentage of Accredited Positions Offered Outside ofthe Match

N=29 N=27 N=5 N=4 N=3

Interventional RadiologyPrograms That Use Core Specialty Certifying Examination When Considering Applicants for Interview

Figure-5

Interventional RadiologyPrograms Positions Figure-6

Interventional RadiologyDedicated Time for Research Figure-7

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 162

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%89%

96%89%

41%

78%

41%

U.S. Graduate OsteopathicPhysician

Canadian Fifth Pathway U.S. IMG Non-U.S. IMG

Percentage of Programs that Typically Interview and Rank Each Applicant Type

Figure-8Interventional RadiologyProgram's Interview Activities

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Rejected based on astandardized screening

process

In-depth review

21%

73%

Average Percentage of Applicants Rejected and Reviewed

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Number of applicationsreceived

Number of interviewinvitations sent

Number of applicantsinterviewed

105

36 32

Average Number of Positions, Applications Received, InterviewInvitations Sent, and Applicants Interviewed and Ranked

N=27N=27N=28N=28

N=27

37% of Interventional Radiology programs consider all applicant groups

N=28

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-USIMG

4%

31%

4% 7%

37%

7%

41%

69%

81% 70%

52%89%

59%

15% 22%11%

Often Seldom Never

Interview

0%10%

20%

30%40%

50%60%

70%80%

90%100%

Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-USIMG

40%

8% 12%

36%

8%

42%

52%

69% 62%

48%92%

58%

8%23% 27%

16%

Often Seldom Never

Ranking

n=26

Frequency of Programs Interviewing and Ranking Candidates

n=27

N=25

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

49%

30%

5%0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3%

13%

Interview invitations

Interview Invitations Sent and Interviews Conducted

8%

30%38%

17%

3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Interviews conducted

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 163

Figure-9Interventional RadiologyPotential Challenges in Recruiting Applicants to Your Specialty

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

88%

13%

21%

0%

0%

We consider those applicants on an individual basis

We give those applicants serious consideration if they haveshown improvement

We do not usually consider those applicants

We favor those applicants

Other

0 1 2 3 4 5

Not enough applicants in the specialty

Undesirable income potential as a practicing physician

Undesirable work/life balance as a practicing physician

Long or irregular work hours required by specialty

Fellowship Match scheduled at inconvenient time of year

1.8

1.5

3.1

3.2

2.5

Average rating on a scale of 5 (1=least challenging; 5=most challenging)

n=23

20.0%Less than 3

28.0%3 to 5

24.0%6 to 10

12.0%11 to 15

16.0%More than 15

At Any Fellowship Program

27.3%Less than 3

36.4%3 to 5

18.2%6 to 10

4.5%11 to 15

13.6%More than

15

At Current Fellowship Program

n=24

n=25 n=22

Interventional RadiologyApplicants Who Applied in the Specialty in the Past But Did Not Match Figure-10

Interventional RadiologyYears as Program Director Figure-11

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 164

Maternal-Fetal Medicine

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 165

Maternal-Fetal MedicineGeneral Information

Table 1

75

104

140

Number of programs in the Match

Number of positions in the Match

Number of applicants ranking specialty

35.6%Response rate

Appointment Years

Number of responses 26

Match Information*

* Source: NRMP Data Warehouse

2016 Survey

2016 2015 2014

70

97

144

73

101

142

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 166

Figure-1Maternal-Fetal MedicinePercentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Selecting Applicants to Interview(N=15)

Average RatingPercent Citing Factor

¹ Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).* International Medical Graduates only

1 2 3 4 5

4.04.23.84.34.13.43.94.23.64.13.73.93.64.13.63.64.43.74.03.63.93.43.43.33.03.14.32.83.53.43.83.05.04.04.04.04.34.32.02.0

100% 50% 0%

93%87%80%

100%73%87%60%87%80%93%80%53%67%73%53%80%87%73%87%87%73%53%53%53%47%60%67%27%27%53%40%40%20%

7%33%

7%20%20%

7%7%

Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialty

Residency performance evaluation (Program Director letter)

Reputation of residency program

Demonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research

Perceived commitment to specialty

Personal statement

Perceived interest in program

Evidence of professionalism and ethics

USMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score

Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chapters

USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE score

Leadership qualities

Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicant

Oral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements

Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institution

Pass USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PE

Any failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX

USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 score

Interest in academic career

Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based)

Clinical/laboratory research experience

Awards or special honors in medical school

Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership

Other life experience

Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter)

Graduate of highly‐regarded medical school

Visa status*

Volunteer/extracurricular experiences

Awarded grant money for research

Grades in medical school

Lack of gaps in medical education

Medical school class ranking/quartile

Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP

Electives at your fellowship site

Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membership

Residency class ranking/quartile

Fluency in language spoken by your patient population

In‐Training Examination (ITE)

Residency program size

Having finished another fellowship

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 167

Maternal-Fetal MedicinePercentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Ranking Applicants(N=15)

Figure-2

Average RatingPercent Citing Factor

¹ Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).* International Medical Graduates only

1 2 3 4 5

5.04.93.84.54.34.54.44.23.54.14.33.33.63.54.04.13.03.53.74.23.73.53.44.03.22.83.24.04.23.05.05.02.05.02.52.05.05.03.33.54.03.3

5.04.02.0

100% 50% 0%

100%100%85%85%77%85%54%92%62%54%69%46%54%62%62%77%15%46%46%46%46%46%38%54%38%38%38%8%

38%8%

31%23%8%8%

23%8%8%

23%31%15%15%23%0%8%8%8%

Interactions with faculty during interview and visitInterpersonal skills

Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialtyInteractions with house staff during interview and visit

Perceived commitment to specialtyFeedback from current residents and fellows

Perceived interest in programDemonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research

Reputation of residency programResidency performance evaluation (Program Director letter)

Evidence of professionalism and ethicsPersonal statement

Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicantLeadership qualities

Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chaptersInterest in academic career

Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institutionUSMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score

USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE scoreAny failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX

Passing USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PEClinical/laboratory research experience

USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 scoreOral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements

Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based)Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership

Other life experienceMedical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter)

Second interview/visitAwards or special honors in medical school

Visa status*Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP

Graduate of highly‐regarded medical schoolElectives at your fellowship site

Awarded grant money for researchVolunteer/extracurricular experiencesMedical school class ranking/quartile

Lack of gaps in medical educationGrades in medical school

Residency class ranking/quartileFluency in language spoken by your patient population

Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membershipResidency program size

In‐Training Examination (ITE)Second interview/visit

Having finished another fellowship

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 168

Maternal-Fetal MedicinePrograms That Use USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) Scores When Considering Which Applicants to Interview

Figure-3

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 (CK) Score

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Never Seldom Often

13%

73%

13%

Would your program consider applicants who fail theexam on the first attempt?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Never Seldom often

20%

67%

13%

Would your program consider applicants who failthe exam on the first attempt?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

73%

20%

7%

Scores required?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

67%

27%

7%

Scores required?

N=15

N=15

N=15N=15

IQR* of Average USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 CK Scores Programs Consider When Granting Interviews

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 1 Score

*The boxes in the boxplots 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 x-shaped symbol is the mean.

Scores Above Which Programs Almost Always Grant Interviews

Scores Below Which Programs Generally Do Not Grant Interviews

USMLE Step 2 CK not reported

because of low response rate

USMLE Step 1 not reported because of low response

rate

USMLE Step 2 CK not reported

because of low response rate

USMLE Step 1 not reported because of low response

rate

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 169

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes No

93%

7%

USMLE Step 2 CS

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

67%

20%13%

USMLE Step 3

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

56%

22% 22%

COMLEX-USA Level 1*

Maternal-Fetal MedicinePercentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 Clinical Skill (CS), Step 3, and COMLEX-USA Scores* When Considering Which Applicants to Interview

Figure-4

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

56%

22% 22%

COMLEX-USA Level 2-CE*

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

56%

11%

33%

COMLEX-USA Level 3*

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

56%

22% 22%

COMLEX-USA Level 2-PE*

N=15 N=15

N=9 N=9

N=9 N=9

* Osteopathic applicants only

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 CS and Step 3 Scores

Percentage of Programs That Use COMLEX-USA Level 1 and Level 2-CE Scores

Percentage of Programs That Use COMLEX-USA Level 2-PE and Level 3 Scores

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 170

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Never Seldom Often

50% 50%

0%

Would your program consider applicants who fail theexam on the first attempt?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No, not required

20%

0%

80%

Scores required?

N=2

N=5

3.8%Optional

96.2%Required

Program Requirement on Dedicated Time forResearch

N=26

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Accredited Locally Funded Integrated Other

13

10

12 12

Average Number of Months if Research Time isRequired

N=18 N=6 N=1 N=2

0.0

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.6

2.0

2.4

2.8

Accredited Positions Funded Positions

2.5

2.1

Average Number of Accredited Positions and Funded Positions

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Positions Filled BeforeMatch Day

Positions Offered Outsidethe Match

Positions Filled Outsidethe Match

100%

Average Percentage of Accredited Positions Offered Outside ofthe Match

N=26 N=20 N=2 N=0 N=0

Maternal-Fetal MedicinePrograms That Use Core Specialty Certifying Examination When Considering Applicants for Interview

Figure-5

Maternal-Fetal MedicinePrograms Positions Figure-6

Maternal-Fetal MedicineDedicated Time for Research Figure-7

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 171

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

84%

100%

74%

32%

79%

63%

U.S. Graduate OsteopathicPhysician

Canadian Fifth Pathway U.S. IMG Non-U.S. IMG

Percentage of Programs that Typically Interview and Rank Each Applicant Type

Figure-8Maternal-Fetal MedicineProgram's Interview Activities

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Rejected based on astandardized screening

process

In-depth review

42%

72%

Average Percentage of Applicants Rejected and Reviewed

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Number of applicationsreceived

Number of interviewinvitations sent

Number of applicantsinterviewed

55

2017

Average Number of Positions, Applications Received, InterviewInvitations Sent, and Applicants Interviewed and Ranked

N=19N=20N=19N=21

N=19

26% of Maternal-Fetal Medicine programs consider all applicant groups

N=20

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-USIMG

11%

50%

22%6%

28%22%

39%

56%

56%

39%89%

78%

11%22%

39% 33%

Often Seldom Never

Interview

0%10%

20%

30%40%

50%60%

70%80%

90%100%

Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-USIMG

11%

56%

33%

6%

28%39%

33%

56%

67%

67%89%

61%

11% 11%28%

6%

Often Seldom Never

Ranking

n=18

Frequency of Programs Interviewing and Ranking Candidates

n=18

N=19

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

0% 0% 0% 2%

22%

56%

12% 8%2% 0% 0% 0%

Interview invitations

Interview Invitations Sent and Interviews Conducted

0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 5%

34%41%

8%0% 0% 0%

Interviews conducted

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 172

Figure-9Maternal-Fetal MedicinePotential Challenges in Recruiting Applicants to Your Specialty

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

92%

15%

0%

0%

0%

We consider those applicants on an individual basis

We give those applicants serious consideration if they haveshown improvement

We do not usually consider those applicants

We favor those applicants

Other

0 1 2 3 4 5

Not enough applicants in the specialty

Undesirable income potential as a practicing physician

Undesirable work/life balance as a practicing physician

Long or irregular work hours required by specialty

Fellowship Match scheduled at inconvenient time of year

1.7

1.8

3.1

3.2

2.3

Average rating on a scale of 5 (1=least challenging; 5=most challenging)

n=13

30.4%Less than 3

17.4%3 to 5

21.7%6 to 10

17.4%11 to 15

13.0%More than 15

At Any Fellowship Program

27.3%Less than 3

27.3%3 to 5

27.3%6 to 10

4.5%11 to 15

13.6%More than

15

At Current Fellowship Program

n=13

n=23 n=22

Maternal-Fetal MedicineApplicants Who Applied in the Specialty in the Past But Did Not Match Figure-10

Maternal-Fetal MedicineYears as Program Director Figure-11

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 173

Neonatal-Perinatal Medicine

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 174

Neonatal-Perinatal MedicineGeneral Information

Table 1

91

252

249

Number of programs in the Match

Number of positions in the Match

Number of applicants ranking specialty

52.7%Response rate

Appointment Years

Number of responses 48

Match Information*

* Source: NRMP Data Warehouse

2016 Survey

2016 2015 2014

92

242

295

90

241

248

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 175

Figure-1Neonatal-Perinatal MedicinePercentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Selecting Applicants to Interview(N=38)

Average RatingPercent Citing Factor

¹ Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).* International Medical Graduates only

1 2 3 4 5

4.54.74.24.34.44.04.34.74.03.94.14.34.43.94.04.14.44.14.63.94.03.63.83.53.73.53.73.24.03.53.53.54.83.63.54.43.24.03.53.5

100% 50% 0%

95%86%89%95%82%84%82%74%79%82%82%84%76%68%84%71%95%71%79%79%79%59%65%47%53%61%57%41%61%54%51%32%47%32%46%27%14%19%29%11%

Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialty

Residency performance evaluation (Program Director letter)

Reputation of residency program

Demonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research

Perceived commitment to specialty

Personal statement

Perceived interest in program

Evidence of professionalism and ethics

USMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score

Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chapters

USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE score

Leadership qualities

Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicant

Oral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements

Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institution

Pass USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PE

Any failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX

USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 score

Interest in academic career

Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based)

Clinical/laboratory research experience

Awards or special honors in medical school

Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership

Other life experience

Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter)

Graduate of highly‐regarded medical school

Visa status*

Volunteer/extracurricular experiences

Awarded grant money for research

Grades in medical school

Lack of gaps in medical education

Medical school class ranking/quartile

Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP

Electives at your fellowship site

Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membership

Residency class ranking/quartile

Fluency in language spoken by your patient population

In‐Training Examination (ITE)

Residency program size

Having finished another fellowship

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 176

Neonatal-Perinatal MedicinePercentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Ranking Applicants(N=38)

Figure-2

Average RatingPercent Citing Factor

¹ Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).* International Medical Graduates only

1 2 3 4 5

4.94.94.44.94.54.84.54.44.14.44.94.14.24.74.44.44.04.54.54.64.54.54.54.24.24.04.13.74.33.63.85.04.24.04.44.13.64.34.14.23.34.03.54.64.34.0

100% 50% 0%

94%94%81%78%78%83%69%86%72%69%61%58%64%67%58%69%61%67%67%75%61%61%58%50%47%43%23%39%31%37%43%31%36%31%39%20%22%23%23%17%11%23%22%14%17%9%

Interactions with faculty during interview and visitInterpersonal skills

Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialtyInteractions with house staff during interview and visit

Perceived commitment to specialtyFeedback from current residents and fellows

Perceived interest in programDemonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research

Reputation of residency programResidency performance evaluation (Program Director letter)

Evidence of professionalism and ethicsPersonal statement

Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicantLeadership qualities

Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chaptersInterest in academic career

Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institutionUSMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score

USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE scoreAny failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX

Passing USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PEClinical/laboratory research experience

USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 scoreOral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements

Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based)Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership

Other life experienceMedical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter)

Second interview/visitAwards or special honors in medical school

Visa status*Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP

Graduate of highly‐regarded medical schoolElectives at your fellowship site

Awarded grant money for researchVolunteer/extracurricular experiencesMedical school class ranking/quartile

Lack of gaps in medical educationGrades in medical school

Residency class ranking/quartileFluency in language spoken by your patient population

Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membershipResidency program size

In‐Training Examination (ITE)Second interview/visit

Having finished another fellowship

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 177

170

180

190

200

210

220

230

240

250

260

Neonatal-Perinatal MedicinePrograms That Use USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) Scores When Considering Which Applicants to Interview

Figure-3

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 (CK) Score

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Never Seldom Often

16%

82%

3%

Would your program consider applicants who fail theexam on the first attempt?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Never Seldom often

18%

82%

0%

Would your program consider applicants who failthe exam on the first attempt?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

54%

43%

3%

Scores required?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

54%

43%

3%

Scores required?

N=37

N=38

N=37N=38

N=9N=9 N=11 N=10

IQR* of Average USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 CK Scores Programs Consider When Granting Interviews

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 1 Score

170

180

190

200

210

220

230

240

250

260

USMLE Step 2 CKUSMLE Step 1 USMLE Step 1 USMLE Step 2 CK

*The boxes in the boxplots 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 x-shaped symbol is the mean.

Scores Above Which Programs Almost Always Grant Interviews

Scores Below Which Programs Generally Do Not Grant Interviews

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 178

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes No

97%

3%

USMLE Step 2 CS

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

50%

36%

14%

USMLE Step 3

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

61%

27%

12%

COMLEX-USA Level 1*

Neonatal-Perinatal MedicinePercentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 Clinical Skill (CS), Step 3, and COMLEX-USA Scores* When Considering Which Applicants to Interview

Figure-4

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

59%

29%

12%

COMLEX-USA Level 2-CE*

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

55%

27%

18%

COMLEX-USA Level 3*

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

65%

24%

12%

COMLEX-USA Level 2-PE*

N=37 N=36

N=33 N=34

N=34 N=33

* Osteopathic applicants only

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 CS and Step 3 Scores

Percentage of Programs That Use COMLEX-USA Level 1 and Level 2-CE Scores

Percentage of Programs That Use COMLEX-USA Level 2-PE and Level 3 Scores

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 179

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Never Seldom Often

40%

60%

0%

Would your program consider applicants who fail theexam on the first attempt?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No, not required

21%16%

63%

Scores required?

N=15

N=19

8.3%Optional

91.7%Required

Program Requirement on Dedicated Time forResearch

N=48

0

4

8

12

16

20

Accredited Locally Funded Integrated Other

2018 18 18

Average Number of Months if Research Time isRequired

N=29 N=12 N=4 N=4

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Accredited Positions Funded Positions

6.8 6.8

Average Number of Accredited Positions and Funded Positions

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Positions Filled BeforeMatch Day

Positions Offered Outsidethe Match

Positions Filled Outsidethe Match

76%

39% 39%

Average Percentage of Accredited Positions Offered Outside ofthe Match

N=48 N=43 N=11 N=2 N=2

Neonatal-Perinatal MedicinePrograms That Use Core Specialty Certifying Examination When Considering Applicants for Interview

Figure-5

Neonatal-Perinatal MedicinePrograms Positions Figure-6

Neonatal-Perinatal MedicineDedicated Time for Research Figure-7

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 180

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100% 95% 95%

68%

24%

87%79%

U.S. Graduate OsteopathicPhysician

Canadian Fifth Pathway U.S. IMG Non-U.S. IMG

Percentage of Programs that Typically Interview and Rank Each Applicant Type

Figure-8Neonatal-Perinatal MedicineProgram's Interview Activities

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Rejected based on astandardized screening

process

In-depth review

34%

69%

Average Percentage of Applicants Rejected and Reviewed

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Number of applicationsreceived

Number of interviewinvitations sent

Number of applicantsinterviewed

73

2621

Average Number of Positions, Applications Received, InterviewInvitations Sent, and Applicants Interviewed and Ranked

N=44N=44N=44N=44

N=38

21% of Neonatal-Perinatal Medicine programs consider all applicant groups

N=44

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-USIMG

5%

64%

22%3%

14%8%32%

33%

61%

57%53%

86%68%

3%17%

41% 33%

Often Seldom Never

Interview

0%10%

20%

30%40%

50%60%

70%80%

90%100%

Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-USIMG

5% 3%

63%

22%3%

14%8%

37%

37%

59%

58%

57%

86%

61%

19%

39%30%

Often Seldom Never

Ranking

n=37

Frequency of Programs Interviewing and Ranking Candidates

n=37

N=37

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

2% 2% 1% 1% 0% 2%

22%

40%

23%

6%1% 0%

Interview invitations

Interview Invitations Sent and Interviews Conducted

0% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 1%11%

40%34%

11%0%

Interviews conducted

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 181

Figure-9Neonatal-Perinatal MedicinePotential Challenges in Recruiting Applicants to Your Specialty

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

72%

8%

25%

0%

0%

We consider those applicants on an individual basis

We give those applicants serious consideration if they haveshown improvement

We do not usually consider those applicants

We favor those applicants

Other

0 1 2 3 4 5

Not enough applicants in the specialty

Undesirable income potential as a practicing physician

Undesirable work/life balance as a practicing physician

Long or irregular work hours required by specialty

Fellowship Match scheduled at inconvenient time of year

2.2

2.0

3.7

3.7

1.8

Average rating on a scale of 5 (1=least challenging; 5=most challenging)

n=35

22.0%Less than 3

12.2%3 to 5

22.0%6 to 104.9%

11 to 15

39.0%More than 15

At Any Fellowship Program

26.8%Less than 3

12.2%3 to 5

22.0%6 to 10

12.2%11 to 15

26.8%More than 15

At Current Fellowship Program

n=36

n=41 n=41

Neonatal-Perinatal MedicineApplicants Who Applied in the Specialty in the Past But Did Not Match Figure-10

Neonatal-Perinatal MedicineYears as Program Director Figure-11

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 182

Nephrology

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 183

NephrologyGeneral Information

Table 1

158

466

298

Number of programs in the Match

Number of positions in the Match

Number of applicants ranking specialty

33.3%Response rate

Appointment Years

Number of responses 45

Match Information*

* Source: NRMP Data Warehouse

2016 Survey

2016 2015 2014

134

374

276

145

403

323

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 184

Figure-1NephrologyPercentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Selecting Applicants to Interview(N=39)

Average RatingPercent Citing Factor

¹ Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).* International Medical Graduates only

1 2 3 4 5

4.34.44.13.94.23.54.24.63.83.73.84.04.63.54.74.04.33.83.93.84.03.44.03.63.23.83.93.33.63.23.53.34.83.73.73.43.7

3.82.6

100% 50% 0%

90%95%85%72%82%74%72%72%79%74%74%67%67%67%79%82%79%67%46%67%54%51%56%41%64%62%54%38%44%54%44%41%67%49%38%36%33%

0%33%13%

Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialty

Residency performance evaluation (Program Director letter)

Reputation of residency program

Demonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research

Perceived commitment to specialty

Personal statement

Perceived interest in program

Evidence of professionalism and ethics

USMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score

Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chapters

USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE score

Leadership qualities

Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicant

Oral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements

Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institution

Pass USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PE

Any failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX

USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 score

Interest in academic career

Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based)

Clinical/laboratory research experience

Awards or special honors in medical school

Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership

Other life experience

Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter)

Graduate of highly‐regarded medical school

Visa status*

Volunteer/extracurricular experiences

Awarded grant money for research

Grades in medical school

Lack of gaps in medical education

Medical school class ranking/quartile

Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP

Electives at your fellowship site

Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membership

Residency class ranking/quartile

Fluency in language spoken by your patient population

In‐Training Examination (ITE)

Residency program size

Having finished another fellowship

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 185

NephrologyPercentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Ranking Applicants(N=39)

Figure-2

Average RatingPercent Citing Factor

¹ Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).* International Medical Graduates only

1 2 3 4 5

4.74.74.24.74.34.74.33.84.04.34.53.84.54.04.14.04.83.83.74.43.94.13.83.43.93.73.63.34.23.34.04.63.74.33.53.23.03.43.34.03.54.03.9

3.04.0

100% 50% 0%

95%92%68%76%68%74%61%58%74%61%55%45%58%50%47%42%61%45%45%45%45%37%45%32%58%42%21%26%34%21%29%24%32%34%29%16%21%13%24%26%21%8%

34%3%5%3%

Interactions with faculty during interview and visitInterpersonal skills

Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialtyInteractions with house staff during interview and visit

Perceived commitment to specialtyFeedback from current residents and fellows

Perceived interest in programDemonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research

Reputation of residency programResidency performance evaluation (Program Director letter)

Evidence of professionalism and ethicsPersonal statement

Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicantLeadership qualities

Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chaptersInterest in academic career

Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institutionUSMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score

USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE scoreAny failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX

Passing USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PEClinical/laboratory research experience

USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 scoreOral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements

Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based)Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership

Other life experienceMedical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter)

Second interview/visitAwards or special honors in medical school

Visa status*Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP

Graduate of highly‐regarded medical schoolElectives at your fellowship site

Awarded grant money for researchVolunteer/extracurricular experiencesMedical school class ranking/quartile

Lack of gaps in medical educationGrades in medical school

Residency class ranking/quartileFluency in language spoken by your patient population

Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membershipResidency program size

In‐Training Examination (ITE)Second interview/visit

Having finished another fellowship

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 186

170

180

190

200

210

220

230

240

250

260

NephrologyPrograms That Use USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) Scores When Considering Which Applicants to Interview

Figure-3

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 (CK) Score

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Never Seldom Often

13%

63%

24%

Would your program consider applicants who fail theexam on the first attempt?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Never Seldom often

16%

61%

24%

Would your program consider applicants who failthe exam on the first attempt?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

76%

24%

0%

Scores required?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

76%

24%

0%

Scores required?

N=38

N=38

N=38N=38

N=8N=8 N=7 N=7

IQR* of Average USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 CK Scores Programs Consider When Granting Interviews

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 1 Score

170

180

190

200

210

220

230

240

250

260

USMLE Step 2 CKUSMLE Step 1 USMLE Step 1 USMLE Step 2 CK

*The boxes in the boxplots 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 x-shaped symbol is the mean.

Scores Above Which Programs Almost Always Grant Interviews

Scores Below Which Programs Generally Do Not Grant Interviews

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 187

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes No

100%

0%

USMLE Step 2 CS

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

76%

16%8%

USMLE Step 3

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

72%

3%

24%

COMLEX-USA Level 1*

NephrologyPercentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 Clinical Skill (CS), Step 3, and COMLEX-USA Scores* When Considering Which Applicants to Interview

Figure-4

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

72%

3%

24%

COMLEX-USA Level 2-CE*

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

72%

0%

28%

COMLEX-USA Level 3*

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

76%

0%

24%

COMLEX-USA Level 2-PE*

N=38 N=37

N=29 N=29

N=29 N=29

* Osteopathic applicants only

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 CS and Step 3 Scores

Percentage of Programs That Use COMLEX-USA Level 1 and Level 2-CE Scores

Percentage of Programs That Use COMLEX-USA Level 2-PE and Level 3 Scores

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 188

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Never Seldom Often

25%

50%

25%

Would your program consider applicants who fail theexam on the first attempt?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No, not required

13%

0%

87%

Scores required?

N=8

N=15

33.3%Optional

66.7%Required

Program Requirement on Dedicated Time forResearch

N=45

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Accredited Locally Funded Integrated Other

7

66

7

Average Number of Months if Research Time isRequired

N=16 N=9 N=3 N=6

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Accredited Positions Funded Positions

5.65.2

Average Number of Accredited Positions and Funded Positions

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Positions Filled BeforeMatch Day

Positions Offered Outsidethe Match

Positions Filled Outsidethe Match

81%

71% 71%

Average Percentage of Accredited Positions Offered Outside ofthe Match

N=44 N=43 N=8 N=2 N=2

NephrologyPrograms That Use Core Specialty Certifying Examination When Considering Applicants for Interview

Figure-5

NephrologyPrograms Positions Figure-6

NephrologyDedicated Time for Research Figure-7

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 189

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100% 95%89%

74%

50%

92% 92%

U.S. Graduate OsteopathicPhysician

Canadian Fifth Pathway U.S. IMG Non-U.S. IMG

Percentage of Programs that Typically Interview and Rank Each Applicant Type

Figure-8NephrologyProgram's Interview Activities

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Rejected based on astandardized screening

process

In-depth review

27%

76%

Average Percentage of Applicants Rejected and Reviewed

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Number of applicationsreceived

Number of interviewinvitations sent

Number of applicantsinterviewed

71

35

21

Average Number of Positions, Applications Received, InterviewInvitations Sent, and Applicants Interviewed and Ranked

N=39N=39N=40N=40

N=38

45% of Nephrology programs consider all applicant groups

N=40

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-USIMG

3%

63%

18%3%

16%

43%

31%

61%

36%19%

81%

57%

6%21%

64%78%

Often Seldom Never

Interview

0%10%

20%

30%40%

50%60%

70%80%

90%100%

Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-USIMG

3% 3%

63%

21%3% 6%6%

38%

25%

59%

34%19%

91%

59%

13% 21%

63%75%

Often Seldom Never

Ranking

n=35

Frequency of Programs Interviewing and Ranking Candidates

n=37

N=36

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

0% 3% 0% 0% 0% 2%

28%

42%

19%

4% 3% 0%

Interview invitations

Interview Invitations Sent and Interviews Conducted

0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 0% 1%

13%

50%

30%

4% 0%

Interviews conducted

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 190

Figure-9NephrologyPotential Challenges in Recruiting Applicants to Your Specialty

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

76%

11%

19%

3%

0%

We consider those applicants on an individual basis

We give those applicants serious consideration if they haveshown improvement

We do not usually consider those applicants

We favor those applicants

Other

0 1 2 3 4 5

Not enough applicants in the specialty

Undesirable income potential as a practicing physician

Undesirable work/life balance as a practicing physician

Long or irregular work hours required by specialty

Fellowship Match scheduled at inconvenient time of year

4.8

4.1

4.2

3.7

2.6

Average rating on a scale of 5 (1=least challenging; 5=most challenging)

n=38

23.7%Less than 3

15.8%3 to 5

31.6%6 to10

21.1%11 to 15

7.9%More than 15

At Any Fellowship Program

28.6%Less than 3

17.1%3 to

531.4%6 to 10

17.1%11 to 15

5.7%More than 15

At Current Fellowship Program

n=37

n=38 n=35

NephrologyApplicants Who Applied in the Specialty in the Past But Did Not Match Figure-10

NephrologyYears as Program Director Figure-11

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 191

Neuroradiology

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 192

NeuroradiologyGeneral Information

Table 1

75

226

189

Number of programs in the Match

Number of positions in the Match

Number of applicants ranking specialty

34.2%Response rate

Appointment Years

Number of responses 25

Match Information*

* Source: NRMP Data Warehouse

2016 Survey

2016 2015 2014

77

222

175

72

219

193

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 193

Figure-1NeuroradiologyPercentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Selecting Applicants to Interview(N=17)

Average RatingPercent Citing Factor

¹ Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).* International Medical Graduates only

1 2 3 4 5

4.54.13.93.53.83.54.14.63.73.53.63.74.83.44.53.44.03.53.33.82.93.33.72.73.43.34.73.13.23.63.53.34.94.02.53.53.02.72.82.0

100% 50% 0%

82%88%88%94%76%82%94%82%94%71%94%82%65%76%71%76%47%71%71%59%47%71%65%41%53%65%53%47%59%53%41%53%47%

6%12%35%18%18%35%

6%

Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialty

Residency performance evaluation (Program Director letter)

Reputation of residency program

Demonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research

Perceived commitment to specialty

Personal statement

Perceived interest in program

Evidence of professionalism and ethics

USMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score

Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chapters

USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE score

Leadership qualities

Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicant

Oral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements

Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institution

Pass USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PE

Any failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX

USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 score

Interest in academic career

Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based)

Clinical/laboratory research experience

Awards or special honors in medical school

Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership

Other life experience

Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter)

Graduate of highly‐regarded medical school

Visa status*

Volunteer/extracurricular experiences

Awarded grant money for research

Grades in medical school

Lack of gaps in medical education

Medical school class ranking/quartile

Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP

Electives at your fellowship site

Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membership

Residency class ranking/quartile

Fluency in language spoken by your patient population

In‐Training Examination (ITE)

Residency program size

Having finished another fellowship

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 194

NeuroradiologyPercentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Ranking Applicants(N=17)

Figure-2

Average RatingPercent Citing Factor

¹ Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).* International Medical Graduates only

1 2 3 4 5

5.04.84.74.94.15.04.33.64.14.24.63.74.93.83.53.54.53.73.44.33.23.03.53.83.83.13.33.03.23.24.55.03.32.53.03.73.35.03.02.73.52.52.43.01.02.0

100% 50% 0%

94%88%63%88%63%69%75%63%75%69%56%63%50%56%44%25%69%56%56%38%38%19%38%31%63%44%19%31%44%31%38%25%44%13%19%19%25%19%25%25%13%13%31%6%6%6%

Interactions with faculty during interview and visitInterpersonal skills

Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialtyInteractions with house staff during interview and visit

Perceived commitment to specialtyFeedback from current residents and fellows

Perceived interest in programDemonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research

Reputation of residency programResidency performance evaluation (Program Director letter)

Evidence of professionalism and ethicsPersonal statement

Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicantLeadership qualities

Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chaptersInterest in academic career

Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institutionUSMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score

USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE scoreAny failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX

Passing USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PEClinical/laboratory research experience

USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 scoreOral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements

Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based)Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership

Other life experienceMedical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter)

Second interview/visitAwards or special honors in medical school

Visa status*Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP

Graduate of highly‐regarded medical schoolElectives at your fellowship site

Awarded grant money for researchVolunteer/extracurricular experiencesMedical school class ranking/quartile

Lack of gaps in medical educationGrades in medical school

Residency class ranking/quartileFluency in language spoken by your patient population

Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membershipResidency program size

In‐Training Examination (ITE)Second interview/visit

Having finished another fellowship

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 195

170

180

190

200

210

220

230

240

250

260

NeuroradiologyPrograms That Use USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) Scores When Considering Which Applicants to Interview

Figure-3

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 (CK) Score

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Never Seldom Often

31%

50%

19%

Would your program consider applicants who fail theexam on the first attempt?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Never Seldom often

25%

56%

19%

Would your program consider applicants who failthe exam on the first attempt?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

65%

35%

0%

Scores required?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

71%

29%

0%

Scores required?

N=17

N=16

N=17N=16

N=5 N=5

IQR* of Average USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 CK Scores Programs Consider When Granting Interviews

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 1 Score

170

180

190

200

210

220

230

240

250

260

USMLE Step 1 USMLE Step 1

*The boxes in the boxplots 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 x-shaped symbol is the mean.

Scores Above Which Programs Almost Always Grant Interviews

Scores Below Which Programs Generally Do Not Grant Interviews

USMLE Step 2 CK not reported

because of low response rate

USMLE Step 2 CK not reported

because of low response rate

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 196

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes No

100%

0%

USMLE Step 2 CS

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

88%

12%

0%

USMLE Step 3

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

53%

20%27%

COMLEX-USA Level 1*

NeuroradiologyPercentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 Clinical Skill (CS), Step 3, and COMLEX-USA Scores* When Considering Which Applicants to Interview

Figure-4

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

60%

13%

27%

COMLEX-USA Level 2-CE*

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

67%

7%

27%

COMLEX-USA Level 3*

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

60%

13%

27%

COMLEX-USA Level 2-PE*

N=17 N=17

N=15 N=15

N=15 N=15

* Osteopathic applicants only

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 CS and Step 3 Scores

Percentage of Programs That Use COMLEX-USA Level 1 and Level 2-CE Scores

Percentage of Programs That Use COMLEX-USA Level 2-PE and Level 3 Scores

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 197

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Never Seldom Often

25%

63%

13%

Would your program consider applicants who fail theexam on the first attempt?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No, not required

70%

10%

20%

Scores required?

N=8

N=10

75.0%Optional

25.0%Required

Program Requirement on Dedicated Time forResearch

N=24

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Accredited Locally Funded Integrated Other

1

11

Average Number of Months if Research Time isRequired

N=3 N=1 N=3 N=0

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

Accredited Positions Funded Positions

3.5 3.4

Average Number of Accredited Positions and Funded Positions

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Positions Filled BeforeMatch Day

Positions Offered Outsidethe Match

Positions Filled Outsidethe Match

44% 41%47%

Average Percentage of Accredited Positions Offered Outside ofthe Match

N=24 N=21 N=8 N=8 N=7

NeuroradiologyPrograms That Use Core Specialty Certifying Examination When Considering Applicants for Interview

Figure-5

NeuroradiologyPrograms Positions Figure-6

NeuroradiologyDedicated Time for Research Figure-7

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 198

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%89%

83%

67%

28%

50%

39%

U.S. Graduate OsteopathicPhysician

Canadian Fifth Pathway U.S. IMG Non-U.S. IMG

Percentage of Programs that Typically Interview and Rank Each Applicant Type

Figure-8NeuroradiologyProgram's Interview Activities

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Rejected based on astandardized screening

process

In-depth review

21%

70%

Average Percentage of Applicants Rejected and Reviewed

0

4

8

12

16

20

24

28

32

Number of applicationsreceived

Number of interviewinvitations sent

Number of applicantsinterviewed

29

1716

Average Number of Positions, Applications Received, InterviewInvitations Sent, and Applicants Interviewed and Ranked

N=23N=23N=23N=23

N=18

22% of Neuroradiology programs consider all applicant groups

N=23

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-USIMG

6%

53%

20% 13% 7%12%

38%

47%

53%80% 87%

82%63%

27%7% 7%

Often Seldom Never

Interview

0%10%

20%

30%40%

50%60%

70%80%

90%100%

Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-USIMG

6%

50%

19% 13% 6%13% 29%

50%

56%81% 88%

81%71%

25%6% 6%

Often Seldom Never

Ranking

n=16

Frequency of Programs Interviewing and Ranking Candidates

n=17

N=17

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

59%

5% 7% 6%0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

11% 9%4%

Interview invitations

Interview Invitations Sent and Interviews Conducted

31%

17% 15%7%

1% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 5%

17%

Interviews conducted

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 199

Figure-9NeuroradiologyPotential Challenges in Recruiting Applicants to Your Specialty

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

71%

7%

21%

0%

0%

We consider those applicants on an individual basis

We give those applicants serious consideration if they haveshown improvement

We do not usually consider those applicants

We favor those applicants

Other

0 1 2 3 4 5

Not enough applicants in the specialty

Undesirable income potential as a practicing physician

Undesirable work/life balance as a practicing physician

Long or irregular work hours required by specialty

Fellowship Match scheduled at inconvenient time of year

3.6

1.8

2.1

1.9

2.5

Average rating on a scale of 5 (1=least challenging; 5=most challenging)

n=15

30.4%Less than 3

17.4%3 to 5

26.1%6 to 10

17.4%11 to

15

8.7%More than 15

At Any Fellowship Program

33.3%Less than

3

14.3%3 to 533.3%

6 to 10

9.5%11 to 15

9.5%More than 15

At Current Fellowship Program

n=14

n=23 n=21

NeuroradiologyApplicants Who Applied in the Specialty in the Past But Did Not Match Figure-10

NeuroradiologyYears as Program Director Figure-11

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 200

Obstetric Anesthesiology

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 201

Obstetric AnesthesiologyGeneral Information

Table 1

28

48

25

Number of programs in the Match

Number of positions in the Match

Number of applicants ranking specialty

40.0%Response rate

Appointment Years

Number of responses 10

Match Information*

* Source: NRMP Data Warehouse

2016 Survey

2016 2015 2014

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 202

Figure-1Obstetric AnesthesiologyPercentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Selecting Applicants to Interview(N=10)

Average RatingPercent Citing Factor

¹ Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).* International Medical Graduates only

1 2 3 4 5

4.24.73.94.24.33.94.54.94.43.84.34.53.33.74.04.34.54.34.64.33.83.82.83.53.82.83.03.03.53.03.02.65.01.03.04.03.34.02.0

100% 50% 0%

90%60%90%90%

100%70%80%80%50%50%40%80%60%60%40%40%20%40%50%30%40%40%50%20%60%40%10%30%40%30%20%50%30%10%40%40%30%10%10%

0%

Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialty

Residency performance evaluation (Program Director letter)

Reputation of residency program

Demonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research

Perceived commitment to specialty

Personal statement

Perceived interest in program

Evidence of professionalism and ethics

USMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score

Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chapters

USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE score

Leadership qualities

Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicant

Oral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements

Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institution

Pass USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PE

Any failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX

USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 score

Interest in academic career

Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based)

Clinical/laboratory research experience

Awards or special honors in medical school

Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership

Other life experience

Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter)

Graduate of highly‐regarded medical school

Visa status*

Volunteer/extracurricular experiences

Awarded grant money for research

Grades in medical school

Lack of gaps in medical education

Medical school class ranking/quartile

Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP

Electives at your fellowship site

Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membership

Residency class ranking/quartile

Fluency in language spoken by your patient population

In‐Training Examination (ITE)

Residency program size

Having finished another fellowship

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 203

Obstetric AnesthesiologyPercentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Ranking Applicants(N=10)

Figure-2

Average RatingPercent Citing Factor

¹ Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).* International Medical Graduates only

1 2 3 4 5

4.44.34.34.44.44.84.24.03.54.64.34.03.54.04.74.34.54.03.74.03.54.54.04.03.0

3.03.64.33.3

4.53.35.03.73.52.72.5

4.03.03.5

4.05.0

100% 50% 0%

90%90%80%80%80%60%60%80%80%50%70%50%40%50%30%40%20%40%30%20%30%30%20%30%10%0%

20%50%30%30%0%

20%30%10%30%20%30%20%0%

30%10%20%0%

20%20%0%

Interactions with faculty during interview and visitInterpersonal skills

Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialtyInteractions with house staff during interview and visit

Perceived commitment to specialtyFeedback from current residents and fellows

Perceived interest in programDemonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research

Reputation of residency programResidency performance evaluation (Program Director letter)

Evidence of professionalism and ethicsPersonal statement

Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicantLeadership qualities

Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chaptersInterest in academic career

Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institutionUSMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score

USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE scoreAny failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX

Passing USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PEClinical/laboratory research experience

USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 scoreOral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements

Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based)Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership

Other life experienceMedical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter)

Second interview/visitAwards or special honors in medical school

Visa status*Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP

Graduate of highly‐regarded medical schoolElectives at your fellowship site

Awarded grant money for researchVolunteer/extracurricular experiencesMedical school class ranking/quartile

Lack of gaps in medical educationGrades in medical school

Residency class ranking/quartileFluency in language spoken by your patient population

Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membershipResidency program size

In‐Training Examination (ITE)Second interview/visit

Having finished another fellowship

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 204

Obstetric AnesthesiologyPrograms That Use USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) Scores When Considering Which Applicants to Interview

Figure-3

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 (CK) Score

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Never Seldom Often

0%

88%

13%

Would your program consider applicants who fail theexam on the first attempt?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Never Seldom often

0%

88%

13%

Would your program consider applicants who failthe exam on the first attempt?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

78%

22%

0%

Scores required?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

89%

11%

0%

Scores required?

N=9

N=8

N=9N=8

IQR* of Average USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 CK Scores Programs Consider When Granting Interviews

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 1 Score

*The boxes in the boxplots 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 x-shaped symbol is the mean.

Scores Above Which Programs Almost Always Grant Interviews

Scores Below Which Programs Generally Do Not Grant Interviews

USMLE Step 2 CK not reported

because of low response rate

USMLE Step 1 not reported because of low response

rate

USMLE Step 2 CK not reported

because of low response rate

USMLE Step 1 not reported because of low response

rate

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 205

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes No

89%

11%

USMLE Step 2 CS

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

80%

20%

0%

USMLE Step 3

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

80%

20%

0%

COMLEX-USA Level 1*

Obstetric AnesthesiologyPercentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 Clinical Skill (CS), Step 3, and COMLEX-USA Scores* When Considering Which Applicants to Interview

Figure-4

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

80%

20%

0%

COMLEX-USA Level 2-CE*

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

80%

20%

0%

COMLEX-USA Level 3*

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

80%

20%

0%

COMLEX-USA Level 2-PE*

N=9 N=10

N=5 N=5

N=5 N=5

* Osteopathic applicants only

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 CS and Step 3 Scores

Percentage of Programs That Use COMLEX-USA Level 1 and Level 2-CE Scores

Percentage of Programs That Use COMLEX-USA Level 2-PE and Level 3 Scores

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 206

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Never Seldom Often

20%

60%

20%

Would your program consider applicants who fail theexam on the first attempt?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No, not required

0%

17%

83%

Scores required?

N=5

N=6

100.0%Required

Program Requirement on Dedicated Time forResearch

N=10

0.0

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.6

2.0

2.4

2.8

3.2

Accredited Locally Funded Integrated Other

3 3

2

Average Number of Months if Research Time isRequired

N=8 N=1 N=0 N=2

0.0

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.6

2.0

Accredited Positions Funded Positions

1.9 1.9

Average Number of Accredited Positions and Funded Positions

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Positions Filled BeforeMatch Day

Positions Offered Outsidethe Match

Positions Filled Outsidethe Match

100% 100%

50%

Average Percentage of Accredited Positions Offered Outside ofthe Match

N=10 N=9 N=1 N=1 N=1

Obstetric AnesthesiologyPrograms That Use Core Specialty Certifying Examination When Considering Applicants for Interview

Figure-5

Obstetric AnesthesiologyPrograms Positions Figure-6

Obstetric AnesthesiologyDedicated Time for Research Figure-7

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 207

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%100%

90%

50%

10%

30%

10%

U.S. Graduate OsteopathicPhysician

Canadian Fifth Pathway U.S. IMG Non-U.S. IMG

Percentage of Programs that Typically Interview and Rank Each Applicant Type

Figure-8Obstetric AnesthesiologyProgram's Interview Activities

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Rejected based on astandardized screening

process

In-depth review

34%

66%

Average Percentage of Applicants Rejected and Reviewed

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Number of applicationsreceived

Number of interviewinvitations sent

Number of applicantsinterviewed

8

5 5

Average Number of Positions, Applications Received, InterviewInvitations Sent, and Applicants Interviewed and Ranked

N=8N=8N=8N=8

N=10

10% of Obstetric Anesthesiology programs consider all applicant groups

N=8

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-USIMG

75%

44%

22%

56%50%

13%

33%

56%

33%

100%

50%

13%22% 22%

11%

Often Seldom Never

Interview

0%10%

20%

30%40%

50%60%

70%80%

90%100%

Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-USIMG

75%

44%33%

67%

40%

13%

33%44%

22%

100%

60%

13%22% 22%

11%

Often Seldom Never

Ranking

n=10

Frequency of Programs Interviewing and Ranking Candidates

n=10

N=7

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

0% 0% 3%

40%

28%

0% 0% 1%

14%5% 3% 6%

Interview invitations

Interview Invitations Sent and Interviews Conducted

0% 0% 0%10%

45%

15%

1% 1%

14%

0%8% 6%

Interviews conducted

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 208

Figure-9Obstetric AnesthesiologyPotential Challenges in Recruiting Applicants to Your Specialty

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

88%

38%

25%

0%

0%

We consider those applicants on an individual basis

We give those applicants serious consideration if they haveshown improvement

We do not usually consider those applicants

We favor those applicants

Other

0 1 2 3 4 5

Not enough applicants in the specialty

Undesirable income potential as a practicing physician

Undesirable work/life balance as a practicing physician

Long or irregular work hours required by specialty

Fellowship Match scheduled at inconvenient time of year

3.9

2.2

2.4

2.2

3.2

Average rating on a scale of 5 (1=least challenging; 5=most challenging)

n=10

22.2%Less than 3

44.4%3 to 5

22.2%6 to 10

11.1%11 to 15

At Any Fellowship Program

22.2%Less than 3

55.6%3 to

5

22.2%6 to 10

At Current Fellowship Program

n=8

n=9 n=9

Obstetric AnesthesiologyApplicants Who Applied in the Specialty in the Past But Did Not Match Figure-10

Obstetric AnesthesiologyYears as Program Director Figure-11

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 209

Pain Medicine

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 210

Pain MedicineGeneral Information

Table 1

90

305

416

Number of programs in the Match

Number of positions in the Match

Number of applicants ranking specialty

25.0%Response rate

Appointment Years

Number of responses 21

Match Information*

* Source: NRMP Data Warehouse

2016 Survey

2016 2015 2014

84

286

397

82

261

398

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 211

Figure-1Pain MedicinePercentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Selecting Applicants to Interview(N=17)

Average RatingPercent Citing Factor

¹ Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).* International Medical Graduates only

1 2 3 4 5

4.64.43.43.54.54.34.64.84.23.84.04.24.43.64.04.74.74.14.04.53.43.53.63.94.44.33.03.53.83.44.33.74.34.14.04.33.54.3

3.0100% 50% 0%

76%59%53%76%82%71%82%53%76%71%71%65%59%47%59%47%53%65%35%24%29%24%29%41%29%24%24%29%29%29%35%18%35%41%12%29%12%59%

0%6%

Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialty

Residency performance evaluation (Program Director letter)

Reputation of residency program

Demonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research

Perceived commitment to specialty

Personal statement

Perceived interest in program

Evidence of professionalism and ethics

USMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score

Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chapters

USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE score

Leadership qualities

Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicant

Oral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements

Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institution

Pass USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PE

Any failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX

USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 score

Interest in academic career

Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based)

Clinical/laboratory research experience

Awards or special honors in medical school

Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership

Other life experience

Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter)

Graduate of highly‐regarded medical school

Visa status*

Volunteer/extracurricular experiences

Awarded grant money for research

Grades in medical school

Lack of gaps in medical education

Medical school class ranking/quartile

Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP

Electives at your fellowship site

Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membership

Residency class ranking/quartile

Fluency in language spoken by your patient population

In‐Training Examination (ITE)

Residency program size

Having finished another fellowship

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 212

Pain MedicinePercentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Ranking Applicants(N=17)

Figure-2

Average RatingPercent Citing Factor

¹ Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).* International Medical Graduates only

1 2 3 4 5

5.05.04.74.74.84.85.04.13.84.75.04.44.64.44.04.64.14.85.04.75.03.84.74.54.24.03.84.84.45.04.54.05.04.04.23.74.54.85.04.03.54.04.04.64.03.0

100% 50% 0%

81%88%81%69%63%75%69%50%38%38%44%44%50%63%50%31%56%38%38%44%38%31%38%25%31%19%25%25%31%13%13%13%13%19%31%19%13%31%6%

13%13%13%6%

50%19%6%

Interactions with faculty during interview and visitInterpersonal skills

Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialtyInteractions with house staff during interview and visit

Perceived commitment to specialtyFeedback from current residents and fellows

Perceived interest in programDemonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research

Reputation of residency programResidency performance evaluation (Program Director letter)

Evidence of professionalism and ethicsPersonal statement

Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicantLeadership qualities

Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chaptersInterest in academic career

Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institutionUSMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score

USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE scoreAny failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX

Passing USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PEClinical/laboratory research experience

USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 scoreOral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements

Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based)Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership

Other life experienceMedical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter)

Second interview/visitAwards or special honors in medical school

Visa status*Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP

Graduate of highly‐regarded medical schoolElectives at your fellowship site

Awarded grant money for researchVolunteer/extracurricular experiencesMedical school class ranking/quartile

Lack of gaps in medical educationGrades in medical school

Residency class ranking/quartileFluency in language spoken by your patient population

Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membershipResidency program size

In‐Training Examination (ITE)Second interview/visit

Having finished another fellowship

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 213

Pain MedicinePrograms That Use USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) Scores When Considering Which Applicants to Interview

Figure-3

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 (CK) Score

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Never Seldom Often

29%

71%

0%

Would your program consider applicants who fail theexam on the first attempt?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Never Seldom often

29%

71%

0%

Would your program consider applicants who failthe exam on the first attempt?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

67%

33%

0%

Scores required?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

81%

19%

0%

Scores required?

N=15

N=14

N=16N=14

N=5

IQR* of Average USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 CK Scores Programs Consider When Granting Interviews

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 1 Score

170

180

190

200

210

220

230

240

250

260

USMLE Step 1

*The boxes in the boxplots 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 x-shaped symbol is the mean.

Scores Above Which Programs Almost Always Grant Interviews

Scores Below Which Programs Generally Do Not Grant Interviews

USMLE Step 2 CK not reported

because of low response rate

USMLE Step 1 not reported because of low response

rate

USMLE Step 2 CK not reported

because of low response rate

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 214

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes No

100%

0%

USMLE Step 2 CS

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

75%

19%

6%

USMLE Step 3

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

67%

25%

8%

COMLEX-USA Level 1*

Pain MedicinePercentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 Clinical Skill (CS), Step 3, and COMLEX-USA Scores* When Considering Which Applicants to Interview

Figure-4

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

67%

25%

8%

COMLEX-USA Level 2-CE*

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

67%

25%

8%

COMLEX-USA Level 3*

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

67%

25%

8%

COMLEX-USA Level 2-PE*

N=15 N=16

N=12 N=12

N=12 N=12

* Osteopathic applicants only

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 CS and Step 3 Scores

Percentage of Programs That Use COMLEX-USA Level 1 and Level 2-CE Scores

Percentage of Programs That Use COMLEX-USA Level 2-PE and Level 3 Scores

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 215

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Never Seldom Often

0%

100%

0%

Would your program consider applicants who fail theexam on the first attempt?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No, not required

57%

14%

29%

Scores required?

N=8

N=7

90.5%Optional

9.5%Required

Program Requirement on Dedicated Time forResearch

N=21

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Accredited Locally Funded Integrated Other

1 1

Average Number of Months if Research Time isRequired

N=1 N=0 N=2 N=0

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

Accredited Positions Funded Positions

3.63.4

Average Number of Accredited Positions and Funded Positions

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Positions Filled BeforeMatch Day

Positions Offered Outsidethe Match

Positions Filled Outsidethe Match

100%

67%

33%

Average Percentage of Accredited Positions Offered Outside ofthe Match

N=21 N=19 N=4 N=2 N=1

Pain MedicinePrograms That Use Core Specialty Certifying Examination When Considering Applicants for Interview

Figure-5

Pain MedicinePrograms Positions Figure-6

Pain MedicineDedicated Time for Research Figure-7

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 216

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%89%

95%

63%

42%

84%

53%

U.S. Graduate OsteopathicPhysician

Canadian Fifth Pathway U.S. IMG Non-U.S. IMG

Percentage of Programs that Typically Interview and Rank Each Applicant Type

Figure-8Pain MedicineProgram's Interview Activities

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Rejected based on astandardized screening

process

In-depth review

43%48%

Average Percentage of Applicants Rejected and Reviewed

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Number of applicationsreceived

Number of interviewinvitations sent

Number of applicantsinterviewed

150

33 29

Average Number of Positions, Applications Received, InterviewInvitations Sent, and Applicants Interviewed and Ranked

N=19N=19N=19N=19

N=19

42% of Pain Medicine programs consider all applicant groups

N=20

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-USIMG

6%

39%

16%5%

16%17% 21%

50%

74%

63%

68%

78% 79%

11% 11%

32%16%

Often Seldom Never

Interview

0%10%

20%

30%40%

50%60%

70%80%

90%100%

Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-USIMG

41%22%

6%18%18% 22%

53%72%

67%

71%82% 78%

6% 6%

28%12%

Often Seldom Never

Ranking

n=17

Frequency of Programs Interviewing and Ranking Candidates

n=18

N=18

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

0% 0% 0%10%

27% 29%

14%19%

1% 0% 0% 0%

Interview invitations

Interview Invitations Sent and Interviews Conducted

0% 0% 0% 0% 1%9%

28%

45%

2% 0% 0% 0%

Interviews conducted

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 217

Figure-9Pain MedicinePotential Challenges in Recruiting Applicants to Your Specialty

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

69%

19%

19%

0%

0%

We consider those applicants on an individual basis

We give those applicants serious consideration if they haveshown improvement

We do not usually consider those applicants

We favor those applicants

Other

0 1 2 3 4 5

Not enough applicants in the specialty

Undesirable income potential as a practicing physician

Undesirable work/life balance as a practicing physician

Long or irregular work hours required by specialty

Fellowship Match scheduled at inconvenient time of year

1.8

1.8

1.9

1.9

2.5

Average rating on a scale of 5 (1=least challenging; 5=most challenging)

n=15

17.6%Less than 3

35.3%3 to 529.4%

6 to10

11.8%11 to 15 5.9%

More than 15

At Any Fellowship Program

35.3%Less than 3

29.4%3 to

5

29.4%6 to 10

5.9%More than 15

At Current Fellowship Program

n=16

n=17 n=17

Pain MedicineApplicants Who Applied in the Specialty in the Past But Did Not Match Figure-10

Pain MedicineYears as Program Director Figure-11

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 218

Pediatric Anesthesiology

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 219

Pediatric AnesthesiologyGeneral Information

Table 1

52

190

209

Number of programs in the Match

Number of positions in the Match

Number of applicants ranking specialty

47.1%Response rate

Appointment Years

Number of responses 24

Match Information*

* Source: NRMP Data Warehouse

2016 Survey

2016 2015 2014

46

185

207

44

171

182

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 220

Figure-1Pediatric AnesthesiologyPercentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Selecting Applicants to Interview(N=21)

Average RatingPercent Citing Factor

¹ Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).* International Medical Graduates only

1 2 3 4 5

4.44.33.73.44.54.24.74.73.93.93.84.14.23.83.93.74.33.94.13.93.63.53.83.53.93.73.73.73.53.34.43.05.04.03.63.83.64.5

4.0100% 50% 0%

71%90%90%81%76%81%67%86%76%48%81%71%52%67%71%62%48%52%43%38%43%48%62%43%38%38%33%38%43%24%33%19%24%10%29%33%29%95%

0%19%

Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialty

Residency performance evaluation (Program Director letter)

Reputation of residency program

Demonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research

Perceived commitment to specialty

Personal statement

Perceived interest in program

Evidence of professionalism and ethics

USMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score

Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chapters

USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE score

Leadership qualities

Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicant

Oral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements

Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institution

Pass USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PE

Any failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX

USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 score

Interest in academic career

Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based)

Clinical/laboratory research experience

Awards or special honors in medical school

Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership

Other life experience

Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter)

Graduate of highly‐regarded medical school

Visa status*

Volunteer/extracurricular experiences

Awarded grant money for research

Grades in medical school

Lack of gaps in medical education

Medical school class ranking/quartile

Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP

Electives at your fellowship site

Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membership

Residency class ranking/quartile

Fluency in language spoken by your patient population

In‐Training Examination (ITE)

Residency program size

Having finished another fellowship

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 221

Pediatric AnesthesiologyPercentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Ranking Applicants(N=21)

Figure-2

Average RatingPercent Citing Factor

¹ Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).* International Medical Graduates only

1 2 3 4 5

4.94.84.44.84.64.94.23.63.94.44.64.04.73.84.24.03.84.34.15.04.43.84.24.74.03.83.93.84.23.54.55.04.04.04.53.83.04.03.03.74.03.0

4.44.53.3

100% 50% 0%

95%95%43%90%52%48%71%52%48%38%62%38%29%38%29%38%48%48%43%19%24%24%24%14%19%29%38%24%33%19%10%19%14%14%19%29%10%10%14%14%5%

10%0%

62%19%14%

Interactions with faculty during interview and visitInterpersonal skills

Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialtyInteractions with house staff during interview and visit

Perceived commitment to specialtyFeedback from current residents and fellows

Perceived interest in programDemonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research

Reputation of residency programResidency performance evaluation (Program Director letter)

Evidence of professionalism and ethicsPersonal statement

Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicantLeadership qualities

Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chaptersInterest in academic career

Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institutionUSMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score

USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE scoreAny failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX

Passing USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PEClinical/laboratory research experience

USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 scoreOral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements

Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based)Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership

Other life experienceMedical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter)

Second interview/visitAwards or special honors in medical school

Visa status*Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP

Graduate of highly‐regarded medical schoolElectives at your fellowship site

Awarded grant money for researchVolunteer/extracurricular experiencesMedical school class ranking/quartile

Lack of gaps in medical educationGrades in medical school

Residency class ranking/quartileFluency in language spoken by your patient population

Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membershipResidency program size

In‐Training Examination (ITE)Second interview/visit

Having finished another fellowship

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 222

170

180

190

200

210

220

230

240

250

260

Pediatric AnesthesiologyPrograms That Use USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) Scores When Considering Which Applicants to Interview

Figure-3

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 (CK) Score

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Never Seldom Often

25%

55%

20%

Would your program consider applicants who fail theexam on the first attempt?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Never Seldom often

37%42%

21%

Would your program consider applicants who failthe exam on the first attempt?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

55%

45%

0%

Scores required?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

70%

30%

0%

Scores required?

N=20

N=20

N=20N=19

N=6N=9 N=7

IQR* of Average USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 CK Scores Programs Consider When Granting Interviews

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 1 Score

170

180

190

200

210

220

230

240

250

260

USMLE Step 2 CKUSMLE Step 1 USMLE Step 1

*The boxes in the boxplots 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 x-shaped symbol is the mean.

Scores Above Which Programs Almost Always Grant Interviews

Scores Below Which Programs Generally Do Not Grant Interviews

USMLE Step 2 CK not reported

because of low response rate

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 223

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes No

100%

0%

USMLE Step 2 CS

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

60%

35%

5%

USMLE Step 3

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

56%

25%19%

COMLEX-USA Level 1*

Pediatric AnesthesiologyPercentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 Clinical Skill (CS), Step 3, and COMLEX-USA Scores* When Considering Which Applicants to Interview

Figure-4

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

59%

18%24%

COMLEX-USA Level 2-CE*

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

56%

25%19%

COMLEX-USA Level 3*

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

69%

13%19%

COMLEX-USA Level 2-PE*

N=20 N=20

N=16 N=17

N=16 N=16

* Osteopathic applicants only

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 CS and Step 3 Scores

Percentage of Programs That Use COMLEX-USA Level 1 and Level 2-CE Scores

Percentage of Programs That Use COMLEX-USA Level 2-PE and Level 3 Scores

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 224

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Never Seldom Often

27%

60%

13%

Would your program consider applicants who fail theexam on the first attempt?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No, not required

33%

20%

47%

Scores required?

N=15

N=15

83.3%Optional

16.7%Required

Program Requirement on Dedicated Time forResearch

N=24

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Accredited Locally Funded Integrated Other

1 1

Average Number of Months if Research Time isRequired

N=2 N=0 N=0 N=2

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

Accredited Positions Funded Positions

4.2 4.2

Average Number of Accredited Positions and Funded Positions

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Positions Filled BeforeMatch Day

Positions Offered Outsidethe Match

Positions Filled Outsidethe Match

71%

35%31%

Average Percentage of Accredited Positions Offered Outside ofthe Match

N=23 N=22 N=8 N=4 N=3

Pediatric AnesthesiologyPrograms That Use Core Specialty Certifying Examination When Considering Applicants for Interview

Figure-5

Pediatric AnesthesiologyPrograms Positions Figure-6

Pediatric AnesthesiologyDedicated Time for Research Figure-7

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 225

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100% 95%

77%

55%

14%

64%

36%

U.S. Graduate OsteopathicPhysician

Canadian Fifth Pathway U.S. IMG Non-U.S. IMG

Percentage of Programs that Typically Interview and Rank Each Applicant Type

Figure-8Pediatric AnesthesiologyProgram's Interview Activities

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Rejected based on astandardized screening

process

In-depth review

28%

74%

Average Percentage of Applicants Rejected and Reviewed

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Number of applicationsreceived

Number of interviewinvitations sent

Number of applicantsinterviewed

54

27 26

Average Number of Positions, Applications Received, InterviewInvitations Sent, and Applicants Interviewed and Ranked

N=21N=21N=20N=21

N=22

14% of Pediatric Anesthesiology programs consider all applicant groups

N=21

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-USIMG

5% 5%

77%

27%14%

23%32%

23%

55%

45%

64%95%

64%

18%

41%

14%

Often Seldom Never

Interview

0%10%

20%

30%40%

50%60%

70%80%

90%100%

Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-USIMG

5% 9%

82%

32%18%

36%23%

18%

55%

41%

50%95%

68%

14%

41%

14%

Often Seldom Never

Ranking

n=21

Frequency of Programs Interviewing and Ranking Candidates

n=22

N=20

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

3% 5%

21%

37%

18%11%

6%1% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Interview invitations

Interview Invitations Sent and Interviews Conducted

0% 1% 2%12%

29% 29%

14% 11%3% 0% 0% 0%

Interviews conducted

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 226

Figure-9Pediatric AnesthesiologyPotential Challenges in Recruiting Applicants to Your Specialty

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

85%

20%

5%

0%

0%

We consider those applicants on an individual basis

We give those applicants serious consideration if they haveshown improvement

We do not usually consider those applicants

We favor those applicants

Other

0 1 2 3 4 5

Not enough applicants in the specialty

Undesirable income potential as a practicing physician

Undesirable work/life balance as a practicing physician

Long or irregular work hours required by specialty

Fellowship Match scheduled at inconvenient time of year

2.1

1.9

2.6

2.8

2.5

Average rating on a scale of 5 (1=least challenging; 5=most challenging)

n=17

25.0%Less than 3

40.0%3 to 5

20.0%6 to 10

5.0%11 to 1510.0%

More than 15

At Any Fellowship Program

23.5%Less than 3

35.3%3 to 5

29.4%6 to 10

5.9%11 to 155.9%

More than 15

At Current Fellowship Program

n=20

n=20 n=17

Pediatric AnesthesiologyApplicants Who Applied in the Specialty in the Past But Did Not Match Figure-10

Pediatric AnesthesiologyYears as Program Director Figure-11

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 227

Pediatric Cardiology

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 228

Pediatric CardiologyGeneral Information

Table 1

56

139

162

Number of programs in the Match

Number of positions in the Match

Number of applicants ranking specialty

50.9%Response rate

Appointment Years

Number of responses 28

Match Information*

* Source: NRMP Data Warehouse

2016 Survey

2016 2015 2014

57

141

181

57

141

167

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 229

Figure-1Pediatric CardiologyPercentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Selecting Applicants to Interview(N=23)

Average RatingPercent Citing Factor

¹ Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).* International Medical Graduates only

1 2 3 4 5

4.44.54.34.04.13.44.04.53.93.93.74.04.33.74.04.04.43.84.24.33.93.23.53.83.33.83.73.33.43.44.03.35.03.83.74.34.35.04.32.9

100% 50% 0%

96%96%

100%100%

70%78%43%78%78%96%78%87%78%78%70%65%74%65%78%74%78%61%74%57%48%65%43%57%83%30%39%43%52%35%35%22%26%13%52%43%

Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialty

Residency performance evaluation (Program Director letter)

Reputation of residency program

Demonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research

Perceived commitment to specialty

Personal statement

Perceived interest in program

Evidence of professionalism and ethics

USMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score

Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chapters

USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE score

Leadership qualities

Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicant

Oral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements

Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institution

Pass USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PE

Any failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX

USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 score

Interest in academic career

Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based)

Clinical/laboratory research experience

Awards or special honors in medical school

Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership

Other life experience

Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter)

Graduate of highly‐regarded medical school

Visa status*

Volunteer/extracurricular experiences

Awarded grant money for research

Grades in medical school

Lack of gaps in medical education

Medical school class ranking/quartile

Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP

Electives at your fellowship site

Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membership

Residency class ranking/quartile

Fluency in language spoken by your patient population

In‐Training Examination (ITE)

Residency program size

Having finished another fellowship

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 230

Pediatric CardiologyPercentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Ranking Applicants(N=23)

Figure-2

Average RatingPercent Citing Factor

¹ Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).* International Medical Graduates only

1 2 3 4 5

4.94.84.44.84.24.83.84.14.34.44.53.54.24.24.04.13.93.83.94.63.83.93.93.74.53.53.73.83.53.64.05.03.63.33.23.64.04.23.73.74.33.64.1

5.03.4

100% 50% 0%

95%95%95%95%81%76%67%95%86%81%76%67%76%67%67%81%67%67%57%57%57%67%43%52%62%57%52%33%38%43%19%43%48%33%48%38%29%33%24%19%24%33%38%0%5%

29%

Interactions with faculty during interview and visitInterpersonal skills

Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialtyInteractions with house staff during interview and visit

Perceived commitment to specialtyFeedback from current residents and fellows

Perceived interest in programDemonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research

Reputation of residency programResidency performance evaluation (Program Director letter)

Evidence of professionalism and ethicsPersonal statement

Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicantLeadership qualities

Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chaptersInterest in academic career

Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institutionUSMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score

USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE scoreAny failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX

Passing USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PEClinical/laboratory research experience

USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 scoreOral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements

Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based)Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership

Other life experienceMedical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter)

Second interview/visitAwards or special honors in medical school

Visa status*Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP

Graduate of highly‐regarded medical schoolElectives at your fellowship site

Awarded grant money for researchVolunteer/extracurricular experiencesMedical school class ranking/quartile

Lack of gaps in medical educationGrades in medical school

Residency class ranking/quartileFluency in language spoken by your patient population

Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membershipResidency program size

In‐Training Examination (ITE)Second interview/visit

Having finished another fellowship

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 231

170

180

190

200

210

220

230

240

250

260

Pediatric CardiologyPrograms That Use USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) Scores When Considering Which Applicants to Interview

Figure-3

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 (CK) Score

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Never Seldom Often

14%

86%

0%

Would your program consider applicants who fail theexam on the first attempt?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Never Seldom often

20%

80%

0%

Would your program consider applicants who failthe exam on the first attempt?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

52%

35%

13%

Scores required?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

57%

30%

13%

Scores required?

N=23

N=21

N=23N=20

N=6N=8 N=8 N=6

IQR* of Average USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 CK Scores Programs Consider When Granting Interviews

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 1 Score

170

180

190

200

210

220

230

240

250

260

USMLE Step 2 CKUSMLE Step 1 USMLE Step 1 USMLE Step 2 CK

*The boxes in the boxplots 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 x-shaped symbol is the mean.

Scores Above Which Programs Almost Always Grant Interviews

Scores Below Which Programs Generally Do Not Grant Interviews

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 232

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes No

87%

13%

USMLE Step 2 CS

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

48%

22%

30%

USMLE Step 3

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

47%

33%

20%

COMLEX-USA Level 1*

Pediatric CardiologyPercentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 Clinical Skill (CS), Step 3, and COMLEX-USA Scores* When Considering Which Applicants to Interview

Figure-4

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

47%

33%

20%

COMLEX-USA Level 2-CE*

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

36% 36%29%

COMLEX-USA Level 3*

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

53%

27%20%

COMLEX-USA Level 2-PE*

N=23 N=23

N=15 N=15

N=15 N=14

* Osteopathic applicants only

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 CS and Step 3 Scores

Percentage of Programs That Use COMLEX-USA Level 1 and Level 2-CE Scores

Percentage of Programs That Use COMLEX-USA Level 2-PE and Level 3 Scores

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 233

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Never Seldom Often

100%

0% 0%

Would your program consider applicants who fail theexam on the first attempt?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No, not required

0% 0%

100%

Scores required?

N=1

N=9

100.0%Required

Program Requirement on Dedicated Time forResearch

N=28

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Accredited Locally Funded Integrated Other

12

1011

12

Average Number of Months if Research Time isRequired

N=18 N=3 N=5 N=3

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

Accredited Positions Funded Positions

4.44.0

Average Number of Accredited Positions and Funded Positions

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Positions Filled BeforeMatch Day

Positions Offered Outsidethe Match

Positions Filled Outsidethe Match

67%

33% 33%

Average Percentage of Accredited Positions Offered Outside ofthe Match

N=28 N=26 N=4 N=3 N=3

Pediatric CardiologyPrograms That Use Core Specialty Certifying Examination When Considering Applicants for Interview

Figure-5

Pediatric CardiologyPrograms Positions Figure-6

Pediatric CardiologyDedicated Time for Research Figure-7

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 234

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%100%

83%

65%

30%

74% 74%

U.S. Graduate OsteopathicPhysician

Canadian Fifth Pathway U.S. IMG Non-U.S. IMG

Percentage of Programs that Typically Interview and Rank Each Applicant Type

Figure-8Pediatric CardiologyProgram's Interview Activities

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Rejected based on astandardized screening

process

In-depth review

26%

83%

Average Percentage of Applicants Rejected and Reviewed

0

20

40

60

80

100

Number of applicationsreceived

Number of interviewinvitations sent

Number of applicantsinterviewed

88

2925

Average Number of Positions, Applications Received, InterviewInvitations Sent, and Applicants Interviewed and Ranked

N=24N=24N=25N=26

N=23

30% of Pediatric Cardiology programs consider all applicant groups

N=25

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-USIMG

4% 4%

62%

13% 9%9%

52%

29%

57%70% 57%

87%

43%

10%

30% 30% 35%

Often Seldom Never

Interview

0%10%

20%

30%40%

50%60%

70%80%

90%100%

Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-USIMG

10%

65%

14%5% 9%10%

60%

25%

59%68% 55%

90%

30%10%

27% 27%36%

Often Seldom Never

Ranking

n=21

Frequency of Programs Interviewing and Ranking Candidates

n=23

N=22

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

83%

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

5%

Interview invitations

Interview Invitations Sent and Interviews Conducted

12%

26%37%

19%

1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 4%

Interviews conducted

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 235

Figure-9Pediatric CardiologyPotential Challenges in Recruiting Applicants to Your Specialty

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

67%

24%

24%

0%

0%

We consider those applicants on an individual basis

We give those applicants serious consideration if they haveshown improvement

We do not usually consider those applicants

We favor those applicants

Other

0 1 2 3 4 5

Not enough applicants in the specialty

Undesirable income potential as a practicing physician

Undesirable work/life balance as a practicing physician

Long or irregular work hours required by specialty

Fellowship Match scheduled at inconvenient time of year

1.6

1.8

3.3

3.1

2.4

Average rating on a scale of 5 (1=least challenging; 5=most challenging)

n=21

32.0%Less than 3

16.0%3 to 532.0%

6 to 10

16.0%11 to 15

4.0%More than 15

At Any Fellowship Program

39.1%Less than 3

13.0%3 to 5

26.1%6 to 10

17.4%11 to

15

4.3%More than 15

At Current Fellowship Program

n=21

n=25 n=23

Pediatric CardiologyApplicants Who Applied in the Specialty in the Past But Did Not Match Figure-10

Pediatric CardiologyYears as Program Director Figure-11

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 236

Pediatric Critical Care Medicine

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 237

Pediatric Critical Care MedicineGeneral Information

Table 1

65

175

186

Number of programs in the Match

Number of positions in the Match

Number of applicants ranking specialty

55.6%Response rate

Appointment Years

Number of responses 35

Match Information*

* Source: NRMP Data Warehouse

2016 Survey

2016 2015 2014

62

168

206

63

169

168

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 238

Figure-1Pediatric Critical Care MedicinePercentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Selecting Applicants to Interview(N=24)

Average RatingPercent Citing Factor

¹ Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).* International Medical Graduates only

1 2 3 4 5

4.34.34.14.04.23.74.24.83.63.63.74.14.33.73.93.64.03.64.13.93.53.13.73.72.83.44.53.23.83.43.72.84.93.14.03.03.34.04.03.3

100% 50% 0%

92%88%96%92%75%71%71%67%67%75%67%63%75%67%71%58%79%63%58%71%63%58%54%42%54%58%46%38%50%25%38%33%38%33%29%25%17%

4%50%29%

Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialty

Residency performance evaluation (Program Director letter)

Reputation of residency program

Demonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research

Perceived commitment to specialty

Personal statement

Perceived interest in program

Evidence of professionalism and ethics

USMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score

Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chapters

USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE score

Leadership qualities

Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicant

Oral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements

Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institution

Pass USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PE

Any failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX

USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 score

Interest in academic career

Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based)

Clinical/laboratory research experience

Awards or special honors in medical school

Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership

Other life experience

Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter)

Graduate of highly‐regarded medical school

Visa status*

Volunteer/extracurricular experiences

Awarded grant money for research

Grades in medical school

Lack of gaps in medical education

Medical school class ranking/quartile

Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP

Electives at your fellowship site

Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membership

Residency class ranking/quartile

Fluency in language spoken by your patient population

In‐Training Examination (ITE)

Residency program size

Having finished another fellowship

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 239

Pediatric Critical Care MedicinePercentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Ranking Applicants(N=24)

Figure-2

Average RatingPercent Citing Factor

¹ Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).* International Medical Graduates only

1 2 3 4 5

4.84.94.14.74.44.64.44.34.24.34.63.44.54.33.74.34.13.83.84.43.84.14.03.94.13.94.03.34.03.84.24.63.74.33.63.83.33.73.73.83.03.74.15.03.84.0

100% 50% 0%

96%91%87%78%70%78%74%74%78%74%74%39%83%70%65%52%61%48%48%48%39%52%43%43%43%35%22%30%48%26%26%39%30%35%39%17%13%30%13%17%17%26%39%4%

17%30%

Interactions with faculty during interview and visitInterpersonal skills

Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialtyInteractions with house staff during interview and visit

Perceived commitment to specialtyFeedback from current residents and fellows

Perceived interest in programDemonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research

Reputation of residency programResidency performance evaluation (Program Director letter)

Evidence of professionalism and ethicsPersonal statement

Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicantLeadership qualities

Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chaptersInterest in academic career

Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institutionUSMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score

USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE scoreAny failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX

Passing USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PEClinical/laboratory research experience

USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 scoreOral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements

Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based)Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership

Other life experienceMedical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter)

Second interview/visitAwards or special honors in medical school

Visa status*Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP

Graduate of highly‐regarded medical schoolElectives at your fellowship site

Awarded grant money for researchVolunteer/extracurricular experiencesMedical school class ranking/quartile

Lack of gaps in medical educationGrades in medical school

Residency class ranking/quartileFluency in language spoken by your patient population

Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membershipResidency program size

In‐Training Examination (ITE)Second interview/visit

Having finished another fellowship

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 240

170

180

190

200

210

220

230

240

250

260

Pediatric Critical Care MedicinePrograms That Use USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) Scores When Considering Which Applicants to Interview

Figure-3

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 (CK) Score

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Never Seldom Often

16%

64%

20%

Would your program consider applicants who fail theexam on the first attempt?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Never Seldom often

16%

68%

16%

Would your program consider applicants who failthe exam on the first attempt?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

76%

24%

0%

Scores required?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

80%

20%

0%

Scores required?

N=25

N=25

N=25N=25

N=6 N=5

IQR* of Average USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 CK Scores Programs Consider When Granting Interviews

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 1 Score

170

180

190

200

210

220

230

240

250

260

USMLE Step 1 USMLE Step 1

*The boxes in the boxplots 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 x-shaped symbol is the mean.

Scores Above Which Programs Almost Always Grant Interviews

Scores Below Which Programs Generally Do Not Grant Interviews

USMLE Step 2 CK not reported

because of low response rate

USMLE Step 2 CK not reported

because of low response rate

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 241

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes No

100%

0%

USMLE Step 2 CS

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

72%

20%

8%

USMLE Step 3

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

65%

15%20%

COMLEX-USA Level 1*

Pediatric Critical Care MedicinePercentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 Clinical Skill (CS), Step 3, and COMLEX-USA Scores* When Considering Which Applicants to Interview

Figure-4

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

65%

15%20%

COMLEX-USA Level 2-CE*

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

67%

11%

22%

COMLEX-USA Level 3*

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

70%

10%

20%

COMLEX-USA Level 2-PE*

N=25 N=25

N=20 N=20

N=20 N=18

* Osteopathic applicants only

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 CS and Step 3 Scores

Percentage of Programs That Use COMLEX-USA Level 1 and Level 2-CE Scores

Percentage of Programs That Use COMLEX-USA Level 2-PE and Level 3 Scores

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 242

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Never Seldom Often

25%

75%

0%

Would your program consider applicants who fail theexam on the first attempt?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No, not required

27%

0%

73%

Scores required?

N=4

N=11

8.6%Optional

91.4%Required

Program Requirement on Dedicated Time forResearch

N=35

0

4

8

12

16

20

Accredited Locally Funded Integrated Other

16

19

1716

Average Number of Months if Research Time isRequired

N=17 N=4 N=2 N=5

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Accredited Positions Funded Positions

6.35.8

Average Number of Accredited Positions and Funded Positions

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Positions Filled BeforeMatch Day

Positions Offered Outsidethe Match

Positions Filled Outsidethe Match

98%

43%

63%

Average Percentage of Accredited Positions Offered Outside ofthe Match

N=32 N=26 N=5 N=3 N=2

Pediatric Critical Care MedicinePrograms That Use Core Specialty Certifying Examination When Considering Applicants for Interview

Figure-5

Pediatric Critical Care MedicinePrograms Positions Figure-6

Pediatric Critical Care MedicineDedicated Time for Research Figure-7

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 243

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%100%

93%

63%

33%

78%

56%

U.S. Graduate OsteopathicPhysician

Canadian Fifth Pathway U.S. IMG Non-U.S. IMG

Percentage of Programs that Typically Interview and Rank Each Applicant Type

Figure-8Pediatric Critical Care MedicineProgram's Interview Activities

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Rejected based on astandardized screening

process

In-depth review

29%

65%

Average Percentage of Applicants Rejected and Reviewed

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Number of applicationsreceived

Number of interviewinvitations sent

Number of applicantsinterviewed

62

2724

Average Number of Positions, Applications Received, InterviewInvitations Sent, and Applicants Interviewed and Ranked

N=29N=29N=29N=29

N=27

26% of Pediatric Critical Care Medicine programs consider all applicant groups

N=29

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-USIMG

67%

12%22%

4%

26%

25%

60%

63%

56%96%

74%

8%28%

37%22%

Often Seldom Never

Interview

0%10%

20%

30%40%

50%60%

70%80%

90%100%

Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-USIMG

4%

75%

16%7%

30%33%

17%

56%

52%

48%96%

67%

8%28%

41%22%

Often Seldom Never

Ranking

n=27

Frequency of Programs Interviewing and Ranking Candidates

n=27

N=25

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

0% 0% 4% 0% 0% 0%

21%

51%

16%9%

1% 0%

Interview invitations

Interview Invitations Sent and Interviews Conducted

0% 0% 4% 0% 0% 0% 1%12%

35% 37%

8%0%

Interviews conducted

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 244

Figure-9Pediatric Critical Care MedicinePotential Challenges in Recruiting Applicants to Your Specialty

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

71%

10%

24%

0%

0%

We consider those applicants on an individual basis

We give those applicants serious consideration if they haveshown improvement

We do not usually consider those applicants

We favor those applicants

Other

0 1 2 3 4 5

Not enough applicants in the specialty

Undesirable income potential as a practicing physician

Undesirable work/life balance as a practicing physician

Long or irregular work hours required by specialty

Fellowship Match scheduled at inconvenient time of year

2.2

1.9

4.0

3.7

2.0

Average rating on a scale of 5 (1=least challenging; 5=most challenging)

n=22

26.9%Less than 3

34.6%3 to 5

11.5%6 to 10

19.2%11 to 15

7.7%More than

15

At Any Fellowship Program

38.5%Less than 3

34.6%3 to 5

15.4%6 to 10

3.8%11 to 157.7%

More than15

At Current Fellowship Program

n=21

n=26 n=26

Pediatric Critical Care MedicineApplicants Who Applied in the Specialty in the Past But Did Not Match Figure-10

Pediatric Critical Care MedicineYears as Program Director Figure-11

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 245

Pediatric Emergency Medicine

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 246

Pediatric Emergency MedicineGeneral Information

Table 1

73

177

208

Number of programs in the Match

Number of positions in the Match

Number of applicants ranking specialty

45.1%Response rate

Appointment Years

Number of responses 32

Match Information*

* Source: NRMP Data Warehouse

2016 Survey

2016 2015 2014

73

162

201

74

163

215

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 247

Figure-1Pediatric Emergency MedicinePercentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Selecting Applicants to Interview(N=27)

Average RatingPercent Citing Factor

¹ Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).* International Medical Graduates only

1 2 3 4 5

4.54.44.13.84.43.54.34.63.83.53.74.04.03.54.03.64.43.74.03.73.73.13.03.42.83.14.23.72.92.93.13.24.33.42.73.63.34.03.62.0

100% 50% 0%

96%96%89%93%93%89%85%78%78%70%81%78%81%74%78%67%89%67%74%59%48%56%63%78%48%56%70%52%44%37%48%41%37%30%33%19%15%

7%33%19%

Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialty

Residency performance evaluation (Program Director letter)

Reputation of residency program

Demonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research

Perceived commitment to specialty

Personal statement

Perceived interest in program

Evidence of professionalism and ethics

USMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score

Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chapters

USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE score

Leadership qualities

Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicant

Oral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements

Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institution

Pass USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PE

Any failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX

USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 score

Interest in academic career

Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based)

Clinical/laboratory research experience

Awards or special honors in medical school

Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership

Other life experience

Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter)

Graduate of highly‐regarded medical school

Visa status*

Volunteer/extracurricular experiences

Awarded grant money for research

Grades in medical school

Lack of gaps in medical education

Medical school class ranking/quartile

Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP

Electives at your fellowship site

Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membership

Residency class ranking/quartile

Fluency in language spoken by your patient population

In‐Training Examination (ITE)

Residency program size

Having finished another fellowship

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 248

Pediatric Emergency MedicinePercentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Ranking Applicants(N=27)

Figure-2

Average RatingPercent Citing Factor

¹ Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).* International Medical Graduates only

1 2 3 4 5

5.05.04.34.94.84.84.64.04.04.54.73.74.34.33.44.13.83.63.53.83.63.83.53.43.82.73.83.24.03.54.54.33.73.73.23.93.23.43.04.02.02.84.03.04.32.0

100% 50% 0%

96%92%88%85%77%73%81%73%73%50%50%54%62%65%46%69%58%62%58%62%46%35%50%38%31%27%50%23%42%31%38%23%23%23%19%42%19%19%12%19%8%

15%23%8%

12%8%

Interactions with faculty during interview and visitInterpersonal skills

Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialtyInteractions with house staff during interview and visit

Perceived commitment to specialtyFeedback from current residents and fellows

Perceived interest in programDemonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research

Reputation of residency programResidency performance evaluation (Program Director letter)

Evidence of professionalism and ethicsPersonal statement

Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicantLeadership qualities

Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chaptersInterest in academic career

Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institutionUSMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score

USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE scoreAny failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX

Passing USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PEClinical/laboratory research experience

USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 scoreOral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements

Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based)Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership

Other life experienceMedical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter)

Second interview/visitAwards or special honors in medical school

Visa status*Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP

Graduate of highly‐regarded medical schoolElectives at your fellowship site

Awarded grant money for researchVolunteer/extracurricular experiencesMedical school class ranking/quartile

Lack of gaps in medical educationGrades in medical school

Residency class ranking/quartileFluency in language spoken by your patient population

Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membershipResidency program size

In‐Training Examination (ITE)Second interview/visit

Having finished another fellowship

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 249

Pediatric Emergency MedicinePrograms That Use USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) Scores When Considering Which Applicants to Interview

Figure-3

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 (CK) Score

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Never Seldom Often

4%

78%

19%

Would your program consider applicants who fail theexam on the first attempt?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Never Seldom often

4%

93%

4%

Would your program consider applicants who failthe exam on the first attempt?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

73%

23%

4%

Scores required?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

73%

23%

4%

Scores required?

N=26

N=27

N=26N=27

N=6N=6

IQR* of Average USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 CK Scores Programs Consider When Granting Interviews

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 1 Score

170

180

190

200

210

220

230

240

250

260

USMLE Step 2 CKUSMLE Step 1

*The boxes in the boxplots 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 x-shaped symbol is the mean.

Scores Above Which Programs Almost Always Grant Interviews

Scores Below Which Programs Generally Do Not Grant Interviews

USMLE Step 1 not reported because of low response

rate

USMLE Step 2 CK not reported

because of low response rate

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 250

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes No

96%

4%

USMLE Step 2 CS

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

65%

19%15%

USMLE Step 3

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

70%

22%

9%

COMLEX-USA Level 1*

Pediatric Emergency MedicinePercentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 Clinical Skill (CS), Step 3, and COMLEX-USA Scores* When Considering Which Applicants to Interview

Figure-4

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

70%

22%

9%

COMLEX-USA Level 2-CE*

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

59%

23%18%

COMLEX-USA Level 3*

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

70%

22%

9%

COMLEX-USA Level 2-PE*

N=26 N=26

N=23 N=23

N=23 N=22

* Osteopathic applicants only

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 CS and Step 3 Scores

Percentage of Programs That Use COMLEX-USA Level 1 and Level 2-CE Scores

Percentage of Programs That Use COMLEX-USA Level 2-PE and Level 3 Scores

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 251

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Never Seldom Often

30%

70%

0%

Would your program consider applicants who fail theexam on the first attempt?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No, not required

33%

0%

67%

Scores required?

N=10

N=18

21.9%Optional

78.1%Required

Program Requirement on Dedicated Time forResearch

N=32

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Accredited Locally Funded Integrated Other

1112 12

5

Average Number of Months if Research Time isRequired

N=16 N=3 N=2 N=5

0

1

2

3

4

5

Accredited Positions Funded Positions

4.84.5

Average Number of Accredited Positions and Funded Positions

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Positions Filled BeforeMatch Day

Positions Offered Outsidethe Match

Positions Filled Outsidethe Match

54%

18% 18%

Average Percentage of Accredited Positions Offered Outside ofthe Match

N=31 N=27 N=4 N=4 N=4

Pediatric Emergency MedicinePrograms That Use Core Specialty Certifying Examination When Considering Applicants for Interview

Figure-5

Pediatric Emergency MedicinePrograms Positions Figure-6

Pediatric Emergency MedicineDedicated Time for Research Figure-7

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 252

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100% 96% 96%

56%

15%

85%

41%

U.S. Graduate OsteopathicPhysician

Canadian Fifth Pathway U.S. IMG Non-U.S. IMG

Percentage of Programs that Typically Interview and Rank Each Applicant Type

Figure-8Pediatric Emergency MedicineProgram's Interview Activities

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Rejected based on astandardized screening

process

In-depth review

34%

69%

Average Percentage of Applicants Rejected and Reviewed

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Number of applicationsreceived

Number of interviewinvitations sent

Number of applicantsinterviewed

61

2421

Average Number of Positions, Applications Received, InterviewInvitations Sent, and Applicants Interviewed and Ranked

N=28N=27N=29N=28

N=27

15% of Pediatric Emergency Medicine programs consider all applicant groups

N=28

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-USIMG

4%

73%

11%

38%

4% 15%

27%

67%

58%

46%93% 85%

22%42%

15%

Often Seldom Never

Interview

0%10%

20%

30%40%

50%60%

70%80%

90%100%

Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-USIMG

4%

72%

11% 4%

41%

4% 15%

28%

67%

50%

44%92% 85%

22%

46%

15%

Often Seldom Never

Ranking

n=26

Frequency of Programs Interviewing and Ranking Candidates

n=27

N=26

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%6%

41% 46%

6%1% 0%

Interview invitations

Interview Invitations Sent and Interviews Conducted

0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3%

33%

45%

14%

1%

Interviews conducted

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 253

Figure-9Pediatric Emergency MedicinePotential Challenges in Recruiting Applicants to Your Specialty

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

88%

33%

8%

0%

0%

We consider those applicants on an individual basis

We give those applicants serious consideration if they haveshown improvement

We do not usually consider those applicants

We favor those applicants

Other

0 1 2 3 4 5

Not enough applicants in the specialty

Undesirable income potential as a practicing physician

Undesirable work/life balance as a practicing physician

Long or irregular work hours required by specialty

Fellowship Match scheduled at inconvenient time of year

1.7

1.6

2.0

2.0

1.5

Average rating on a scale of 5 (1=least challenging; 5=most challenging)

n=25

17.9%Less than 3

32.1%3 to 5

21.4%6 to 10

14.3%11 to 15

14.3%More than

15

At Any Fellowship Program

20.0%Less than 3

28.0%3 to 5

24.0%6 to 10

12.0%11 to 15

16.0%More than 15

At Current Fellowship Program

n=24

n=28 n=25

Pediatric Emergency MedicineApplicants Who Applied in the Specialty in the Past But Did Not Match Figure-10

Pediatric Emergency MedicineYears as Program Director Figure-11

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 254

Pediatric Endocrinology

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 255

Pediatric EndocrinologyGeneral Information

Table 1

55

83

56

Number of programs in the Match

Number of positions in the Match

Number of applicants ranking specialty

41.8%Response rate

Appointment Years

Number of responses 23

Match Information*

* Source: NRMP Data Warehouse

2016 Survey

2016 2015 2014

57

85

75

60

84

71

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 256

Figure-1Pediatric EndocrinologyPercentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Selecting Applicants to Interview(N=19)

Average RatingPercent Citing Factor

¹ Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).* International Medical Graduates only

1 2 3 4 5

4.44.73.84.04.43.84.24.43.53.53.84.04.23.74.13.64.63.44.13.63.63.63.83.23.93.74.03.43.73.43.53.24.43.83.33.74.04.03.5

100% 50% 0%

95%89%95%95%95%89%95%74%74%63%68%68%68%63%68%63%53%63%79%63%58%53%32%53%47%42%68%58%32%42%32%53%37%37%16%16%32%11%11%

0%

Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialty

Residency performance evaluation (Program Director letter)

Reputation of residency program

Demonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research

Perceived commitment to specialty

Personal statement

Perceived interest in program

Evidence of professionalism and ethics

USMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score

Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chapters

USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE score

Leadership qualities

Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicant

Oral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements

Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institution

Pass USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PE

Any failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX

USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 score

Interest in academic career

Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based)

Clinical/laboratory research experience

Awards or special honors in medical school

Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership

Other life experience

Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter)

Graduate of highly‐regarded medical school

Visa status*

Volunteer/extracurricular experiences

Awarded grant money for research

Grades in medical school

Lack of gaps in medical education

Medical school class ranking/quartile

Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP

Electives at your fellowship site

Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membership

Residency class ranking/quartile

Fluency in language spoken by your patient population

In‐Training Examination (ITE)

Residency program size

Having finished another fellowship

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 257

Pediatric EndocrinologyPercentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Ranking Applicants(N=19)

Figure-2

Average RatingPercent Citing Factor

¹ Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).* International Medical Graduates only

1 2 3 4 5

4.74.74.44.94.44.44.44.03.74.64.63.64.14.74.54.34.14.04.04.54.24.24.04.03.83.63.33.14.53.84.34.43.64.24.53.73.3

3.53.04.54.04.0

4.02.0

100% 50% 0%

88%88%76%71%94%53%76%88%65%59%47%65%59%47%24%65%65%35%41%35%35%53%29%24%35%29%18%41%35%24%35%29%29%35%24%18%24%0%

24%6%

12%12%12%0%

12%6%

Interactions with faculty during interview and visitInterpersonal skills

Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialtyInteractions with house staff during interview and visit

Perceived commitment to specialtyFeedback from current residents and fellows

Perceived interest in programDemonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research

Reputation of residency programResidency performance evaluation (Program Director letter)

Evidence of professionalism and ethicsPersonal statement

Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicantLeadership qualities

Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chaptersInterest in academic career

Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institutionUSMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score

USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE scoreAny failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX

Passing USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PEClinical/laboratory research experience

USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 scoreOral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements

Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based)Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership

Other life experienceMedical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter)

Second interview/visitAwards or special honors in medical school

Visa status*Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP

Graduate of highly‐regarded medical schoolElectives at your fellowship site

Awarded grant money for researchVolunteer/extracurricular experiencesMedical school class ranking/quartile

Lack of gaps in medical educationGrades in medical school

Residency class ranking/quartileFluency in language spoken by your patient population

Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membershipResidency program size

In‐Training Examination (ITE)Second interview/visit

Having finished another fellowship

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 258

Pediatric EndocrinologyPrograms That Use USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) Scores When Considering Which Applicants to Interview

Figure-3

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 (CK) Score

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Never Seldom Often

11%

84%

5%

Would your program consider applicants who fail theexam on the first attempt?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Never Seldom often

21%

74%

5%

Would your program consider applicants who failthe exam on the first attempt?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

85%

15%

0%

Scores required?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

80%

15%

5%

Scores required?

N=20

N=19

N=20N=19

IQR* of Average USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 CK Scores Programs Consider When Granting Interviews

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 1 Score

*The boxes in the boxplots 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 x-shaped symbol is the mean.

Scores Above Which Programs Almost Always Grant Interviews

Scores Below Which Programs Generally Do Not Grant Interviews

USMLE Step 2 CK not reported

because of low response rate

USMLE Step 1 not reported because of low response

rate

USMLE Step 2 CK not reported

because of low response rate

USMLE Step 1 not reported because of low response

rate

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 259

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes No

95%

5%

USMLE Step 2 CS

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

75%

10%15%

USMLE Step 3

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

50%

7%

43%

COMLEX-USA Level 1*

Pediatric EndocrinologyPercentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 Clinical Skill (CS), Step 3, and COMLEX-USA Scores* When Considering Which Applicants to Interview

Figure-4

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

46%

15%

38%

COMLEX-USA Level 2-CE*

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

46%

8%

46%

COMLEX-USA Level 3*

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

54%

8%

38%

COMLEX-USA Level 2-PE*

N=20 N=20

N=14 N=13

N=13 N=13

* Osteopathic applicants only

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 CS and Step 3 Scores

Percentage of Programs That Use COMLEX-USA Level 1 and Level 2-CE Scores

Percentage of Programs That Use COMLEX-USA Level 2-PE and Level 3 Scores

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 260

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Never Seldom Often

14%

86%

0%

Would your program consider applicants who fail theexam on the first attempt?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No, not required

13%

0%

88%

Scores required?

N=7

N=8

4.3%Optional

95.7%Required

Program Requirement on Dedicated Time forResearch

N=23

0

4

8

12

16

20

24

Accredited Locally Funded Integrated Other

21

18

23

15

Average Number of Months if Research Time isRequired

N=10 N=6 N=3 N=2

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

Accredited Positions Funded Positions

3.1

2.6

Average Number of Accredited Positions and Funded Positions

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Positions Filled BeforeMatch Day

Positions Offered Outsidethe Match

Positions Filled Outsidethe Match

62%

51% 51%

Average Percentage of Accredited Positions Offered Outside ofthe Match

N=21 N=20 N=9 N=8 N=7

Pediatric EndocrinologyPrograms That Use Core Specialty Certifying Examination When Considering Applicants for Interview

Figure-5

Pediatric EndocrinologyPrograms Positions Figure-6

Pediatric EndocrinologyDedicated Time for Research Figure-7

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 261

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%100% 100%

60%

35%

95%

55%

U.S. Graduate OsteopathicPhysician

Canadian Fifth Pathway U.S. IMG Non-U.S. IMG

Percentage of Programs that Typically Interview and Rank Each Applicant Type

Figure-8Pediatric EndocrinologyProgram's Interview Activities

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Rejected based on astandardized screening

process

In-depth review

38%

62%

Average Percentage of Applicants Rejected and Reviewed

0

4

8

12

16

20

24

Number of applicationsreceived

Number of interviewinvitations sent

Number of applicantsinterviewed

22

108

Average Number of Positions, Applications Received, InterviewInvitations Sent, and Applicants Interviewed and Ranked

N=17N=18N=18N=18

N=20

35% of Pediatric Endocrinology programs consider all applicant groups

N=18

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-USIMG

5%

75%

35%

5%

35%15%

50%

25%

40%

60%15%

80%

50%

25%35%

50%

Often Seldom Never

Interview

0%10%

20%

30%40%

50%60%

70%80%

90%100%

Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-USIMG

5%

78%

37%

5%

40%15%

65%

22%

42%

65%15%

80%

35%21%

30%45%

Often Seldom Never

Ranking

n=20

Frequency of Programs Interviewing and Ranking Candidates

n=20

N=18

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

5%0% 0% 0% 0% 1%

21%29% 26%

11%1% 6%

Interview invitations

Interview Invitations Sent and Interviews Conducted

5% 4% 2% 0% 0% 0%5% 4%

23% 27%

13%3%

Interviews conducted

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 262

Figure-9Pediatric EndocrinologyPotential Challenges in Recruiting Applicants to Your Specialty

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

78%

22%

6%

0%

0%

We consider those applicants on an individual basis

We give those applicants serious consideration if they haveshown improvement

We do not usually consider those applicants

We favor those applicants

Other

0 1 2 3 4 5

Not enough applicants in the specialty

Undesirable income potential as a practicing physician

Undesirable work/life balance as a practicing physician

Long or irregular work hours required by specialty

Fellowship Match scheduled at inconvenient time of year

4.9

4.2

2.6

2.4

2.5

Average rating on a scale of 5 (1=least challenging; 5=most challenging)

n=16

25.0%Less than 3

25.0%3 to 5

25.0%6 to10

20.0%11 to 15

5.0%More than 15

At Any Fellowship Program

31.6%Less than 3

21.1%3 to 5

26.3%6 to 10

15.8%11 to 15

5.3%More than 15

At Current Fellowship Program

n=18

n=20 n=19

Pediatric EndocrinologyApplicants Who Applied in the Specialty in the Past But Did Not Match Figure-10

Pediatric EndocrinologyYears as Program Director Figure-11

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 263

Pediatric Gastroenterology

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 264

Pediatric GastroenterologyGeneral Information

Table 1

55

93

107

Number of programs in the Match

Number of positions in the Match

Number of applicants ranking specialty

42.6%Response rate

Appointment Years

Number of responses 23

Match Information*

* Source: NRMP Data Warehouse

2016 Survey

2016 2015 2014

51

85

117

52

84

97

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 265

Figure-1Pediatric GastroenterologyPercentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Selecting Applicants to Interview(N=18)

Average RatingPercent Citing Factor

¹ Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).* International Medical Graduates only

1 2 3 4 5

4.84.64.04.44.53.94.74.83.94.04.14.54.43.94.54.14.54.14.63.94.23.84.13.73.84.14.63.84.04.03.94.04.93.54.03.84.33.04.33.0

100% 50% 0%

100%100%

94%100%

94%83%72%83%94%72%94%61%78%78%72%83%67%83%89%83%72%72%56%39%78%61%39%33%67%39%44%56%39%67%39%44%33%17%67%17%

Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialty

Residency performance evaluation (Program Director letter)

Reputation of residency program

Demonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research

Perceived commitment to specialty

Personal statement

Perceived interest in program

Evidence of professionalism and ethics

USMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score

Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chapters

USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE score

Leadership qualities

Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicant

Oral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements

Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institution

Pass USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PE

Any failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX

USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 score

Interest in academic career

Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based)

Clinical/laboratory research experience

Awards or special honors in medical school

Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership

Other life experience

Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter)

Graduate of highly‐regarded medical school

Visa status*

Volunteer/extracurricular experiences

Awarded grant money for research

Grades in medical school

Lack of gaps in medical education

Medical school class ranking/quartile

Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP

Electives at your fellowship site

Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membership

Residency class ranking/quartile

Fluency in language spoken by your patient population

In‐Training Examination (ITE)

Residency program size

Having finished another fellowship

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 266

Pediatric GastroenterologyPercentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Ranking Applicants(N=18)

Figure-2

Average RatingPercent Citing Factor

¹ Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).* International Medical Graduates only

1 2 3 4 5

4.94.84.74.84.84.84.84.54.44.74.84.14.64.94.44.74.64.24.34.74.24.44.14.34.54.34.04.34.54.14.64.84.04.14.34.04.44.54.23.84.74.04.14.05.04.0

100% 50% 0%

94%94%94%81%75%69%88%88%88%81%81%63%56%56%50%81%69%69%63%56%63%69%50%44%63%38%19%44%13%56%44%38%50%69%50%13%31%13%38%38%19%19%44%6%6%6%

Interactions with faculty during interview and visitInterpersonal skills

Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialtyInteractions with house staff during interview and visit

Perceived commitment to specialtyFeedback from current residents and fellows

Perceived interest in programDemonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research

Reputation of residency programResidency performance evaluation (Program Director letter)

Evidence of professionalism and ethicsPersonal statement

Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicantLeadership qualities

Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chaptersInterest in academic career

Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institutionUSMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score

USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE scoreAny failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX

Passing USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PEClinical/laboratory research experience

USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 scoreOral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements

Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based)Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership

Other life experienceMedical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter)

Second interview/visitAwards or special honors in medical school

Visa status*Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP

Graduate of highly‐regarded medical schoolElectives at your fellowship site

Awarded grant money for researchVolunteer/extracurricular experiencesMedical school class ranking/quartile

Lack of gaps in medical educationGrades in medical school

Residency class ranking/quartileFluency in language spoken by your patient population

Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membershipResidency program size

In‐Training Examination (ITE)Second interview/visit

Having finished another fellowship

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 267

170

180

190

200

210

220

230

240

250

260

Pediatric GastroenterologyPrograms That Use USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) Scores When Considering Which Applicants to Interview

Figure-3

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 (CK) Score

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Never Seldom Often

11%

67%

22%

Would your program consider applicants who fail theexam on the first attempt?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Never Seldom often

17%

61%

22%

Would your program consider applicants who failthe exam on the first attempt?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

56%

44%

0%

Scores required?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

50% 50%

0%

Scores required?

N=18

N=18

N=18N=18

N=5N=5 N=5 N=5

IQR* of Average USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 CK Scores Programs Consider When Granting Interviews

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 1 Score

170

180

190

200

210

220

230

240

250

260

USMLE Step 2 CKUSMLE Step 1 USMLE Step 1 USMLE Step 2 CK

*The boxes in the boxplots 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 x-shaped symbol is the mean.

Scores Above Which Programs Almost Always Grant Interviews

Scores Below Which Programs Generally Do Not Grant Interviews

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 268

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes No

100%

0%

USMLE Step 2 CS

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

44%39%

17%

USMLE Step 3

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

56%

31%

13%

COMLEX-USA Level 1*

Pediatric GastroenterologyPercentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 Clinical Skill (CS), Step 3, and COMLEX-USA Scores* When Considering Which Applicants to Interview

Figure-4

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

50%

38%

13%

COMLEX-USA Level 2-CE*

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

44%

31%25%

COMLEX-USA Level 3*

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

47%40%

13%

COMLEX-USA Level 2-PE*

N=18 N=18

N=16 N=16

N=15 N=16

* Osteopathic applicants only

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 CS and Step 3 Scores

Percentage of Programs That Use COMLEX-USA Level 1 and Level 2-CE Scores

Percentage of Programs That Use COMLEX-USA Level 2-PE and Level 3 Scores

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 269

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Never Seldom Often

0%

83%

17%

Would your program consider applicants who fail theexam on the first attempt?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No, not required

29%

0%

71%

Scores required?

N=6

N=7

17.4%Optional

82.6%Required

Program Requirement on Dedicated Time forResearch

N=23

0

4

8

12

16

20

24

Accredited Locally Funded Integrated Other

2322

16

Average Number of Months if Research Time isRequired

N=11 N=5 N=0 N=2

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

Accredited Positions Funded Positions

3.3

2.8

Average Number of Accredited Positions and Funded Positions

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Positions Filled BeforeMatch Day

Positions Offered Outsidethe Match

Positions Filled Outsidethe Match

75%

37% 37%

Average Percentage of Accredited Positions Offered Outside ofthe Match

N=23 N=23 N=4 N=3 N=3

Pediatric GastroenterologyPrograms That Use Core Specialty Certifying Examination When Considering Applicants for Interview

Figure-5

Pediatric GastroenterologyPrograms Positions Figure-6

Pediatric GastroenterologyDedicated Time for Research Figure-7

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 270

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100% 94%100%

82%

41%

100%

82%

U.S. Graduate OsteopathicPhysician

Canadian Fifth Pathway U.S. IMG Non-U.S. IMG

Percentage of Programs that Typically Interview and Rank Each Applicant Type

Figure-8Pediatric GastroenterologyProgram's Interview Activities

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Rejected based on astandardized screening

process

In-depth review

34%

60%

Average Percentage of Applicants Rejected and Reviewed

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Number of applicationsreceived

Number of interviewinvitations sent

Number of applicantsinterviewed

56

1916

Average Number of Positions, Applications Received, InterviewInvitations Sent, and Applicants Interviewed and Ranked

N=22N=22N=22N=22

N=17

41% of Pediatric Gastroenterology programs consider all applicant groups

N=22

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-USIMG

6%

63%

24%12%6%

29%

31%

53%

35%

53%

88%71%

6%24%

65%

35%

Often Seldom Never

Interview

0%10%

20%

30%40%

50%60%

70%80%

90%100%

Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-USIMG

6%

73%

25%13%6%

44%

27%

56%

44%

56%

88%

56%

19%

56%

31%

Often Seldom Never

Ranking

n=16

Frequency of Programs Interviewing and Ranking Candidates

n=17

N=13

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

50%

14% 12% 8%0% 0% 0% 4% 4% 6% 2% 0%

Interview invitations

Interview Invitations Sent and Interviews Conducted

16%

30%20%

9%0% 0% 0% 3% 3% 0% 0% 0%

Interviews conducted

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 271

Figure-9Pediatric GastroenterologyPotential Challenges in Recruiting Applicants to Your Specialty

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

82%

29%

12%

6%

0%

We consider those applicants on an individual basis

We give those applicants serious consideration if they haveshown improvement

We do not usually consider those applicants

We favor those applicants

Other

0 1 2 3 4 5

Not enough applicants in the specialty

Undesirable income potential as a practicing physician

Undesirable work/life balance as a practicing physician

Long or irregular work hours required by specialty

Fellowship Match scheduled at inconvenient time of year

2.0

2.4

2.6

2.8

2.3

Average rating on a scale of 5 (1=least challenging; 5=most challenging)

n=17

21.1%Less than

3

10.5%3 to 5

31.6%6 to 10

15.8%11 to

15

21.1%More than 15

At Any Fellowship Program

21.1%Less than 3

15.8%3 to

5

31.6%6 to 10

21.1%11 to

15

10.5%More than

15

At Current Fellowship Program

n=17

n=19 n=19

Pediatric GastroenterologyApplicants Who Applied in the Specialty in the Past But Did Not Match Figure-10

Pediatric GastroenterologyYears as Program Director Figure-11

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 272

Pediatric Hematology/Oncology

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 273

Pediatric Hematology/OncologyGeneral Information

Table 1

67

164

201

Number of programs in the Match

Number of positions in the Match

Number of applicants ranking specialty

62.7%Response rate

Appointment Years

Number of responses 42

Match Information*

* Source: NRMP Data Warehouse

2016 Survey

2016 2015 2014

65

162

181

62

157

178

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 274

Figure-1Pediatric Hematology/OncologyPercentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Selecting Applicants to Interview(N=39)

Average RatingPercent Citing Factor

¹ Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).* International Medical Graduates only

1 2 3 4 5

4.44.34.34.44.84.24.34.63.74.23.74.34.13.93.93.94.63.74.64.24.33.73.83.43.74.04.13.63.93.43.53.64.83.73.53.62.84.33.73.0

100% 50% 0%

95%82%85%95%87%77%67%67%74%79%72%72%77%87%77%67%82%59%82%67%79%54%62%69%64%62%56%54%59%44%38%41%41%44%28%33%26%10%62%

8%

Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialty

Residency performance evaluation (Program Director letter)

Reputation of residency program

Demonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research

Perceived commitment to specialty

Personal statement

Perceived interest in program

Evidence of professionalism and ethics

USMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score

Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chapters

USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE score

Leadership qualities

Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicant

Oral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements

Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institution

Pass USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PE

Any failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX

USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 score

Interest in academic career

Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based)

Clinical/laboratory research experience

Awards or special honors in medical school

Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership

Other life experience

Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter)

Graduate of highly‐regarded medical school

Visa status*

Volunteer/extracurricular experiences

Awarded grant money for research

Grades in medical school

Lack of gaps in medical education

Medical school class ranking/quartile

Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP

Electives at your fellowship site

Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membership

Residency class ranking/quartile

Fluency in language spoken by your patient population

In‐Training Examination (ITE)

Residency program size

Having finished another fellowship

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 275

Pediatric Hematology/OncologyPercentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Ranking Applicants(N=39)

Figure-2

Average RatingPercent Citing Factor

¹ Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).* International Medical Graduates only

1 2 3 4 5

4.94.94.64.74.64.54.34.64.34.64.94.14.34.54.34.83.94.14.14.74.24.34.14.04.14.04.04.14.13.94.34.94.24.34.23.63.94.14.13.93.24.14.04.54.12.5

100% 50% 0%

97%94%94%75%92%86%86%94%81%69%81%69%69%69%75%78%50%58%58%64%58%81%50%75%58%56%42%47%47%50%44%42%44%33%53%39%42%28%19%25%17%19%53%6%

22%6%

Interactions with faculty during interview and visitInterpersonal skills

Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialtyInteractions with house staff during interview and visit

Perceived commitment to specialtyFeedback from current residents and fellows

Perceived interest in programDemonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research

Reputation of residency programResidency performance evaluation (Program Director letter)

Evidence of professionalism and ethicsPersonal statement

Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicantLeadership qualities

Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chaptersInterest in academic career

Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institutionUSMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score

USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE scoreAny failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX

Passing USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PEClinical/laboratory research experience

USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 scoreOral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements

Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based)Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership

Other life experienceMedical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter)

Second interview/visitAwards or special honors in medical school

Visa status*Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP

Graduate of highly‐regarded medical schoolElectives at your fellowship site

Awarded grant money for researchVolunteer/extracurricular experiencesMedical school class ranking/quartile

Lack of gaps in medical educationGrades in medical school

Residency class ranking/quartileFluency in language spoken by your patient population

Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membershipResidency program size

In‐Training Examination (ITE)Second interview/visit

Having finished another fellowship

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 276

170

180

190

200

210

220

230

240

250

260

Pediatric Hematology/OncologyPrograms That Use USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) Scores When Considering Which Applicants to Interview

Figure-3

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 (CK) Score

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Never Seldom Often

16%

79%

5%

Would your program consider applicants who fail theexam on the first attempt?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Never Seldom often

24%

71%

5%

Would your program consider applicants who failthe exam on the first attempt?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

64%

28%

8%

Scores required?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

64%

28%

8%

Scores required?

N=39

N=38

N=39N=38

N=8N=9 N=9 N=9

IQR* of Average USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 CK Scores Programs Consider When Granting Interviews

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 1 Score

170

180

190

200

210

220

230

240

250

260

USMLE Step 2 CKUSMLE Step 1 USMLE Step 1 USMLE Step 2 CK

*The boxes in the boxplots 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 x-shaped symbol is the mean.

Scores Above Which Programs Almost Always Grant Interviews

Scores Below Which Programs Generally Do Not Grant Interviews

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 277

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes No

92%

8%

USMLE Step 2 CS

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

62%

22%16%

USMLE Step 3

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

52%

31%

17%

COMLEX-USA Level 1*

Pediatric Hematology/OncologyPercentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 Clinical Skill (CS), Step 3, and COMLEX-USA Scores* When Considering Which Applicants to Interview

Figure-4

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

52%

31%

17%

COMLEX-USA Level 2-CE*

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

57%

21% 21%

COMLEX-USA Level 3*

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

57%

25%18%

COMLEX-USA Level 2-PE*

N=38 N=37

N=29 N=29

N=28 N=28

* Osteopathic applicants only

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 CS and Step 3 Scores

Percentage of Programs That Use COMLEX-USA Level 1 and Level 2-CE Scores

Percentage of Programs That Use COMLEX-USA Level 2-PE and Level 3 Scores

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 278

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Never Seldom Often

38%

63%

0%

Would your program consider applicants who fail theexam on the first attempt?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No, not required

7%0%

93%

Scores required?

N=8

N=14

14.3%Optional

85.7%Required

Program Requirement on Dedicated Time forResearch

N=42

0

4

8

12

16

20

24

Accredited Locally Funded Integrated Other

21

15

17

22

Average Number of Months if Research Time isRequired

N=23 N=4 N=7 N=5

0

1

2

3

4

5

Accredited Positions Funded Positions

4.74.5

Average Number of Accredited Positions and Funded Positions

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Positions Filled BeforeMatch Day

Positions Offered Outsidethe Match

Positions Filled Outsidethe Match

70%75% 75%

Average Percentage of Accredited Positions Offered Outside ofthe Match

N=42 N=40 N=3 N=2 N=2

Pediatric Hematology/OncologyPrograms That Use Core Specialty Certifying Examination When Considering Applicants for Interview

Figure-5

Pediatric Hematology/OncologyPrograms Positions Figure-6

Pediatric Hematology/OncologyDedicated Time for Research Figure-7

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 279

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100% 95% 95%

68%

33%

83%

73%

U.S. Graduate OsteopathicPhysician

Canadian Fifth Pathway U.S. IMG Non-U.S. IMG

Percentage of Programs that Typically Interview and Rank Each Applicant Type

Figure-8Pediatric Hematology/OncologyProgram's Interview Activities

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Rejected based on astandardized screening

process

In-depth review

36%

76%

Average Percentage of Applicants Rejected and Reviewed

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Number of applicationsreceived

Number of interviewinvitations sent

Number of applicantsinterviewed

62

2320

Average Number of Positions, Applications Received, InterviewInvitations Sent, and Applicants Interviewed and Ranked

N=41N=41N=41N=41

N=40

33% of Pediatric Hematology/Oncology programs consider all applicant groups

N=41

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-USIMG

3% 3%

68%

21%5%

16%3%21%

24%

45%

51%42%

95%77%

8%

34%44% 42%

Often Seldom Never

Interview

0%10%

20%

30%40%

50%60%

70%80%

90%100%

Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-USIMG

3% 5%

69%

22%8%

16%3%

24%

25%

46%58%

54%95%

71%

6%

32% 34% 30%

Often Seldom Never

Ranking

n=38

Frequency of Programs Interviewing and Ranking Candidates

n=39

N=39

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

78%

11%2% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

8%

Interview invitations

Interview Invitations Sent and Interviews Conducted

22%33% 30%

8%1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3%

Interviews conducted

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 280

Figure-9Pediatric Hematology/OncologyPotential Challenges in Recruiting Applicants to Your Specialty

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

59%

18%

29%

0%

3%

We consider those applicants on an individual basis

We give those applicants serious consideration if they haveshown improvement

We do not usually consider those applicants

We favor those applicants

Other

0 1 2 3 4 5

Not enough applicants in the specialty

Undesirable income potential as a practicing physician

Undesirable work/life balance as a practicing physician

Long or irregular work hours required by specialty

Fellowship Match scheduled at inconvenient time of year

1.5

2.8

3.6

3.1

2.6

Average rating on a scale of 5 (1=least challenging; 5=most challenging)

n=35

20.6%Less than 3

32.4%3 to 5

32.4%6 to 10

5.9%11 to 158.8%

More than 15

At Any Fellowship Program

23.5%Less than 3

35.3%3 to 5

26.5%6 to 10

5.9%11 to 158.8%

More than 15

At Current Fellowship Program

n=34

n=34 n=34

Pediatric Hematology/OncologyApplicants Who Applied in the Specialty in the Past But Did Not Match Figure-10

Pediatric Hematology/OncologyYears as Program Director Figure-11

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 281

Pediatric Hospital Medicine

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 282

Pediatric Hospital MedicineGeneral Information

Table 1

30

38

38

Number of programs in the Match

Number of positions in the Match

Number of applicants ranking specialty

41.4%Response rate

Appointment Years

Number of responses 12

Match Information*

* Source: NRMP Data Warehouse

2016 Survey

2016 2015 2014

24

30

37

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 283

Figure-1Pediatric Hospital MedicinePercentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Selecting Applicants to Interview(N=12)

Average RatingPercent Citing Factor

¹ Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).* International Medical Graduates only

1 2 3 4 5

4.54.43.73.64.84.34.34.83.04.03.24.43.83.83.83.53.03.24.13.52.73.53.03.3

3.43.83.53.03.73.54.04.2

3.33.02.74.03.7

100% 50% 0%

92%92%83%75%92%92%

100%92%50%42%58%75%

100%50%58%58%42%50%92%58%33%42%67%42%

8%50%75%42%17%33%17%17%58%

0%42%

8%25%

8%33%

0%

Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialty

Residency performance evaluation (Program Director letter)

Reputation of residency program

Demonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research

Perceived commitment to specialty

Personal statement

Perceived interest in program

Evidence of professionalism and ethics

USMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score

Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chapters

USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE score

Leadership qualities

Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicant

Oral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements

Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institution

Pass USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PE

Any failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX

USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 score

Interest in academic career

Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based)

Clinical/laboratory research experience

Awards or special honors in medical school

Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership

Other life experience

Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter)

Graduate of highly‐regarded medical school

Visa status*

Volunteer/extracurricular experiences

Awarded grant money for research

Grades in medical school

Lack of gaps in medical education

Medical school class ranking/quartile

Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP

Electives at your fellowship site

Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membership

Residency class ranking/quartile

Fluency in language spoken by your patient population

In‐Training Examination (ITE)

Residency program size

Having finished another fellowship

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 284

Pediatric Hospital MedicinePercentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Ranking Applicants(N=12)

Figure-2

Average RatingPercent Citing Factor

¹ Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).* International Medical Graduates only

1 2 3 4 5

4.94.94.34.64.84.65.03.63.64.84.64.34.84.64.04.34.05.05.03.04.02.05.03.03.34.03.74.04.24.04.04.73.04.0

3.74.04.0

2.04.53.73.54.5

100% 50% 0%

82%82%82%45%91%73%64%73%55%82%73%73%36%64%9%

73%27%9%9%

18%18%9%9%9%

36%9%

27%9%

45%9%

36%27%9%9%0%

27%9%9%0%0%9%

18%36%18%18%0%

Interactions with faculty during interview and visitInterpersonal skills

Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialtyInteractions with house staff during interview and visit

Perceived commitment to specialtyFeedback from current residents and fellows

Perceived interest in programDemonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research

Reputation of residency programResidency performance evaluation (Program Director letter)

Evidence of professionalism and ethicsPersonal statement

Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicantLeadership qualities

Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chaptersInterest in academic career

Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institutionUSMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score

USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE scoreAny failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX

Passing USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PEClinical/laboratory research experience

USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 scoreOral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements

Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based)Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership

Other life experienceMedical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter)

Second interview/visitAwards or special honors in medical school

Visa status*Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP

Graduate of highly‐regarded medical schoolElectives at your fellowship site

Awarded grant money for researchVolunteer/extracurricular experiencesMedical school class ranking/quartile

Lack of gaps in medical educationGrades in medical school

Residency class ranking/quartileFluency in language spoken by your patient population

Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membershipResidency program size

In‐Training Examination (ITE)Second interview/visit

Having finished another fellowship

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 285

Pediatric Hospital MedicinePrograms That Use USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) Scores When Considering Which Applicants to Interview

Figure-3

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 (CK) Score

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Never Seldom Often

8%

67%

25%

Would your program consider applicants who fail theexam on the first attempt?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Never Seldom often

8%

75%

17%

Would your program consider applicants who failthe exam on the first attempt?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

83%

8% 8%

Scores required?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

83%

8% 8%

Scores required?

N=12

N=12

N=12N=12

IQR* of Average USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 CK Scores Programs Consider When Granting Interviews

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 1 Score

*The boxes in the boxplots 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 x-shaped symbol is the mean.

Scores Above Which Programs Almost Always Grant Interviews

Scores Below Which Programs Generally Do Not Grant Interviews

USMLE Step 2 CK not reported

because of low response rate

USMLE Step 1 not reported because of low response

rate

USMLE Step 2 CK not reported

because of low response rate

USMLE Step 1 not reported because of low response

rate

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 286

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes No

92%

8%

USMLE Step 2 CS

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

92%

0%

8%

USMLE Step 3

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

82%

0%

18%

COMLEX-USA Level 1*

Pediatric Hospital MedicinePercentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 Clinical Skill (CS), Step 3, and COMLEX-USA Scores* When Considering Which Applicants to Interview

Figure-4

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

73%

9%

18%

COMLEX-USA Level 2-CE*

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

82%

0%

18%

COMLEX-USA Level 3*

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

82%

0%

18%

COMLEX-USA Level 2-PE*

N=12 N=12

N=11 N=11

N=11 N=11

* Osteopathic applicants only

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 CS and Step 3 Scores

Percentage of Programs That Use COMLEX-USA Level 1 and Level 2-CE Scores

Percentage of Programs That Use COMLEX-USA Level 2-PE and Level 3 Scores

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 287

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Never Seldom Often

33% 33% 33%

Would your program consider applicants who fail theexam on the first attempt?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No, not required

0% 0%

100%

Scores required?

N=3

N=6

16.7%Optional

83.3%Required

Program Requirement on Dedicated Time forResearch

N=12

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Accredited Locally Funded Integrated Other

8

11

6

7

Average Number of Months if Research Time isRequired

N=1 N=3 N=3 N=3

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

Accredited Positions Funded Positions

1.3 1.4

Average Number of Accredited Positions and Funded Positions

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Positions Filled BeforeMatch Day

Positions Offered Outsidethe Match

Positions Filled Outsidethe Match

100%

Average Percentage of Accredited Positions Offered Outside ofthe Match

N=12 N=11 N=2 N=0 N=0

Pediatric Hospital MedicinePrograms That Use Core Specialty Certifying Examination When Considering Applicants for Interview

Figure-5

Pediatric Hospital MedicinePrograms Positions Figure-6

Pediatric Hospital MedicineDedicated Time for Research Figure-7

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 288

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%100% 100%

50% 50%

75%

42%

U.S. Graduate OsteopathicPhysician

Canadian Fifth Pathway U.S. IMG Non-U.S. IMG

Percentage of Programs that Typically Interview and Rank Each Applicant Type

Figure-8Pediatric Hospital MedicineProgram's Interview Activities

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Rejected based on astandardized screening

process

In-depth review

8%

96%

Average Percentage of Applicants Rejected and Reviewed

0

2

4

6

8

10

Number of applicationsreceived

Number of interviewinvitations sent

Number of applicantsinterviewed

9

76

Average Number of Positions, Applications Received, InterviewInvitations Sent, and Applicants Interviewed and Ranked

N=11N=11N=11N=11

N=12

42% of Pediatric Hospital Medicine programs consider all applicant groups

N=11

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-USIMG

75%58% 58%

8%

25%

33%

67%

25%

100%92%

8%

33%17%

Often Seldom Never

Interview

0%10%

20%

30%40%

50%60%

70%80%

90%100%

Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-USIMG

73%55% 58%

8%

27%

36%

67%

25%

100%92%

9%

33%17%

Often Seldom Never

Ranking

n=12

Frequency of Programs Interviewing and Ranking Candidates

n=12

N=12

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

0%8%

0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

15%

43%33%

1% 0%

Interview invitations

Interview Invitations Sent and Interviews Conducted

0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2%

21%

35% 32%

0%

Interviews conducted

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 289

Figure-9Pediatric Hospital MedicinePotential Challenges in Recruiting Applicants to Your Specialty

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

100%

22%

0%

0%

0%

We consider those applicants on an individual basis

We give those applicants serious consideration if they haveshown improvement

We do not usually consider those applicants

We favor those applicants

Other

0 1 2 3 4 5

Not enough applicants in the specialty

Undesirable income potential as a practicing physician

Undesirable work/life balance as a practicing physician

Long or irregular work hours required by specialty

Fellowship Match scheduled at inconvenient time of year

2.8

2.6

2.2

2.4

1.6

Average rating on a scale of 5 (1=least challenging; 5=most challenging)

n=10

58.3%Less than 3

33.3%3 to 5

8.3%6 to 10

At Any Fellowship Program

58.3%Less than 3

33.3%3 to

5

8.3%6 to 10

At Current Fellowship Program

n=9

n=12 n=12

Pediatric Hospital MedicineApplicants Who Applied in the Specialty in the Past But Did Not Match Figure-10

Pediatric Hospital MedicineYears as Program Director Figure-11

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 290

Pediatric Infectious Diseases

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 291

Pediatric Infectious DiseasesGeneral Information

Table 1

53

70

49

Number of programs in the Match

Number of positions in the Match

Number of applicants ranking specialty

56.9%Response rate

Appointment Years

Number of responses 29

Match Information*

* Source: NRMP Data Warehouse

2016 Survey

2016 2015 2014

51

66

34

48

64

48

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 292

Figure-1Pediatric Infectious DiseasesPercentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Selecting Applicants to Interview(N=24)

Average RatingPercent Citing Factor

¹ Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).* International Medical Graduates only

1 2 3 4 5

4.34.54.04.04.63.84.34.63.63.63.64.13.83.53.73.84.23.64.54.03.63.53.63.43.53.63.83.03.33.33.33.44.73.63.33.43.53.03.63.0

100% 50% 0%

100%100%

92%92%

100%100%

83%83%71%92%75%71%54%83%54%67%58%50%96%63%88%63%54%46%50%63%67%29%63%38%42%38%38%29%17%21%25%

8%33%

8%

Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialty

Residency performance evaluation (Program Director letter)

Reputation of residency program

Demonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research

Perceived commitment to specialty

Personal statement

Perceived interest in program

Evidence of professionalism and ethics

USMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score

Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chapters

USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE score

Leadership qualities

Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicant

Oral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements

Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institution

Pass USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PE

Any failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX

USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 score

Interest in academic career

Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based)

Clinical/laboratory research experience

Awards or special honors in medical school

Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership

Other life experience

Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter)

Graduate of highly‐regarded medical school

Visa status*

Volunteer/extracurricular experiences

Awarded grant money for research

Grades in medical school

Lack of gaps in medical education

Medical school class ranking/quartile

Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP

Electives at your fellowship site

Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membership

Residency class ranking/quartile

Fluency in language spoken by your patient population

In‐Training Examination (ITE)

Residency program size

Having finished another fellowship

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 293

Pediatric Infectious DiseasesPercentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Ranking Applicants(N=24)

Figure-2

Average RatingPercent Citing Factor

¹ Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).* International Medical Graduates only

1 2 3 4 5

4.94.74.34.74.74.64.54.03.94.44.74.24.24.13.64.64.13.73.84.54.04.03.93.74.03.63.03.74.13.74.04.63.63.03.63.33.34.03.33.74.03.83.83.04.03.0

100% 50% 0%

88%92%

100%71%88%75%79%83%79%83%63%71%50%58%58%88%29%63%67%46%54%63%46%42%42%42%29%46%33%38%33%21%50%25%42%29%29%17%33%13%21%25%25%13%13%8%

Interactions with faculty during interview and visitInterpersonal skills

Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialtyInteractions with house staff during interview and visit

Perceived commitment to specialtyFeedback from current residents and fellows

Perceived interest in programDemonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research

Reputation of residency programResidency performance evaluation (Program Director letter)

Evidence of professionalism and ethicsPersonal statement

Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicantLeadership qualities

Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chaptersInterest in academic career

Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institutionUSMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score

USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE scoreAny failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX

Passing USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PEClinical/laboratory research experience

USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 scoreOral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements

Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based)Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership

Other life experienceMedical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter)

Second interview/visitAwards or special honors in medical school

Visa status*Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP

Graduate of highly‐regarded medical schoolElectives at your fellowship site

Awarded grant money for researchVolunteer/extracurricular experiencesMedical school class ranking/quartile

Lack of gaps in medical educationGrades in medical school

Residency class ranking/quartileFluency in language spoken by your patient population

Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membershipResidency program size

In‐Training Examination (ITE)Second interview/visit

Having finished another fellowship

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 294

Pediatric Infectious DiseasesPrograms That Use USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) Scores When Considering Which Applicants to Interview

Figure-3

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 (CK) Score

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Never Seldom Often

4%

87%

9%

Would your program consider applicants who fail theexam on the first attempt?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Never Seldom often

26%

65%

9%

Would your program consider applicants who failthe exam on the first attempt?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

74%

22%

4%

Scores required?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

75%

21%

4%

Scores required?

N=23

N=23

N=24N=23

IQR* of Average USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 CK Scores Programs Consider When Granting Interviews

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 1 Score

*The boxes in the boxplots 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 x-shaped symbol is the mean.

Scores Above Which Programs Almost Always Grant Interviews

Scores Below Which Programs Generally Do Not Grant Interviews

USMLE Step 2 CK not reported

because of low response rate

USMLE Step 1 not reported because of low response

rate

USMLE Step 2 CK not reported

because of low response rate

USMLE Step 1 not reported because of low response

rate

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 295

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes No

96%

4%

USMLE Step 2 CS

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

58%

13%

29%

USMLE Step 3

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

53%

12%

35%

COMLEX-USA Level 1*

Pediatric Infectious DiseasesPercentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 Clinical Skill (CS), Step 3, and COMLEX-USA Scores* When Considering Which Applicants to Interview

Figure-4

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

59%

6%

35%

COMLEX-USA Level 2-CE*

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

41%

6%

53%

COMLEX-USA Level 3*

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

53%

6%

41%

COMLEX-USA Level 2-PE*

N=24 N=24

N=17 N=17

N=17 N=17

* Osteopathic applicants only

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 CS and Step 3 Scores

Percentage of Programs That Use COMLEX-USA Level 1 and Level 2-CE Scores

Percentage of Programs That Use COMLEX-USA Level 2-PE and Level 3 Scores

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 296

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Never Seldom Often

50% 50%

0%

Would your program consider applicants who fail theexam on the first attempt?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No, not required

0% 0%

100%

Scores required?

N=10

N=14

3.4%Optional

96.6%Required

Program Requirement on Dedicated Time forResearch

N=29

0

4

8

12

16

20

24

Accredited Locally Funded Integrated Other

21

1819

22

Average Number of Months if Research Time isRequired

N=16 N=4 N=4 N=5

0.0

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.6

2.0

2.4

2.8

3.2

Accredited Positions Funded Positions

2.9

2.6

Average Number of Accredited Positions and Funded Positions

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Positions Filled BeforeMatch Day

Positions Offered Outsidethe Match

Positions Filled Outsidethe Match

57%

32% 31%

Average Percentage of Accredited Positions Offered Outside ofthe Match

N=28 N=27 N=10 N=5 N=4

Pediatric Infectious DiseasesPrograms That Use Core Specialty Certifying Examination When Considering Applicants for Interview

Figure-5

Pediatric Infectious DiseasesPrograms Positions Figure-6

Pediatric Infectious DiseasesDedicated Time for Research Figure-7

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 297

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%100% 96%

69%

42%

73%

62%

U.S. Graduate OsteopathicPhysician

Canadian Fifth Pathway U.S. IMG Non-U.S. IMG

Percentage of Programs that Typically Interview and Rank Each Applicant Type

Figure-8Pediatric Infectious DiseasesProgram's Interview Activities

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Rejected based on astandardized screening

process

In-depth review

25%

76%

Average Percentage of Applicants Rejected and Reviewed

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Number of applicationsreceived

Number of interviewinvitations sent

Number of applicantsinterviewed

15

87

Average Number of Positions, Applications Received, InterviewInvitations Sent, and Applicants Interviewed and Ranked

N=24N=24N=26N=25

N=26

42% of Pediatric Infectious Diseases programs consider all applicant groups

N=25

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-USIMG

8%

68%

35%

8%19%4%

58%

32%

50%

65%62%

88%

42%

15%27% 19%

Often Seldom Never

Interview

0%10%

20%

30%40%

50%60%

70%80%

90%100%

Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-USIMG

8% 8%

68%

31%

8%23%8%

54%

32%

46%

58%

58%85%

38%23%

35%19%

Often Seldom Never

Ranking

n=26

Frequency of Programs Interviewing and Ranking Candidates

n=26

N=23

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

4% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

15%

38%29%

11%3% 0%

Interview invitations

Interview Invitations Sent and Interviews Conducted

4% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1%

12%

27%34%

9% 6%

Interviews conducted

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 298

Figure-9Pediatric Infectious DiseasesPotential Challenges in Recruiting Applicants to Your Specialty

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

92%

17%

8%

0%

0%

We consider those applicants on an individual basis

We give those applicants serious consideration if they haveshown improvement

We do not usually consider those applicants

We favor those applicants

Other

0 1 2 3 4 5

Not enough applicants in the specialty

Undesirable income potential as a practicing physician

Undesirable work/life balance as a practicing physician

Long or irregular work hours required by specialty

Fellowship Match scheduled at inconvenient time of year

4.8

4.7

2.7

2.0

1.6

Average rating on a scale of 5 (1=least challenging; 5=most challenging)

n=24

17.9%Less than 3

25.0%3 to 5

35.7%6 to 10

3.6%11 to

15

17.9%More than 15

At Any Fellowship Program

18.5%Less than 3

25.9%3 to 5

37.0%6 to 10

3.7%11 to 15

14.8%More than

15

At Current Fellowship Program

n=24

n=28 n=27

Pediatric Infectious DiseasesApplicants Who Applied in the Specialty in the Past But Did Not Match Figure-10

Pediatric Infectious DiseasesYears as Program Director Figure-11

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 299

Pediatric Nephrology

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 300

Pediatric NephrologyGeneral Information

Table 1

41

62

28

Number of programs in the Match

Number of positions in the Match

Number of applicants ranking specialty

41.5%Response rate

Appointment Years

Number of responses 17

Match Information*

* Source: NRMP Data Warehouse

2016 Survey

2016 2015 2014

39

58

23

42

61

37

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 301

Figure-1Pediatric NephrologyPercentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Selecting Applicants to Interview(N=15)

Average RatingPercent Citing Factor

¹ Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).* International Medical Graduates only

1 2 3 4 5

4.54.83.63.94.43.94.24.43.53.53.54.04.53.24.43.64.13.44.44.03.83.63.83.63.33.64.43.33.53.34.23.45.03.33.03.73.74.33.72.5

100% 50% 0%

100%87%73%93%87%73%87%73%87%67%80%33%53%67%80%87%53%67%73%53%87%73%40%33%87%33%73%27%67%60%33%47%27%27%20%20%40%27%20%13%

Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialty

Residency performance evaluation (Program Director letter)

Reputation of residency program

Demonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research

Perceived commitment to specialty

Personal statement

Perceived interest in program

Evidence of professionalism and ethics

USMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score

Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chapters

USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE score

Leadership qualities

Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicant

Oral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements

Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institution

Pass USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PE

Any failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX

USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 score

Interest in academic career

Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based)

Clinical/laboratory research experience

Awards or special honors in medical school

Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership

Other life experience

Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter)

Graduate of highly‐regarded medical school

Visa status*

Volunteer/extracurricular experiences

Awarded grant money for research

Grades in medical school

Lack of gaps in medical education

Medical school class ranking/quartile

Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP

Electives at your fellowship site

Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membership

Residency class ranking/quartile

Fluency in language spoken by your patient population

In‐Training Examination (ITE)

Residency program size

Having finished another fellowship

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 302

Pediatric NephrologyPercentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Ranking Applicants(N=15)

Figure-2

Average RatingPercent Citing Factor

¹ Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).* International Medical Graduates only

1 2 3 4 5

4.84.74.54.84.54.84.33.73.84.54.43.64.54.33.84.34.43.33.44.03.53.63.74.04.03.04.03.83.83.74.15.03.83.83.43.73.03.53.73.63.63.53.04.04.52.0

100% 50% 0%

100%100%73%87%93%73%73%87%60%67%60%47%40%20%53%67%67%27%33%33%40%73%20%33%27%20%20%33%40%40%60%20%33%40%53%20%20%27%20%33%33%13%13%20%13%7%

Interactions with faculty during interview and visitInterpersonal skills

Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialtyInteractions with house staff during interview and visit

Perceived commitment to specialtyFeedback from current residents and fellows

Perceived interest in programDemonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research

Reputation of residency programResidency performance evaluation (Program Director letter)

Evidence of professionalism and ethicsPersonal statement

Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicantLeadership qualities

Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chaptersInterest in academic career

Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institutionUSMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score

USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE scoreAny failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX

Passing USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PEClinical/laboratory research experience

USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 scoreOral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements

Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based)Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership

Other life experienceMedical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter)

Second interview/visitAwards or special honors in medical school

Visa status*Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP

Graduate of highly‐regarded medical schoolElectives at your fellowship site

Awarded grant money for researchVolunteer/extracurricular experiencesMedical school class ranking/quartile

Lack of gaps in medical educationGrades in medical school

Residency class ranking/quartileFluency in language spoken by your patient population

Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membershipResidency program size

In‐Training Examination (ITE)Second interview/visit

Having finished another fellowship

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 303

Pediatric NephrologyPrograms That Use USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) Scores When Considering Which Applicants to Interview

Figure-3

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 (CK) Score

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Never Seldom Often

20%

67%

13%

Would your program consider applicants who fail theexam on the first attempt?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Never Seldom often

20%

67%

13%

Would your program consider applicants who failthe exam on the first attempt?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

87%

13%

0%

Scores required?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

87%

13%

0%

Scores required?

N=15

N=15

N=15N=15

IQR* of Average USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 CK Scores Programs Consider When Granting Interviews

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 1 Score

*The boxes in the boxplots 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 x-shaped symbol is the mean.

Scores Above Which Programs Almost Always Grant Interviews

Scores Below Which Programs Generally Do Not Grant Interviews

USMLE Step 2 CK not reported

because of low response rate

USMLE Step 1 not reported because of low response

rate

USMLE Step 2 CK not reported

because of low response rate

USMLE Step 1 not reported because of low response

rate

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 304

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes No

100%

0%

USMLE Step 2 CS

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

80%

7%13%

USMLE Step 3

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

75%

0%

25%

COMLEX-USA Level 1*

Pediatric NephrologyPercentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 Clinical Skill (CS), Step 3, and COMLEX-USA Scores* When Considering Which Applicants to Interview

Figure-4

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

75%

0%

25%

COMLEX-USA Level 2-CE*

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

75%

0%

25%

COMLEX-USA Level 3*

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

75%

0%

25%

COMLEX-USA Level 2-PE*

N=15 N=15

N=8 N=8

N=8 N=8

* Osteopathic applicants only

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 CS and Step 3 Scores

Percentage of Programs That Use COMLEX-USA Level 1 and Level 2-CE Scores

Percentage of Programs That Use COMLEX-USA Level 2-PE and Level 3 Scores

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 305

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Never Seldom Often

17%

50%

33%

Would your program consider applicants who fail theexam on the first attempt?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No, not required

0% 0%

100%

Scores required?

N=6

N=7

100.0%Required

Program Requirement on Dedicated Time forResearch

N=17

0

4

8

12

16

20

24

Accredited Locally Funded Integrated Other

2021

18 18

Average Number of Months if Research Time isRequired

N=15 N=2 N=1 N=1

0.0

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.6

2.0

2.4

2.8

3.2

Accredited Positions Funded Positions

2.8 2.9

Average Number of Accredited Positions and Funded Positions

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Positions Filled BeforeMatch Day

Positions Offered Outsidethe Match

Positions Filled Outsidethe Match

54%

75% 75%

Average Percentage of Accredited Positions Offered Outside ofthe Match

N=17 N=16 N=3 N=4 N=4

Pediatric NephrologyPrograms That Use Core Specialty Certifying Examination When Considering Applicants for Interview

Figure-5

Pediatric NephrologyPrograms Positions Figure-6

Pediatric NephrologyDedicated Time for Research Figure-7

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 306

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%100%

93%

80%

40%

87%

67%

U.S. Graduate OsteopathicPhysician

Canadian Fifth Pathway U.S. IMG Non-U.S. IMG

Percentage of Programs that Typically Interview and Rank Each Applicant Type

Figure-8Pediatric NephrologyProgram's Interview Activities

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Rejected based on astandardized screening

process

In-depth review

12%

91%

Average Percentage of Applicants Rejected and Reviewed

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Number of applicationsreceived

Number of interviewinvitations sent

Number of applicantsinterviewed

10

8

6

Average Number of Positions, Applications Received, InterviewInvitations Sent, and Applicants Interviewed and Ranked

N=16N=16N=17N=16

N=15

40% of Pediatric Nephrology programs consider all applicant groups

N=17

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-USIMG

71%

14% 7%20%13%

60%

29%

71%

50% 20%

87%

40%

14%

43%60%

Often Seldom Never

Interview

0%10%

20%

30%40%

50%60%

70%80%

90%100%

Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-USIMG

7%

71%

14% 7%20%

7%

33%

29%

64%

36%27%

93%

60%

21%

57% 53%

Often Seldom Never

Ranking

n=15

Frequency of Programs Interviewing and Ranking Candidates

n=15

N=11

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

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

35% 35%

13% 10% 6% 3%

Interview invitations

Interview Invitations Sent and Interviews Conducted

0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1%12%

29%36%

11%4%

Interviews conducted

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 307

Figure-9Pediatric NephrologyPotential Challenges in Recruiting Applicants to Your Specialty

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

60%

33%

20%

0%

0%

We consider those applicants on an individual basis

We give those applicants serious consideration if they haveshown improvement

We do not usually consider those applicants

We favor those applicants

Other

0 1 2 3 4 5

Not enough applicants in the specialty

Undesirable income potential as a practicing physician

Undesirable work/life balance as a practicing physician

Long or irregular work hours required by specialty

Fellowship Match scheduled at inconvenient time of year

4.9

3.8

3.9

3.6

1.9

Average rating on a scale of 5 (1=least challenging; 5=most challenging)

n=15

20.0%Less than 3

60.0%3 to 5

6.7%6 to10

13.3%11 to 15

At Any Fellowship Program

14.3%Less than 3

64.3%3 to 5

14.3%6 to 10

7.1%11 to 15

At Current Fellowship Program

n=15

n=15 n=14

Pediatric NephrologyApplicants Who Applied in the Specialty in the Past But Did Not Match Figure-10

Pediatric NephrologyYears as Program Director Figure-11

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 308

Pediatric Pulmonology

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 309

Pediatric PulmonologyGeneral Information

Table 1

47

66

44

Number of programs in the Match

Number of positions in the Match

Number of applicants ranking specialty

43.5%Response rate

Appointment Years

Number of responses 20

Match Information*

* Source: NRMP Data Warehouse

2016 Survey

2016 2015 2014

43

61

33

41

56

32

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 310

Figure-1Pediatric PulmonologyPercentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Selecting Applicants to Interview(N=14)

Average RatingPercent Citing Factor

¹ Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).* International Medical Graduates only

1 2 3 4 5

4.54.53.83.84.84.54.74.53.83.33.93.94.03.54.14.54.44.04.53.93.53.33.53.43.84.04.13.63.43.43.33.34.23.43.73.33.04.03.02.3

100% 50% 0%

100%100%100%100%

93%86%93%71%64%86%64%86%79%79%86%79%57%57%86%64%79%71%50%64%64%57%50%57%57%50%29%50%36%71%43%21%36%

7%43%21%

Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialty

Residency performance evaluation (Program Director letter)

Reputation of residency program

Demonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research

Perceived commitment to specialty

Personal statement

Perceived interest in program

Evidence of professionalism and ethics

USMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score

Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chapters

USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE score

Leadership qualities

Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicant

Oral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements

Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institution

Pass USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PE

Any failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX

USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 score

Interest in academic career

Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based)

Clinical/laboratory research experience

Awards or special honors in medical school

Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership

Other life experience

Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter)

Graduate of highly‐regarded medical school

Visa status*

Volunteer/extracurricular experiences

Awarded grant money for research

Grades in medical school

Lack of gaps in medical education

Medical school class ranking/quartile

Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP

Electives at your fellowship site

Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membership

Residency class ranking/quartile

Fluency in language spoken by your patient population

In‐Training Examination (ITE)

Residency program size

Having finished another fellowship

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 311

Pediatric PulmonologyPercentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Ranking Applicants(N=14)

Figure-2

Average RatingPercent Citing Factor

¹ Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).* International Medical Graduates only

1 2 3 4 5

4.84.84.44.94.74.84.73.93.64.44.54.64.33.63.84.33.93.93.94.64.33.54.04.04.03.03.03.64.23.43.74.63.43.63.63.23.03.73.44.03.03.53.34.03.73.0

100% 50% 0%

100%100%100%86%86%93%71%93%86%79%71%71%86%43%64%71%71%57%64%43%57%79%57%64%43%29%29%57%43%43%43%36%36%50%50%43%14%21%43%14%14%29%29%7%

21%14%

Interactions with faculty during interview and visitInterpersonal skills

Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialtyInteractions with house staff during interview and visit

Perceived commitment to specialtyFeedback from current residents and fellows

Perceived interest in programDemonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research

Reputation of residency programResidency performance evaluation (Program Director letter)

Evidence of professionalism and ethicsPersonal statement

Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicantLeadership qualities

Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chaptersInterest in academic career

Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institutionUSMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score

USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE scoreAny failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX

Passing USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PEClinical/laboratory research experience

USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 scoreOral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements

Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based)Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership

Other life experienceMedical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter)

Second interview/visitAwards or special honors in medical school

Visa status*Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP

Graduate of highly‐regarded medical schoolElectives at your fellowship site

Awarded grant money for researchVolunteer/extracurricular experiencesMedical school class ranking/quartile

Lack of gaps in medical educationGrades in medical school

Residency class ranking/quartileFluency in language spoken by your patient population

Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membershipResidency program size

In‐Training Examination (ITE)Second interview/visit

Having finished another fellowship

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 312

Pediatric PulmonologyPrograms That Use USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) Scores When Considering Which Applicants to Interview

Figure-3

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 (CK) Score

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Never Seldom Often

0%

71%

29%

Would your program consider applicants who fail theexam on the first attempt?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Never Seldom often

7%

86%

7%

Would your program consider applicants who failthe exam on the first attempt?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

79%

21%

0%

Scores required?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

79%

21%

0%

Scores required?

N=14

N=14

N=14N=14

IQR* of Average USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 CK Scores Programs Consider When Granting Interviews

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 1 Score

*The boxes in the boxplots 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 x-shaped symbol is the mean.

Scores Above Which Programs Almost Always Grant Interviews

Scores Below Which Programs Generally Do Not Grant Interviews

USMLE Step 2 CK not reported

because of low response rate

USMLE Step 1 not reported because of low response

rate

USMLE Step 2 CK not reported

because of low response rate

USMLE Step 1 not reported because of low response

rate

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 313

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes No

100%

0%

USMLE Step 2 CS

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

75%

17%

8%

USMLE Step 3

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

75%

25%

0%

COMLEX-USA Level 1*

Pediatric PulmonologyPercentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 Clinical Skill (CS), Step 3, and COMLEX-USA Scores* When Considering Which Applicants to Interview

Figure-4

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

75%

25%

0%

COMLEX-USA Level 2-CE*

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

70%

30%

0%

COMLEX-USA Level 3*

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

75%

25%

0%

COMLEX-USA Level 2-PE*

N=14 N=12

N=12 N=12

N=12 N=10

* Osteopathic applicants only

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 CS and Step 3 Scores

Percentage of Programs That Use COMLEX-USA Level 1 and Level 2-CE Scores

Percentage of Programs That Use COMLEX-USA Level 2-PE and Level 3 Scores

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 314

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Never Seldom Often

0%

100%

0%

Would your program consider applicants who fail theexam on the first attempt?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No, not required

14% 14%

71%

Scores required?

N=3

N=7

20.0%Optional

80.0%Required

Program Requirement on Dedicated Time forResearch

N=20

0

4

8

12

16

20

Accredited Locally Funded Integrated Other

18

11

16

Average Number of Months if Research Time isRequired

N=12 N=2 N=0 N=2

0.0

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.6

2.0

2.4

2.8

Accredited Positions Funded Positions

2.82.6

Average Number of Accredited Positions and Funded Positions

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Positions Filled BeforeMatch Day

Positions Offered Outsidethe Match

Positions Filled Outsidethe Match

75%

42% 42%

Average Percentage of Accredited Positions Offered Outside ofthe Match

N=20 N=18 N=6 N=2 N=2

Pediatric PulmonologyPrograms That Use Core Specialty Certifying Examination When Considering Applicants for Interview

Figure-5

Pediatric PulmonologyPrograms Positions Figure-6

Pediatric PulmonologyDedicated Time for Research Figure-7

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 315

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100% 93%86%

57%

14%

86%79%

U.S. Graduate OsteopathicPhysician

Canadian Fifth Pathway U.S. IMG Non-U.S. IMG

Percentage of Programs that Typically Interview and Rank Each Applicant Type

Figure-8Pediatric PulmonologyProgram's Interview Activities

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Rejected based on astandardized screening

process

In-depth review

19%

79%

Average Percentage of Applicants Rejected and Reviewed

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Number of applicationsreceived

Number of interviewinvitations sent

Number of applicantsinterviewed

15

109

Average Number of Positions, Applications Received, InterviewInvitations Sent, and Applicants Interviewed and Ranked

N=17N=17N=17N=17

N=14

14% of Pediatric Pulmonology programs consider all applicant groups

N=17

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-USIMG

69%

38%

15%

46%

31%

38%

69%54%

85%

54%

23% 31%46%

Often Seldom Never

Interview

0%10%

20%

30%40%

50%60%

70%80%

90%100%

Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-USIMG

69%

38%

8%15%

38%

31%

46%

85%

46%

85%

62%

15% 15%

46%

Often Seldom Never

Ranking

n=13

Frequency of Programs Interviewing and Ranking Candidates

n=13

N=14

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

49%

37%

7%2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

7%

Interview invitations

Interview Invitations Sent and Interviews Conducted

11%

25% 27%16%

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

0% 0%

Interviews conducted

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 316

Figure-9Pediatric PulmonologyPotential Challenges in Recruiting Applicants to Your Specialty

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

92%

23%

0%

8%

0%

We consider those applicants on an individual basis

We give those applicants serious consideration if they haveshown improvement

We do not usually consider those applicants

We favor those applicants

Other

0 1 2 3 4 5

Not enough applicants in the specialty

Undesirable income potential as a practicing physician

Undesirable work/life balance as a practicing physician

Long or irregular work hours required by specialty

Fellowship Match scheduled at inconvenient time of year

4.9

4.0

3.2

1.8

2.8

Average rating on a scale of 5 (1=least challenging; 5=most challenging)

n=14

29.4%Less than

3

11.8%3 to 5

29.4%6 to 10

17.6%11 to 15

11.8%More than 15

At Any Fellowship Program

35.3%Less than 3

11.8%3 to 529.4%

6 to 10

17.6%11 to 15

5.9%More than 15

At Current Fellowship Program

n=13

n=17 n=17

Pediatric PulmonologyApplicants Who Applied in the Specialty in the Past But Did Not Match Figure-10

Pediatric PulmonologyYears as Program Director Figure-11

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 317

Pediatric Rheumatology

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 318

Pediatric RheumatologyGeneral Information

Table 1

28

37

29

Number of programs in the Match

Number of positions in the Match

Number of applicants ranking specialty

35.7%Response rate

Appointment Years

Number of responses 10

Match Information*

* Source: NRMP Data Warehouse

2016 Survey

2016 2015 2014

30

40

27

29

38

30

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 319

Figure-1Pediatric RheumatologyPercentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Selecting Applicants to Interview(N=9)

Average RatingPercent Citing Factor

¹ Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).* International Medical Graduates only

1 2 3 4 5

4.14.64.03.94.74.44.44.53.83.73.83.83.83.03.83.94.03.74.54.23.63.74.13.43.84.13.83.73.74.03.33.84.53.54.24.04.5

3.5

100% 50% 0%

89%100%

67%100%

78%89%89%78%

100%89%

100%67%56%78%56%

100%67%89%

100%56%

100%78%89%67%78%89%44%78%78%56%44%56%22%67%78%22%22%11%22%

0%

Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialty

Residency performance evaluation (Program Director letter)

Reputation of residency program

Demonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research

Perceived commitment to specialty

Personal statement

Perceived interest in program

Evidence of professionalism and ethics

USMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score

Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chapters

USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE score

Leadership qualities

Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicant

Oral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements

Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institution

Pass USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PE

Any failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX

USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 score

Interest in academic career

Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based)

Clinical/laboratory research experience

Awards or special honors in medical school

Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership

Other life experience

Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter)

Graduate of highly‐regarded medical school

Visa status*

Volunteer/extracurricular experiences

Awarded grant money for research

Grades in medical school

Lack of gaps in medical education

Medical school class ranking/quartile

Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP

Electives at your fellowship site

Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membership

Residency class ranking/quartile

Fluency in language spoken by your patient population

In‐Training Examination (ITE)

Residency program size

Having finished another fellowship

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 320

Pediatric RheumatologyPercentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Ranking Applicants(N=9)

Figure-2

Average RatingPercent Citing Factor

¹ Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).* International Medical Graduates only

1 2 3 4 5

4.64.74.34.74.23.84.34.34.04.44.34.04.54.03.84.8

3.83.84.03.83.83.6

4.54.54.04.3

4.34.04.74.04.04.54.04.34.03.34.0

5.0

3.5

100% 50% 0%

100%100%86%86%86%57%86%86%71%71%43%

100%29%71%57%71%0%

86%86%29%71%57%71%0%

57%57%29%57%0%

57%29%43%57%29%29%29%43%29%43%43%0%

29%0%0%

29%0%

Interactions with faculty during interview and visitInterpersonal skills

Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialtyInteractions with house staff during interview and visit

Perceived commitment to specialtyFeedback from current residents and fellows

Perceived interest in programDemonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research

Reputation of residency programResidency performance evaluation (Program Director letter)

Evidence of professionalism and ethicsPersonal statement

Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicantLeadership qualities

Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chaptersInterest in academic career

Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institutionUSMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score

USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE scoreAny failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX

Passing USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PEClinical/laboratory research experience

USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 scoreOral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements

Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based)Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership

Other life experienceMedical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter)

Second interview/visitAwards or special honors in medical school

Visa status*Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP

Graduate of highly‐regarded medical schoolElectives at your fellowship site

Awarded grant money for researchVolunteer/extracurricular experiencesMedical school class ranking/quartile

Lack of gaps in medical educationGrades in medical school

Residency class ranking/quartileFluency in language spoken by your patient population

Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membershipResidency program size

In‐Training Examination (ITE)Second interview/visit

Having finished another fellowship

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 321

Pediatric RheumatologyPrograms That Use USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) Scores When Considering Which Applicants to Interview

Figure-3

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 (CK) Score

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Never Seldom Often

0%

88%

13%

Would your program consider applicants who fail theexam on the first attempt?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Never Seldom often

25%

63%

13%

Would your program consider applicants who failthe exam on the first attempt?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

63%

13%

25%

Scores required?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

63%

13%

25%

Scores required?

N=8

N=8

N=8N=8

IQR* of Average USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 CK Scores Programs Consider When Granting Interviews

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 1 Score

*The boxes in the boxplots 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 x-shaped symbol is the mean.

Scores Above Which Programs Almost Always Grant Interviews

Scores Below Which Programs Generally Do Not Grant Interviews

USMLE Step 2 CK not reported

because of low response rate

USMLE Step 1 not reported because of low response

rate

USMLE Step 2 CK not reported

because of low response rate

USMLE Step 1 not reported because of low response

rate

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 322

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes No

75%

25%

USMLE Step 2 CS

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

50%

13%

38%

USMLE Step 3

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

40%

20%

40%

COMLEX-USA Level 1*

Pediatric RheumatologyPercentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 Clinical Skill (CS), Step 3, and COMLEX-USA Scores* When Considering Which Applicants to Interview

Figure-4

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

40%

20%

40%

COMLEX-USA Level 2-CE*

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

40%

20%

40%

COMLEX-USA Level 3*

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

40%

20%

40%

COMLEX-USA Level 2-PE*

N=8 N=8

N=5 N=5

N=5 N=5

* Osteopathic applicants only

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 CS and Step 3 Scores

Percentage of Programs That Use COMLEX-USA Level 1 and Level 2-CE Scores

Percentage of Programs That Use COMLEX-USA Level 2-PE and Level 3 Scores

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 323

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Never Seldom Often

40% 40%

20%

Would your program consider applicants who fail theexam on the first attempt?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No, not required

0% 0%

100%

Scores required?

N=5

N=4

10.0%Optional

90.0%Required

Program Requirement on Dedicated Time forResearch

N=10

0

4

8

12

16

20

24

Accredited Locally Funded Integrated Other

22

19

24 24

Average Number of Months if Research Time isRequired

N=5 N=4 N=1 N=1

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

Accredited Positions Funded Positions

3.1

2.4

Average Number of Accredited Positions and Funded Positions

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Positions Filled BeforeMatch Day

Positions Offered Outsidethe Match

Positions Filled Outsidethe Match

61%

50% 50%

Average Percentage of Accredited Positions Offered Outside ofthe Match

N=10 N=10 N=3 N=2 N=2

Pediatric RheumatologyPrograms That Use Core Specialty Certifying Examination When Considering Applicants for Interview

Figure-5

Pediatric RheumatologyPrograms Positions Figure-6

Pediatric RheumatologyDedicated Time for Research Figure-7

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 324

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%90%

80%

70% 70%

80% 80%

U.S. Graduate OsteopathicPhysician

Canadian Fifth Pathway U.S. IMG Non-U.S. IMG

Percentage of Programs that Typically Interview and Rank Each Applicant Type

Figure-8Pediatric RheumatologyProgram's Interview Activities

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Rejected based on astandardized screening

process

In-depth review

16%

90%

Average Percentage of Applicants Rejected and Reviewed

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Number of applicationsreceived

Number of interviewinvitations sent

Number of applicantsinterviewed

12

87

Average Number of Positions, Applications Received, InterviewInvitations Sent, and Applicants Interviewed and Ranked

N=9N=9N=10N=9

N=10

60% of Pediatric Rheumatology programs consider all applicant groups

N=10

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-USIMG

13%

43%

13%

13% 38%

57%

88%

63%75%

75%63%

38%25%

Often Seldom Never

Interview

0%10%

20%

30%40%

50%60%

70%80%

90%100%

Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-USIMG

14%33%

14%14%

14%

67%86%

71% 71%

86%71%

29% 29%

Often Seldom Never

Ranking

n=7

Frequency of Programs Interviewing and Ranking Candidates

n=8

N=8

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

13%

0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 4%

52%

23%

5% 4% 0%

Interview invitations

Interview Invitations Sent and Interviews Conducted

0% 0%11%

0% 0% 0% 0% 2%

31%40%

5%0%

Interviews conducted

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 325

Figure-9Pediatric RheumatologyPotential Challenges in Recruiting Applicants to Your Specialty

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

57%

29%

29%

0%

0%

We consider those applicants on an individual basis

We give those applicants serious consideration if they haveshown improvement

We do not usually consider those applicants

We favor those applicants

Other

0 1 2 3 4 5

Not enough applicants in the specialty

Undesirable income potential as a practicing physician

Undesirable work/life balance as a practicing physician

Long or irregular work hours required by specialty

Fellowship Match scheduled at inconvenient time of year

4.8

3.7

2.0

1.7

2.0

Average rating on a scale of 5 (1=least challenging; 5=most challenging)

n=7

30.0%Less than 3

50.0%6 to 10

10.0%11 to 15

10.0%More than 15

At Any Fellowship Program

22.2%Less than 3

66.7%6 to 10

11.1%11 to 15

At Current Fellowship Program

n=7

n=10 n=9

Pediatric RheumatologyApplicants Who Applied in the Specialty in the Past But Did Not Match Figure-10

Pediatric RheumatologyYears as Program Director Figure-11

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 326

Pediatric Surgery

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 327

Pediatric SurgeryGeneral Information

Table 1

38

39

77

Number of programs in the Match

Number of positions in the Match

Number of applicants ranking specialty

32.4%Response rate

Appointment Years

Number of responses 12

Match Information*

* Source: NRMP Data Warehouse

2016 Survey

2016 2015 2014

47

48

83

37

38

71

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 328

Figure-1Pediatric SurgeryPercentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Selecting Applicants to Interview(N=11)

Average RatingPercent Citing Factor

¹ Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).* International Medical Graduates only

1 2 3 4 5

4.64.84.63.43.84.23.74.83.84.43.84.44.44.13.03.84.04.04.04.34.13.33.23.63.04.33.03.34.03.5

3.05.0

2.74.04.54.13.72.3

100% 50% 0%

91%82%

100%82%55%73%27%91%64%82%64%91%82%91%36%36%45%45%36%82%82%45%73%73%

9%36%18%36%45%64%

0%18%45%

0%36%

9%27%

100%36%36%

Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialty

Residency performance evaluation (Program Director letter)

Reputation of residency program

Demonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research

Perceived commitment to specialty

Personal statement

Perceived interest in program

Evidence of professionalism and ethics

USMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score

Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chapters

USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE score

Leadership qualities

Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicant

Oral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements

Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institution

Pass USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PE

Any failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX

USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 score

Interest in academic career

Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based)

Clinical/laboratory research experience

Awards or special honors in medical school

Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership

Other life experience

Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter)

Graduate of highly‐regarded medical school

Visa status*

Volunteer/extracurricular experiences

Awarded grant money for research

Grades in medical school

Lack of gaps in medical education

Medical school class ranking/quartile

Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP

Electives at your fellowship site

Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membership

Residency class ranking/quartile

Fluency in language spoken by your patient population

In‐Training Examination (ITE)

Residency program size

Having finished another fellowship

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 329

Pediatric SurgeryPercentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Ranking Applicants(N=11)

Figure-2

Average RatingPercent Citing Factor

¹ Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).* International Medical Graduates only

1 2 3 4 5

4.94.74.74.75.05.04.33.75.04.44.43.84.34.44.04.02.54.34.34.34.54.24.54.04.83.33.3

3.54.04.55.04.5

4.04.04.03.04.0

4.53.04.04.3

3.0100% 50% 0%

70%80%60%70%20%50%30%30%90%50%70%50%40%70%50%30%20%30%30%30%20%50%20%40%50%30%30%0%

20%20%20%20%20%0%

20%10%10%10%20%0%

20%10%10%70%0%

20%

Interactions with faculty during interview and visitInterpersonal skills

Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialtyInteractions with house staff during interview and visit

Perceived commitment to specialtyFeedback from current residents and fellows

Perceived interest in programDemonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research

Reputation of residency programResidency performance evaluation (Program Director letter)

Evidence of professionalism and ethicsPersonal statement

Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicantLeadership qualities

Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chaptersInterest in academic career

Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institutionUSMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score

USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE scoreAny failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX

Passing USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PEClinical/laboratory research experience

USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 scoreOral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements

Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based)Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership

Other life experienceMedical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter)

Second interview/visitAwards or special honors in medical school

Visa status*Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP

Graduate of highly‐regarded medical schoolElectives at your fellowship site

Awarded grant money for researchVolunteer/extracurricular experiencesMedical school class ranking/quartile

Lack of gaps in medical educationGrades in medical school

Residency class ranking/quartileFluency in language spoken by your patient population

Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membershipResidency program size

In‐Training Examination (ITE)Second interview/visit

Having finished another fellowship

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 330

Pediatric SurgeryPrograms That Use USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) Scores When Considering Which Applicants to Interview

Figure-3

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 (CK) Score

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Never Seldom Often

0%

100%

0%

Would your program consider applicants who fail theexam on the first attempt?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Never Seldom often

0%

90%

10%

Would your program consider applicants who failthe exam on the first attempt?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

60%

30%

10%

Scores required?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

60%

30%

10%

Scores required?

N=10

N=10

N=10N=10

IQR* of Average USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 CK Scores Programs Consider When Granting Interviews

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 1 Score

*The boxes in the boxplots 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 x-shaped symbol is the mean.

Scores Above Which Programs Almost Always Grant Interviews

Scores Below Which Programs Generally Do Not Grant Interviews

USMLE Step 2 CK not reported

because of low response rate

USMLE Step 1 not reported because of low response

rate

USMLE Step 2 CK not reported

because of low response rate

USMLE Step 1 not reported because of low response

rate

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 331

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes No

90%

10%

USMLE Step 2 CS

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

78%

11% 11%

USMLE Step 3

Pediatric SurgeryPercentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 Clinical Skill (CS), Step 3, and COMLEX-USA Scores* When Considering Which Applicants to Interview

Figure-4

N=10 N=9

* Osteopathic applicants only

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 CS and Step 3 Scores

Percentage of Programs That Use COMLEX-USA Level 1 and Level 2-CE Scores

Percentage of Programs That Use COMLEX-USA Level 2-PE and Level 3 Scores

Not reported because of low response rate

Not reported because of low response rate

Not reported because of low response rate

Not reported because of low response rate

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 332

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Never Seldom Often

25%

75%

0%

Would your program consider applicants who fail theexam on the first attempt?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No, not required

0%

25%

75%

Scores required?

N=4

N=4

100.0%Optional

Program Requirement on Dedicated Time forResearch

N=12

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

Accredited Locally Funded Integrated Other

Average Number of Months if Research Time isRequired

N=0 N=0 N=0 N=0

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

Accredited Positions Funded Positions

1.2 1.2

Average Number of Accredited Positions and Funded Positions

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Positions Filled BeforeMatch Day

Positions Offered Outsidethe Match

Positions Filled Outsidethe Match

100% 100% 100%

Average Percentage of Accredited Positions Offered Outside ofthe Match

N=12 N=12 N=1 N=1 N=1

Pediatric SurgeryPrograms That Use Core Specialty Certifying Examination When Considering Applicants for Interview

Figure-5

Pediatric SurgeryPrograms Positions Figure-6

Pediatric SurgeryDedicated Time for Research Figure-7

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 333

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%100%

33%

50%

25%33%

25%

U.S. Graduate OsteopathicPhysician

Canadian Fifth Pathway U.S. IMG Non-U.S. IMG

Percentage of Programs that Typically Interview and Rank Each Applicant Type

Figure-8Pediatric SurgeryProgram's Interview Activities

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Rejected based on astandardized screening

process

In-depth review

47%

83%

Average Percentage of Applicants Rejected and Reviewed

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Number of applicationsreceived

Number of interviewinvitations sent

Number of applicantsinterviewed

80

27 26

Average Number of Positions, Applications Received, InterviewInvitations Sent, and Applicants Interviewed and Ranked

N=11N=10N=11N=11

N=12

25% of Pediatric Surgery programs consider all applicant groups

N=11

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-USIMG

18%

55%

18%

73%

45%

64%

100%73%

100%

9%

36%

9%

Often Seldom Never

Interview

0%10%

20%

30%40%

50%60%

70%80%

90%100%

Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-USIMG

45%55%

9% 9%27%

55%45%

55%

91%73%

100%

36%

Often Seldom Never

Ranking

n=10

Frequency of Programs Interviewing and Ranking Candidates

n=11

N=10

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

78%

4%9% 9%

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

Interview invitations

Interview Invitations Sent and Interviews Conducted

8%

26%34%

14%

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

Interviews conducted

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 334

Figure-9Pediatric SurgeryPotential Challenges in Recruiting Applicants to Your Specialty

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

90%

40%

0%

0%

0%

We consider those applicants on an individual basis

We give those applicants serious consideration if they haveshown improvement

We do not usually consider those applicants

We favor those applicants

Other

0 1 2 3 4 5

Not enough applicants in the specialty

Undesirable income potential as a practicing physician

Undesirable work/life balance as a practicing physician

Long or irregular work hours required by specialty

Fellowship Match scheduled at inconvenient time of year

1.4

1.7

2.6

2.8

1.8

Average rating on a scale of 5 (1=least challenging; 5=most challenging)

n=9

37.5%Less than 3

25.0%3 to 5

25.0%6 to 10

12.5%More than 15

At Any Fellowship Program

37.5%Less than 3

37.5%3 to 5

12.5%6 to 10

12.5%More than 15

At Current Fellowship Program

n=10

n=8 n=8

Pediatric SurgeryApplicants Who Applied in the Specialty in the Past But Did Not Match Figure-10

Pediatric SurgeryYears as Program Director Figure-11

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 335

Psychosomatic Medicine

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 336

Psychosomatic MedicineGeneral Information

Table 1

51

101

80

Number of programs in the Match

Number of positions in the Match

Number of applicants ranking specialty

34.0%Response rate

Appointment Years

Number of responses 17

Match Information*

* Source: NRMP Data Warehouse

2016 Survey

2016 2015 2014

50

93

68

51

95

73

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 337

Figure-1Psychosomatic MedicinePercentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Selecting Applicants to Interview(N=12)

Average RatingPercent Citing Factor

¹ Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).* International Medical Graduates only

1 2 3 4 5

4.74.93.44.04.94.55.05.03.44.03.34.54.44.14.23.93.53.74.13.44.04.23.84.03.73.63.84.34.33.04.03.65.04.53.24.33.73.03.04.5

100% 50% 0%

100%83%83%58%75%83%83%75%67%50%75%92%75%58%83%75%33%67%75%42%33%42%42%58%50%42%42%50%25%42%50%42%33%67%42%25%25%

8%25%17%

Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialty

Residency performance evaluation (Program Director letter)

Reputation of residency program

Demonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research

Perceived commitment to specialty

Personal statement

Perceived interest in program

Evidence of professionalism and ethics

USMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score

Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chapters

USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE score

Leadership qualities

Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicant

Oral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements

Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institution

Pass USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PE

Any failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX

USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 score

Interest in academic career

Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based)

Clinical/laboratory research experience

Awards or special honors in medical school

Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership

Other life experience

Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter)

Graduate of highly‐regarded medical school

Visa status*

Volunteer/extracurricular experiences

Awarded grant money for research

Grades in medical school

Lack of gaps in medical education

Medical school class ranking/quartile

Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP

Electives at your fellowship site

Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membership

Residency class ranking/quartile

Fluency in language spoken by your patient population

In‐Training Examination (ITE)

Residency program size

Having finished another fellowship

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 338

Psychosomatic MedicinePercentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Ranking Applicants(N=12)

Figure-2

Average RatingPercent Citing Factor

¹ Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).* International Medical Graduates only

1 2 3 4 5

4.95.04.74.94.74.94.54.33.54.74.94.44.64.64.44.44.23.73.73.34.03.83.84.23.54.04.54.24.54.23.05.04.04.84.34.44.04.84.03.84.03.75.03.04.84.0

100% 50% 0%

92%92%

100%92%92%83%83%58%58%75%83%92%75%83%42%67%83%58%58%33%58%42%58%50%17%42%50%50%50%42%17%33%42%33%25%58%42%33%42%42%25%25%8%

17%42%25%

Interactions with faculty during interview and visitInterpersonal skills

Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialtyInteractions with house staff during interview and visit

Perceived commitment to specialtyFeedback from current residents and fellows

Perceived interest in programDemonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research

Reputation of residency programResidency performance evaluation (Program Director letter)

Evidence of professionalism and ethicsPersonal statement

Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicantLeadership qualities

Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chaptersInterest in academic career

Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institutionUSMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score

USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE scoreAny failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX

Passing USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PEClinical/laboratory research experience

USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 scoreOral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements

Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based)Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership

Other life experienceMedical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter)

Second interview/visitAwards or special honors in medical school

Visa status*Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP

Graduate of highly‐regarded medical schoolElectives at your fellowship site

Awarded grant money for researchVolunteer/extracurricular experiencesMedical school class ranking/quartile

Lack of gaps in medical educationGrades in medical school

Residency class ranking/quartileFluency in language spoken by your patient population

Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membershipResidency program size

In‐Training Examination (ITE)Second interview/visit

Having finished another fellowship

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 339

Psychosomatic MedicinePrograms That Use USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) Scores When Considering Which Applicants to Interview

Figure-3

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 (CK) Score

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Never Seldom Often

0%

73%

27%

Would your program consider applicants who fail theexam on the first attempt?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Never Seldom often

0%

82%

18%

Would your program consider applicants who failthe exam on the first attempt?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

92%

0%8%

Scores required?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

92%

0%8%

Scores required?

N=13

N=11

N=12N=11

IQR* of Average USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 CK Scores Programs Consider When Granting Interviews

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 1 Score

*The boxes in the boxplots 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 x-shaped symbol is the mean.

Scores Above Which Programs Almost Always Grant Interviews

Scores Below Which Programs Generally Do Not Grant Interviews

USMLE Step 2 CK not reported

because of low response rate

USMLE Step 1 not reported because of low response

rate

USMLE Step 2 CK not reported

because of low response rate

USMLE Step 1 not reported because of low response

rate

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 340

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes No

92%

8%

USMLE Step 2 CS

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

92%

0%

8%

USMLE Step 3

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

75%

0%

25%

COMLEX-USA Level 1*

Psychosomatic MedicinePercentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 Clinical Skill (CS), Step 3, and COMLEX-USA Scores* When Considering Which Applicants to Interview

Figure-4

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

75%

0%

25%

COMLEX-USA Level 2-CE*

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

63%

0%

38%

COMLEX-USA Level 3*

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

75%

0%

25%

COMLEX-USA Level 2-PE*

N=12 N=12

N=8 N=8

N=8 N=8

* Osteopathic applicants only

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 CS and Step 3 Scores

Percentage of Programs That Use COMLEX-USA Level 1 and Level 2-CE Scores

Percentage of Programs That Use COMLEX-USA Level 2-PE and Level 3 Scores

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 341

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Never Seldom Often

40%

20%

40%

Would your program consider applicants who fail theexam on the first attempt?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No, not required

60%

0%

40%

Scores required?

N=5

N=5

88.2%Optional

11.8%Required

Program Requirement on Dedicated Time forResearch

N=17

0.0

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.6

2.0

2.4

2.8

3.2

Accredited Locally Funded Integrated Other

1

3

Average Number of Months if Research Time isRequired

N=0 N=1 N=0 N=1

0.0

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.6

2.0

2.4

Accredited Positions Funded Positions

2.4

2.1

Average Number of Accredited Positions and Funded Positions

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Positions Filled BeforeMatch Day

Positions Offered Outsidethe Match

Positions Filled Outsidethe Match

57%

75%

38%

Average Percentage of Accredited Positions Offered Outside ofthe Match

N=17 N=17 N=5 N=2 N=2

Psychosomatic MedicinePrograms That Use Core Specialty Certifying Examination When Considering Applicants for Interview

Figure-5

Psychosomatic MedicinePrograms Positions Figure-6

Psychosomatic MedicineDedicated Time for Research Figure-7

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 342

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%100% 100%

77% 77%

100%

85%

U.S. Graduate OsteopathicPhysician

Canadian Fifth Pathway U.S. IMG Non-U.S. IMG

Percentage of Programs that Typically Interview and Rank Each Applicant Type

Figure-8Psychosomatic MedicineProgram's Interview Activities

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Rejected based on astandardized screening

process

In-depth review

13%

95%

Average Percentage of Applicants Rejected and Reviewed

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Number of applicationsreceived

Number of interviewinvitations sent

Number of applicantsinterviewed

11

8 8

Average Number of Positions, Applications Received, InterviewInvitations Sent, and Applicants Interviewed and Ranked

N=15N=15N=15N=15

N=13

62% of Psychosomatic Medicine programs consider all applicant groups

N=15

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-USIMG

15%

60%

27% 25%8%

17%

20%

36%

25%

17%

77% 83%

20%36%

75%58%

Often Seldom Never

Interview

0%10%

20%

30%40%

50%60%

70%80%

90%100%

Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-USIMG

18%

75%

33% 33%30%

13%

33%

30%

22%

82%70%

13%

33%

70%

44%

Often Seldom Never

Ranking

n=11

Frequency of Programs Interviewing and Ranking Candidates

n=13

N=14

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

7%0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1%

17%

32%27%

12%4%

Interview invitations

Interview Invitations Sent and Interviews Conducted

8%0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

5%

19% 22%

40%

5%

Interviews conducted

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 343

Figure-9Psychosomatic MedicinePotential Challenges in Recruiting Applicants to Your Specialty

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

91%

9%

9%

0%

0%

We consider those applicants on an individual basis

We give those applicants serious consideration if they haveshown improvement

We do not usually consider those applicants

We favor those applicants

Other

0 1 2 3 4 5

Not enough applicants in the specialty

Undesirable income potential as a practicing physician

Undesirable work/life balance as a practicing physician

Long or irregular work hours required by specialty

Fellowship Match scheduled at inconvenient time of year

4.3

2.3

1.6

2.1

1.6

Average rating on a scale of 5 (1=least challenging; 5=most challenging)

n=10

37.5%Less than 3

12.5%3 to 525.0%

6 to10

25.0%More than

15

At Any Fellowship Program

37.5%Less than 3

25.0%3 to

5

18.8%6 to 10

18.8%More than 15

At Current Fellowship Program

n=11

n=16 n=16

Psychosomatic MedicineApplicants Who Applied in the Specialty in the Past But Did Not Match Figure-10

Psychosomatic MedicineYears as Program Director Figure-11

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 344

Pulmonary Disease and Critical Care Medicine

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 345

Pulmonary Disease and Critical Care MedicineGeneral Information

Table 1

140

515

689

Number of programs in the Match

Number of positions in the Match

Number of applicants ranking specialty

42.6%Response rate

Appointment Years

Number of responses 58

Match Information*

* Source: NRMP Data Warehouse

2016 Survey

2016 2015 2014

139

519

780

135

489

753

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 346

Figure-1Pulmonary Disease and Critical Care MedicinePercentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Selecting Applicants to Interview(N=53)

Average RatingPercent Citing Factor

¹ Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).* International Medical Graduates only

1 2 3 4 5

4.44.54.24.14.23.44.04.53.84.13.94.34.34.04.14.14.63.94.44.24.03.43.83.83.53.84.23.83.83.43.83.34.83.54.04.43.83.63.83.6

100% 50% 0%

92%91%96%94%74%60%60%70%85%81%83%77%66%74%72%70%79%72%53%87%70%58%60%51%43%57%51%25%43%30%30%23%42%30%38%30%17%

9%25%13%

Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialty

Residency performance evaluation (Program Director letter)

Reputation of residency program

Demonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research

Perceived commitment to specialty

Personal statement

Perceived interest in program

Evidence of professionalism and ethics

USMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score

Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chapters

USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE score

Leadership qualities

Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicant

Oral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements

Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institution

Pass USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PE

Any failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX

USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 score

Interest in academic career

Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based)

Clinical/laboratory research experience

Awards or special honors in medical school

Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership

Other life experience

Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter)

Graduate of highly‐regarded medical school

Visa status*

Volunteer/extracurricular experiences

Awarded grant money for research

Grades in medical school

Lack of gaps in medical education

Medical school class ranking/quartile

Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP

Electives at your fellowship site

Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membership

Residency class ranking/quartile

Fluency in language spoken by your patient population

In‐Training Examination (ITE)

Residency program size

Having finished another fellowship

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 347

Pulmonary Disease and Critical Care MedicinePercentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Ranking Applicants(N=53)

Figure-2

Average RatingPercent Citing Factor

¹ Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).* International Medical Graduates only

1 2 3 4 5

4.84.64.44.74.44.74.34.24.24.54.73.84.44.64.04.54.23.94.04.74.14.14.03.74.34.03.94.13.93.64.54.74.34.53.84.24.04.43.44.33.84.14.34.35.04.7

100% 50% 0%

90%90%75%80%57%86%59%78%82%73%57%33%53%53%65%53%53%51%53%47%43%53%45%41%63%41%35%22%14%27%31%29%33%20%33%18%14%16%14%20%16%25%12%6%4%6%

Interactions with faculty during interview and visitInterpersonal skills

Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialtyInteractions with house staff during interview and visit

Perceived commitment to specialtyFeedback from current residents and fellows

Perceived interest in programDemonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research

Reputation of residency programResidency performance evaluation (Program Director letter)

Evidence of professionalism and ethicsPersonal statement

Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicantLeadership qualities

Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chaptersInterest in academic career

Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institutionUSMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score

USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE scoreAny failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX

Passing USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PEClinical/laboratory research experience

USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 scoreOral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements

Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based)Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership

Other life experienceMedical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter)

Second interview/visitAwards or special honors in medical school

Visa status*Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP

Graduate of highly‐regarded medical schoolElectives at your fellowship site

Awarded grant money for researchVolunteer/extracurricular experiencesMedical school class ranking/quartile

Lack of gaps in medical educationGrades in medical school

Residency class ranking/quartileFluency in language spoken by your patient population

Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membershipResidency program size

In‐Training Examination (ITE)Second interview/visit

Having finished another fellowship

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 348

170

180

190

200

210

220

230

240

250

260

Pulmonary Disease and Critical Care MedicinePrograms That Use USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) Scores When Considering Which Applicants to Interview

Figure-3

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 (CK) Score

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Never Seldom Often

23%

70%

8%

Would your program consider applicants who fail theexam on the first attempt?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Never Seldom often

37%

56%

8%

Would your program consider applicants who failthe exam on the first attempt?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

54%46%

0%

Scores required?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

58%

42%

0%

Scores required?

N=52

N=53

N=53N=52

N=20N=22 N=22 N=20

IQR* of Average USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 CK Scores Programs Consider When Granting Interviews

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 1 Score

170

180

190

200

210

220

230

240

250

260

USMLE Step 2 CKUSMLE Step 1 USMLE Step 1 USMLE Step 2 CK

*The boxes in the boxplots 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 x-shaped symbol is the mean.

Scores Above Which Programs Almost Always Grant Interviews

Scores Below Which Programs Generally Do Not Grant Interviews

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 349

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes No

100%

0%

USMLE Step 2 CS

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

47%

37%

16%

USMLE Step 3

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

56%

39%

6%

COMLEX-USA Level 1*

Pulmonary Disease and Critical Care MedicinePercentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 Clinical Skill (CS), Step 3, and COMLEX-USA Scores* When Considering Which Applicants to Interview

Figure-4

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

57%

35%

8%

COMLEX-USA Level 2-CE*

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

42%36%

22%

COMLEX-USA Level 3*

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

75%

17%

8%

COMLEX-USA Level 2-PE*

N=53 N=51

N=36 N=37

N=36 N=36

* Osteopathic applicants only

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 CS and Step 3 Scores

Percentage of Programs That Use COMLEX-USA Level 1 and Level 2-CE Scores

Percentage of Programs That Use COMLEX-USA Level 2-PE and Level 3 Scores

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 350

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Never Seldom Often

41%

53%

6%

Would your program consider applicants who fail theexam on the first attempt?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No, not required

12%

0%

88%

Scores required?

N=17

N=25

15.5%Optional

84.5%Required

Program Requirement on Dedicated Time forResearch

N=58

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Accredited Locally Funded Integrated Other

12

88

8

Average Number of Months if Research Time isRequired

N=25 N=11 N=8 N=7

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Accredited Positions Funded Positions

10.2

9.1

Average Number of Accredited Positions and Funded Positions

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Positions Filled BeforeMatch Day

Positions Offered Outsidethe Match

Positions Filled Outsidethe Match

58%

26%19%

Average Percentage of Accredited Positions Offered Outside ofthe Match

N=57 N=53 N=18 N=12 N=11

Pulmonary Disease and Critical Care MedicinePrograms That Use Core Specialty Certifying Examination When Considering Applicants for Interview

Figure-5

Pulmonary Disease and Critical Care MedicinePrograms Positions Figure-6

Pulmonary Disease and Critical Care MedicineDedicated Time for Research Figure-7

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 351

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100% 96%

78%

67%

31%

81%

69%

U.S. Graduate OsteopathicPhysician

Canadian Fifth Pathway U.S. IMG Non-U.S. IMG

Percentage of Programs that Typically Interview and Rank Each Applicant Type

Figure-8Pulmonary Disease and Critical Care MedicineProgram's Interview Activities

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Rejected based on astandardized screening

process

In-depth review

54%44%

Average Percentage of Applicants Rejected and Reviewed

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

320

Number of applicationsreceived

Number of interviewinvitations sent

Number of applicantsinterviewed

290

41 34

Average Number of Positions, Applications Received, InterviewInvitations Sent, and Applicants Interviewed and Ranked

N=53N=54N=55N=54

N=54

31% of Pulmonary Disease and Critical Care Medicine programs consider all applicant groups

N=55

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-USIMG

12%

60%

18%2%

19%10%

37%

30%

49%

44%

33%

90%

52%

11%

33%54% 48%

Often Seldom Never

Interview

0%10%

20%

30%40%

50%60%

70%80%

90%100%

Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-USIMG

13%

60%

23%

2%18%12%

34%

32%

42%

45%33%

88%

53%

9%

35%53% 49%

Often Seldom Never

Ranking

n=51

Frequency of Programs Interviewing and Ranking Candidates

n=51

N=48

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

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

21%

50%

24%

6%0% 0%

Interview invitations

Interview Invitations Sent and Interviews Conducted

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

14%

39% 42%

3% 0%

Interviews conducted

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 352

Figure-9Pulmonary Disease and Critical Care MedicinePotential Challenges in Recruiting Applicants to Your Specialty

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

75%

16%

16%

0%

0%

We consider those applicants on an individual basis

We give those applicants serious consideration if they haveshown improvement

We do not usually consider those applicants

We favor those applicants

Other

0 1 2 3 4 5

Not enough applicants in the specialty

Undesirable income potential as a practicing physician

Undesirable work/life balance as a practicing physician

Long or irregular work hours required by specialty

Fellowship Match scheduled at inconvenient time of year

1.6

2.1

3.5

3.4

1.8

Average rating on a scale of 5 (1=least challenging; 5=most challenging)

n=50

24.0%Less than 3

26.0%3 to 5

28.0%6 to 10

14.0%11 to 15

8.0%More than

15

At Any Fellowship Program

26.0%Less than 3

26.0%3 to

5

32.0%6 to 10

10.0%11 to

15

6.0%More than

15

At Current Fellowship Program

n=51

n=50 n=50

Pulmonary Disease and Critical Care MedicineApplicants Who Applied in the Specialty in the Past But Did Not Match Figure-10

Pulmonary Disease and Critical Care MedicineYears as Program Director Figure-11

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 353

Reproductive Endocrinology

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 354

Reproductive EndocrinologyGeneral Information

Table 1

36

42

60

Number of programs in the Match

Number of positions in the Match

Number of applicants ranking specialty

35.3%Response rate

Appointment Years

Number of responses 12

Match Information*

* Source: NRMP Data Warehouse

2016 Survey

2016 2015 2014

37

47

69

38

43

69

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 355

Figure-1Reproductive EndocrinologyPercentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Selecting Applicants to Interview(N=7)

Average RatingPercent Citing Factor

¹ Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).* International Medical Graduates only

1 2 3 4 5

4.34.63.94.44.44.03.85.03.84.33.84.03.84.54.33.54.74.04.33.74.33.84.03.3

3.74.03.34.34.03.03.55.03.74.54.54.54.3

100% 50% 0%

86%100%100%100%

71%86%86%86%57%86%57%71%71%57%43%29%43%29%57%86%57%71%71%43%

0%43%43%43%43%43%14%29%29%86%57%29%29%57%

0%0%

Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialty

Residency performance evaluation (Program Director letter)

Reputation of residency program

Demonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research

Perceived commitment to specialty

Personal statement

Perceived interest in program

Evidence of professionalism and ethics

USMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score

Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chapters

USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE score

Leadership qualities

Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicant

Oral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements

Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institution

Pass USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PE

Any failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX

USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 score

Interest in academic career

Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based)

Clinical/laboratory research experience

Awards or special honors in medical school

Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership

Other life experience

Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter)

Graduate of highly‐regarded medical school

Visa status*

Volunteer/extracurricular experiences

Awarded grant money for research

Grades in medical school

Lack of gaps in medical education

Medical school class ranking/quartile

Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP

Electives at your fellowship site

Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membership

Residency class ranking/quartile

Fluency in language spoken by your patient population

In‐Training Examination (ITE)

Residency program size

Having finished another fellowship

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 356

Reproductive EndocrinologyPercentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Ranking Applicants(N=7)

Figure-2

Average RatingPercent Citing Factor

¹ Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).* International Medical Graduates only

1 2 3 4 5

5.04.84.54.84.25.04.04.23.84.84.84.44.04.04.54.53.54.04.04.54.04.34.03.54.05.04.04.03.03.04.05.04.04.04.03.54.03.04.05.03.05.0

4.5

100% 50% 0%

83%83%67%83%83%83%67%

100%67%67%83%83%67%67%67%33%33%17%17%33%17%67%17%33%33%17%17%50%17%17%33%33%17%50%17%33%17%17%33%17%50%17%0%

33%0%0%

Interactions with faculty during interview and visitInterpersonal skills

Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialtyInteractions with house staff during interview and visit

Perceived commitment to specialtyFeedback from current residents and fellows

Perceived interest in programDemonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research

Reputation of residency programResidency performance evaluation (Program Director letter)

Evidence of professionalism and ethicsPersonal statement

Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicantLeadership qualities

Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chaptersInterest in academic career

Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institutionUSMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score

USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE scoreAny failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX

Passing USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PEClinical/laboratory research experience

USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 scoreOral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements

Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based)Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership

Other life experienceMedical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter)

Second interview/visitAwards or special honors in medical school

Visa status*Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP

Graduate of highly‐regarded medical schoolElectives at your fellowship site

Awarded grant money for researchVolunteer/extracurricular experiencesMedical school class ranking/quartile

Lack of gaps in medical educationGrades in medical school

Residency class ranking/quartileFluency in language spoken by your patient population

Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membershipResidency program size

In‐Training Examination (ITE)Second interview/visit

Having finished another fellowship

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 357

Reproductive EndocrinologyPrograms That Use USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) Scores When Considering Which Applicants to Interview

Figure-3

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 (CK) Score

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Never Seldom Often

50%

33%

17%

Would your program consider applicants who fail theexam on the first attempt?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Never Seldom often

50%

33%

17%

Would your program consider applicants who failthe exam on the first attempt?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

29% 29%

43%

Scores required?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

43%

14%

43%

Scores required?

N=7

N=6

N=7N=6

IQR* of Average USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 CK Scores Programs Consider When Granting Interviews

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 1 Score

*The boxes in the boxplots 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 x-shaped symbol is the mean.

Scores Above Which Programs Almost Always Grant Interviews

Scores Below Which Programs Generally Do Not Grant Interviews

USMLE Step 2 CK not reported

because of low response rate

USMLE Step 1 not reported because of low response

rate

USMLE Step 2 CK not reported

because of low response rate

USMLE Step 1 not reported because of low response

rate

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 358

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes No

57%

43%

USMLE Step 2 CS

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

17%

33%

50%

USMLE Step 3

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

0% 0%

100%

COMLEX-USA Level 1*

Reproductive EndocrinologyPercentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 Clinical Skill (CS), Step 3, and COMLEX-USA Scores* When Considering Which Applicants to Interview

Figure-4

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

0% 0%

100%

COMLEX-USA Level 2-CE*

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

0% 0%

100%

COMLEX-USA Level 3*

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

0% 0%

100%

COMLEX-USA Level 2-PE*

N=7 N=6

N=4 N=4

N=4 N=4

* Osteopathic applicants only

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 CS and Step 3 Scores

Percentage of Programs That Use COMLEX-USA Level 1 and Level 2-CE Scores

Percentage of Programs That Use COMLEX-USA Level 2-PE and Level 3 Scores

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 359

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Never Seldom Often

100%

0% 0%

Would your program consider applicants who fail theexam on the first attempt?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No, not required

0%

25%

75%

Scores required?

N=1

N=4

100.0%Required

Program Requirement on Dedicated Time forResearch

N=11

0

4

8

12

16

20

Accredited Locally Funded Integrated Other

18 18 18

15

Average Number of Months if Research Time isRequired

N=7 N=1 N=2 N=2

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

Accredited Positions Funded Positions

3.2

3.6

Average Number of Accredited Positions and Funded Positions

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Positions Filled BeforeMatch Day

Positions Offered Outsidethe Match

Positions Filled Outsidethe Match

78%

Average Percentage of Accredited Positions Offered Outside ofthe Match

N=12 N=10 N=4 N=0 N=0

Reproductive EndocrinologyPrograms That Use Core Specialty Certifying Examination When Considering Applicants for Interview

Figure-5

Reproductive EndocrinologyPrograms Positions Figure-6

Reproductive EndocrinologyDedicated Time for Research Figure-7

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 360

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%100%

43%

71%

14%

43%

14%

U.S. Graduate OsteopathicPhysician

Canadian Fifth Pathway U.S. IMG Non-U.S. IMG

Percentage of Programs that Typically Interview and Rank Each Applicant Type

Figure-8Reproductive EndocrinologyProgram's Interview Activities

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Rejected based on astandardized screening

process

In-depth review

44%

65%

Average Percentage of Applicants Rejected and Reviewed

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Number of applicationsreceived

Number of interviewinvitations sent

Number of applicantsinterviewed

68

23 22

Average Number of Positions, Applications Received, InterviewInvitations Sent, and Applicants Interviewed and Ranked

N=8N=8N=8N=9

N=7

14% of Reproductive Endocrinology programs consider all applicant groups

N=8

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-USIMG

40%20% 20%17%

67%

40%

60%

60% 60%83%

33%20%

40%20% 20%

Often Seldom Never

Interview

0%10%

20%

30%40%

50%60%

70%80%

90%100%

Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-USIMG

14%

50% 50%

17%14%

57%

33%

83%

33%

67%86%

29%17% 17% 17% 17%

Often Seldom Never

Ranking

n=7

Frequency of Programs Interviewing and Ranking Candidates

n=6

N=7

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

0% 0% 0% 0%

19%

31%

50%

0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Interview invitations

Interview Invitations Sent and Interviews Conducted

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

31% 35% 34%

0% 0% 0%

Interviews conducted

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 361

Figure-9Reproductive EndocrinologyPotential Challenges in Recruiting Applicants to Your Specialty

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

67%

33%

0%

0%

0%

We consider those applicants on an individual basis

We give those applicants serious consideration if they haveshown improvement

We do not usually consider those applicants

We favor those applicants

Other

0 1 2 3 4 5

Not enough applicants in the specialty

Undesirable income potential as a practicing physician

Undesirable work/life balance as a practicing physician

Long or irregular work hours required by specialty

Fellowship Match scheduled at inconvenient time of year

1.2

1.5

1.5

1.3

1.3

Average rating on a scale of 5 (1=least challenging; 5=most challenging)

n=6

55.6%Less than

3

22.2%3 to 5

11.1%6 to10

11.1%11 to 15

At Any Fellowship Program

66.7%Less than

3

33.3%3 to 5

At Current Fellowship Program

n=6

n=9 n=9

Reproductive EndocrinologyApplicants Who Applied in the Specialty in the Past But Did Not Match Figure-10

Reproductive EndocrinologyYears as Program Director Figure-11

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 362

Rheumatology

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 363

RheumatologyGeneral Information

Table 1

108

215

304

Number of programs in the Match

Number of positions in the Match

Number of applicants ranking specialty

48.1%Response rate

Appointment Years

Number of responses 52

Match Information*

* Source: NRMP Data Warehouse

2016 Survey

2016 2015 2014

107

209

245

106

206

230

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 364

Figure-1RheumatologyPercentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Selecting Applicants to Interview(N=44)

Average RatingPercent Citing Factor

¹ Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).* International Medical Graduates only

1 2 3 4 5

4.44.54.13.94.53.94.24.64.14.14.34.34.13.94.24.14.54.34.13.93.93.53.93.93.64.14.23.83.83.63.93.74.93.93.63.73.93.83.63.0

100% 50% 0%

93%89%86%86%77%75%75%68%77%73%77%52%66%64%68%68%57%68%70%77%66%61%52%39%55%64%52%43%36%50%39%45%41%45%39%36%36%14%14%

9%

Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialty

Residency performance evaluation (Program Director letter)

Reputation of residency program

Demonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research

Perceived commitment to specialty

Personal statement

Perceived interest in program

Evidence of professionalism and ethics

USMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score

Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chapters

USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE score

Leadership qualities

Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicant

Oral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements

Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institution

Pass USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PE

Any failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX

USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 score

Interest in academic career

Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based)

Clinical/laboratory research experience

Awards or special honors in medical school

Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership

Other life experience

Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter)

Graduate of highly‐regarded medical school

Visa status*

Volunteer/extracurricular experiences

Awarded grant money for research

Grades in medical school

Lack of gaps in medical education

Medical school class ranking/quartile

Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP

Electives at your fellowship site

Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membership

Residency class ranking/quartile

Fluency in language spoken by your patient population

In‐Training Examination (ITE)

Residency program size

Having finished another fellowship

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 365

RheumatologyPercentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Ranking Applicants(N=44)

Figure-2

Average RatingPercent Citing Factor

¹ Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).* International Medical Graduates only

1 2 3 4 5

4.74.64.54.64.74.74.54.14.24.54.63.84.24.64.04.54.44.04.14.84.14.14.24.14.24.23.73.64.53.74.34.94.14.24.03.73.43.93.54.14.24.35.05.04.33.5

100% 50% 0%

83%85%88%56%80%41%63%80%71%73%66%56%54%39%56%49%56%71%76%41%61%54%63%34%46%27%27%34%15%27%22%37%46%34%29%32%29%24%27%20%24%10%5%2%7%5%

Interactions with faculty during interview and visitInterpersonal skills

Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialtyInteractions with house staff during interview and visit

Perceived commitment to specialtyFeedback from current residents and fellows

Perceived interest in programDemonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research

Reputation of residency programResidency performance evaluation (Program Director letter)

Evidence of professionalism and ethicsPersonal statement

Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicantLeadership qualities

Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chaptersInterest in academic career

Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institutionUSMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score

USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE scoreAny failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX

Passing USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PEClinical/laboratory research experience

USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 scoreOral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements

Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based)Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership

Other life experienceMedical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter)

Second interview/visitAwards or special honors in medical school

Visa status*Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP

Graduate of highly‐regarded medical schoolElectives at your fellowship site

Awarded grant money for researchVolunteer/extracurricular experiencesMedical school class ranking/quartile

Lack of gaps in medical educationGrades in medical school

Residency class ranking/quartileFluency in language spoken by your patient population

Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membershipResidency program size

In‐Training Examination (ITE)Second interview/visit

Having finished another fellowship

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 366

170

180

190

200

210

220

230

240

250

260

RheumatologyPrograms That Use USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) Scores When Considering Which Applicants to Interview

Figure-3

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 (CK) Score

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Never Seldom Often

26%

67%

7%

Would your program consider applicants who fail theexam on the first attempt?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Never Seldom often

35%

65%

0%

Would your program consider applicants who failthe exam on the first attempt?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

51%47%

2%

Scores required?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

49% 49%

2%

Scores required?

N=43

N=43

N=43N=43

N=13N=13 N=10 N=10

IQR* of Average USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 CK Scores Programs Consider When Granting Interviews

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 1 Score

170

180

190

200

210

220

230

240

250

260

USMLE Step 2 CKUSMLE Step 1 USMLE Step 1 USMLE Step 2 CK

*The boxes in the boxplots 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 x-shaped symbol is the mean.

Scores Above Which Programs Almost Always Grant Interviews

Scores Below Which Programs Generally Do Not Grant Interviews

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 367

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes No

98%

2%

USMLE Step 2 CS

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

50%

36%

14%

USMLE Step 3

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

50%

42%

8%

COMLEX-USA Level 1*

RheumatologyPercentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 Clinical Skill (CS), Step 3, and COMLEX-USA Scores* When Considering Which Applicants to Interview

Figure-4

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

50%

42%

8%

COMLEX-USA Level 2-CE*

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

51%

34%

14%

COMLEX-USA Level 3*

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

64%

28%

8%

COMLEX-USA Level 2-PE*

N=43 N=42

N=36 N=36

N=36 N=35

* Osteopathic applicants only

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 CS and Step 3 Scores

Percentage of Programs That Use COMLEX-USA Level 1 and Level 2-CE Scores

Percentage of Programs That Use COMLEX-USA Level 2-PE and Level 3 Scores

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 368

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Never Seldom Often

47%53%

0%

Would your program consider applicants who fail theexam on the first attempt?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No, not required

20%

0%

80%

Scores required?

N=15

N=20

36.5%Optional

63.5%Required

Program Requirement on Dedicated Time forResearch

N=52

0

2

4

6

8

10

Accredited Locally Funded Integrated Other

9

7

5

7

Average Number of Months if Research Time isRequired

N=17 N=8 N=8 N=5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

Accredited Positions Funded Positions

3.23.0

Average Number of Accredited Positions and Funded Positions

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Positions Filled BeforeMatch Day

Positions Offered Outsidethe Match

Positions Filled Outsidethe Match

72%

23% 23%

Average Percentage of Accredited Positions Offered Outside ofthe Match

N=51 N=51 N=12 N=2 N=2

RheumatologyPrograms That Use Core Specialty Certifying Examination When Considering Applicants for Interview

Figure-5

RheumatologyPrograms Positions Figure-6

RheumatologyDedicated Time for Research Figure-7

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 369

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%100%

87%

70%

43%

87%

76%

U.S. Graduate OsteopathicPhysician

Canadian Fifth Pathway U.S. IMG Non-U.S. IMG

Percentage of Programs that Typically Interview and Rank Each Applicant Type

Figure-8RheumatologyProgram's Interview Activities

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Rejected based on astandardized screening

process

In-depth review

47% 50%

Average Percentage of Applicants Rejected and Reviewed

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Number of applicationsreceived

Number of interviewinvitations sent

Number of applicantsinterviewed

107

21 18

Average Number of Positions, Applications Received, InterviewInvitations Sent, and Applicants Interviewed and Ranked

N=45N=45N=47N=48

N=46

43% of Rheumatology programs consider all applicant groups

N=47

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-USIMG

5%

41%21%

2%14%

4%

25%

44%

51%

36%

34%

96%

70%

15%28%

62%52%

Often Seldom Never

Interview

0%10%

20%

30%40%

50%60%

70%80%

90%100%

Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-USIMG

7%

38%23%

12% 15%5%

26%

46%

44%

26%34%

95%

67%

16%33%

63%51%

Often Seldom Never

Ranking

n=44

Frequency of Programs Interviewing and Ranking Candidates

n=45

N=44

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%10%

52%

25%

12%2% 0%

Interview invitations

Interview Invitations Sent and Interviews Conducted

0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2%6%

39%46%

6%0%

Interviews conducted

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 370

Figure-9RheumatologyPotential Challenges in Recruiting Applicants to Your Specialty

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

78%

17%

12%

0%

0%

We consider those applicants on an individual basis

We give those applicants serious consideration if they haveshown improvement

We do not usually consider those applicants

We favor those applicants

Other

0 1 2 3 4 5

Not enough applicants in the specialty

Undesirable income potential as a practicing physician

Undesirable work/life balance as a practicing physician

Long or irregular work hours required by specialty

Fellowship Match scheduled at inconvenient time of year

3.0

3.7

1.6

1.2

1.8

Average rating on a scale of 5 (1=least challenging; 5=most challenging)

n=39

9.1%Less than 3

11.4%3 to 5

31.8%6 to 10

22.7%11 to 15

25.0%More than

15

At Any Fellowship Program

11.6%Less than 3

23.3%3 to 5

32.6%6 to 10

23.3%11 to 15

9.3%More than 15

At Current Fellowship Program

n=41

n=44 n=43

RheumatologyApplicants Who Applied in the Specialty in the Past But Did Not Match Figure-10

RheumatologyYears as Program Director Figure-11

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 371

Sleep Medicine

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 372

Sleep MedicineGeneral Information

Table 1

72

142

127

Number of programs in the Match

Number of positions in the Match

Number of applicants ranking specialty

38.8%Response rate

Appointment Years

Number of responses 26

Match Information*

* Source: NRMP Data Warehouse

2016 Survey

2016 2015 2014

70

130

102

69

133

105

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 373

Figure-1Sleep MedicinePercentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Selecting Applicants to Interview(N=23)

Average RatingPercent Citing Factor

¹ Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).* International Medical Graduates only

1 2 3 4 5

4.24.54.13.64.34.14.24.63.73.83.73.94.53.54.13.74.63.74.13.93.74.13.44.03.53.63.93.33.73.43.33.14.83.63.33.63.02.52.63.2

100% 50% 0%

87%78%65%78%91%83%87%78%74%70%74%61%61%61%74%70%48%57%48%57%43%39%30%43%48%22%43%43%30%39%35%30%35%52%17%22%13%

9%22%43%

Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialty

Residency performance evaluation (Program Director letter)

Reputation of residency program

Demonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research

Perceived commitment to specialty

Personal statement

Perceived interest in program

Evidence of professionalism and ethics

USMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score

Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chapters

USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE score

Leadership qualities

Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicant

Oral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements

Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institution

Pass USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PE

Any failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX

USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 score

Interest in academic career

Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based)

Clinical/laboratory research experience

Awards or special honors in medical school

Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership

Other life experience

Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter)

Graduate of highly‐regarded medical school

Visa status*

Volunteer/extracurricular experiences

Awarded grant money for research

Grades in medical school

Lack of gaps in medical education

Medical school class ranking/quartile

Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP

Electives at your fellowship site

Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membership

Residency class ranking/quartile

Fluency in language spoken by your patient population

In‐Training Examination (ITE)

Residency program size

Having finished another fellowship

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 374

Sleep MedicinePercentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Ranking Applicants(N=23)

Figure-2

Average RatingPercent Citing Factor

¹ Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).* International Medical Graduates only

1 2 3 4 5

4.74.74.44.34.44.24.43.83.44.24.84.04.94.43.94.14.33.83.94.13.84.03.83.93.83.23.63.64.03.44.34.73.03.64.03.74.03.73.03.04.03.03.5

4.03.5

100% 50% 0%

86%90%86%81%76%76%76%62%43%76%71%76%52%38%43%43%62%57%52%38%57%24%48%38%29%24%24%48%38%24%24%29%10%33%10%14%10%33%14%10%5%5%

10%0%

14%19%

Interactions with faculty during interview and visitInterpersonal skills

Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialtyInteractions with house staff during interview and visit

Perceived commitment to specialtyFeedback from current residents and fellows

Perceived interest in programDemonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research

Reputation of residency programResidency performance evaluation (Program Director letter)

Evidence of professionalism and ethicsPersonal statement

Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicantLeadership qualities

Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chaptersInterest in academic career

Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institutionUSMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score

USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE scoreAny failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX

Passing USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PEClinical/laboratory research experience

USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 scoreOral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements

Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based)Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership

Other life experienceMedical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter)

Second interview/visitAwards or special honors in medical school

Visa status*Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP

Graduate of highly‐regarded medical schoolElectives at your fellowship site

Awarded grant money for researchVolunteer/extracurricular experiencesMedical school class ranking/quartile

Lack of gaps in medical educationGrades in medical school

Residency class ranking/quartileFluency in language spoken by your patient population

Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membershipResidency program size

In‐Training Examination (ITE)Second interview/visit

Having finished another fellowship

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 375

Sleep MedicinePrograms That Use USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) Scores When Considering Which Applicants to Interview

Figure-3

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 (CK) Score

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Never Seldom Often

14%

71%

14%

Would your program consider applicants who fail theexam on the first attempt?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Never Seldom often

19%

71%

10%

Would your program consider applicants who failthe exam on the first attempt?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

81%

14%

5%

Scores required?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

81%

14%

5%

Scores required?

N=21

N=21

N=21N=21

IQR* of Average USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 CK Scores Programs Consider When Granting Interviews

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 1 Score

*The boxes in the boxplots 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 x-shaped symbol is the mean.

Scores Above Which Programs Almost Always Grant Interviews

Scores Below Which Programs Generally Do Not Grant Interviews

USMLE Step 2 CK not reported

because of low response rate

USMLE Step 1 not reported because of low response

rate

USMLE Step 2 CK not reported

because of low response rate

USMLE Step 1 not reported because of low response

rate

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 376

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes No

95%

5%

USMLE Step 2 CS

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

86%

9%5%

USMLE Step 3

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

77%

8%15%

COMLEX-USA Level 1*

Sleep MedicinePercentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 Clinical Skill (CS), Step 3, and COMLEX-USA Scores* When Considering Which Applicants to Interview

Figure-4

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

77%

8%15%

COMLEX-USA Level 2-CE*

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

77%

8%15%

COMLEX-USA Level 3*

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

77%

8%15%

COMLEX-USA Level 2-PE*

N=21 N=22

N=13 N=13

N=13 N=13

* Osteopathic applicants only

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 CS and Step 3 Scores

Percentage of Programs That Use COMLEX-USA Level 1 and Level 2-CE Scores

Percentage of Programs That Use COMLEX-USA Level 2-PE and Level 3 Scores

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 377

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Never Seldom Often

44%

56%

0%

Would your program consider applicants who fail theexam on the first attempt?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No, not required

38%

8%

54%

Scores required?

N=9

N=13

73.1%Optional

26.9%Required

Program Requirement on Dedicated Time forResearch

N=26

0

1

2

3

4

5

Accredited Locally Funded Integrated Other

1

5

1

Average Number of Months if Research Time isRequired

N=0 N=1 N=3 N=2

0.0

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.6

2.0

2.4

2.8

3.2

Accredited Positions Funded Positions

3.02.8

Average Number of Accredited Positions and Funded Positions

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Positions Filled BeforeMatch Day

Positions Offered Outsidethe Match

Positions Filled Outsidethe Match

85% 88% 88%

Average Percentage of Accredited Positions Offered Outside ofthe Match

N=25 N=24 N=7 N=1 N=1

Sleep MedicinePrograms That Use Core Specialty Certifying Examination When Considering Applicants for Interview

Figure-5

Sleep MedicinePrograms Positions Figure-6

Sleep MedicineDedicated Time for Research Figure-7

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 378

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%100%

95%

68%

23%

91%

73%

U.S. Graduate OsteopathicPhysician

Canadian Fifth Pathway U.S. IMG Non-U.S. IMG

Percentage of Programs that Typically Interview and Rank Each Applicant Type

Figure-8Sleep MedicineProgram's Interview Activities

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Rejected based on astandardized screening

process

In-depth review

39%

73%

Average Percentage of Applicants Rejected and Reviewed

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Number of applicationsreceived

Number of interviewinvitations sent

Number of applicantsinterviewed

32

1411

Average Number of Positions, Applications Received, InterviewInvitations Sent, and Applicants Interviewed and Ranked

N=22N=20N=22N=22

N=22

23% of Sleep Medicine programs consider all applicant groups

N=22

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-USIMG

63%

15% 14%9%23%

26%

60%

23%

24%

91%77%

11%25%

77%62%

Often Seldom Never

Interview

0%10%

20%

30%40%

50%60%

70%80%

90%100%

Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-USIMG

63%

6%16%11%

35%

25%

71%

30%

26%

89%

65%

13%24%

70%58%

Often Seldom Never

Ranking

n=19

Frequency of Programs Interviewing and Ranking Candidates

n=22

N=19

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

0% 0% 1% 3% 1% 0%

21%

57%

15%

3% 0% 0%

Interview invitations

Interview Invitations Sent and Interviews Conducted

0% 0% 1% 2% 1% 0% 3%

23%

47%

12%1% 0%

Interviews conducted

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 379

Figure-9Sleep MedicinePotential Challenges in Recruiting Applicants to Your Specialty

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

81%

33%

5%

5%

0%

We consider those applicants on an individual basis

We give those applicants serious consideration if they haveshown improvement

We do not usually consider those applicants

We favor those applicants

Other

0 1 2 3 4 5

Not enough applicants in the specialty

Undesirable income potential as a practicing physician

Undesirable work/life balance as a practicing physician

Long or irregular work hours required by specialty

Fellowship Match scheduled at inconvenient time of year

4.3

2.9

1.7

1.4

2.5

Average rating on a scale of 5 (1=least challenging; 5=most challenging)

n=21

21.7%Less than 3

21.7%3 to 5

34.8%6 to 10

17.4%11 to 15

4.3%More than 15

At Any Fellowship Program

27.3%Less than 3

13.6%3 to 5

36.4%6 to 10

18.2%11 to 15

4.5%More than 15

At Current Fellowship Program

n=21

n=23 n=22

Sleep MedicineApplicants Who Applied in the Specialty in the Past But Did Not Match Figure-10

Sleep MedicineYears as Program Director Figure-11

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 380

Sports Medicine

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 381

Sports MedicineGeneral Information

Table 1

158

247

298

Number of programs in the Match

Number of positions in the Match

Number of applicants ranking specialty

43.4%Response rate

Appointment Years

Number of responses 62

Match Information*

* Source: NRMP Data Warehouse

2016 Survey

2016 2015 2014

152

236

325

139

206

286

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 382

Figure-1Sports MedicinePercentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Selecting Applicants to Interview(N=58)

Average RatingPercent Citing Factor

¹ Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).* International Medical Graduates only

1 2 3 4 5

4.64.23.53.74.74.14.54.53.63.43.84.44.13.63.73.94.14.04.02.93.73.23.53.93.53.34.34.43.33.63.83.44.73.93.33.94.43.83.01.3

100% 50% 0%

97%86%76%62%91%86%86%76%84%66%81%83%88%72%67%79%91%78%38%16%26%59%47%62%52%38%50%86%21%41%50%33%45%69%28%14%

9%17%

2%5%

Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialty

Residency performance evaluation (Program Director letter)

Reputation of residency program

Demonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research

Perceived commitment to specialty

Personal statement

Perceived interest in program

Evidence of professionalism and ethics

USMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score

Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chapters

USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE score

Leadership qualities

Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicant

Oral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements

Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institution

Pass USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PE

Any failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX

USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 score

Interest in academic career

Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based)

Clinical/laboratory research experience

Awards or special honors in medical school

Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership

Other life experience

Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter)

Graduate of highly‐regarded medical school

Visa status*

Volunteer/extracurricular experiences

Awarded grant money for research

Grades in medical school

Lack of gaps in medical education

Medical school class ranking/quartile

Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP

Electives at your fellowship site

Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membership

Residency class ranking/quartile

Fluency in language spoken by your patient population

In‐Training Examination (ITE)

Residency program size

Having finished another fellowship

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 383

Sports MedicinePercentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Ranking Applicants(N=58)

Figure-2

Average RatingPercent Citing Factor

¹ Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).* International Medical Graduates only

1 2 3 4 5

4.94.74.54.94.64.84.43.63.64.14.64.14.34.43.73.83.73.63.74.13.73.33.93.73.13.83.73.63.93.64.44.73.64.33.94.43.53.73.63.84.83.8

4.23.93.0

100% 50% 0%

96%96%84%79%86%86%84%46%50%54%68%75%75%77%46%38%54%54%55%79%54%21%59%59%13%23%54%27%50%32%29%38%20%61%13%70%20%27%25%16%7%

11%0%

11%25%5%

Interactions with faculty during interview and visitInterpersonal skills

Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialtyInteractions with house staff during interview and visit

Perceived commitment to specialtyFeedback from current residents and fellows

Perceived interest in programDemonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research

Reputation of residency programResidency performance evaluation (Program Director letter)

Evidence of professionalism and ethicsPersonal statement

Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicantLeadership qualities

Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chaptersInterest in academic career

Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institutionUSMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score

USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE scoreAny failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX

Passing USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PEClinical/laboratory research experience

USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 scoreOral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements

Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based)Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership

Other life experienceMedical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter)

Second interview/visitAwards or special honors in medical school

Visa status*Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP

Graduate of highly‐regarded medical schoolElectives at your fellowship site

Awarded grant money for researchVolunteer/extracurricular experiencesMedical school class ranking/quartile

Lack of gaps in medical educationGrades in medical school

Residency class ranking/quartileFluency in language spoken by your patient population

Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membershipResidency program size

In‐Training Examination (ITE)Second interview/visit

Having finished another fellowship

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 384

170

180

190

200

210

220

230

240

250

260

Sports MedicinePrograms That Use USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) Scores When Considering Which Applicants to Interview

Figure-3

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 (CK) Score

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Never Seldom Often

12%

62%

26%

Would your program consider applicants who fail theexam on the first attempt?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Never Seldom often

14%

76%

10%

Would your program consider applicants who failthe exam on the first attempt?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

79%

17%

3%

Scores required?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

79%

17%

3%

Scores required?

N=58

N=58

N=58N=58

N=7N=8 N=8 N=7

IQR* of Average USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 CK Scores Programs Consider When Granting Interviews

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 1 Score

170

180

190

200

210

220

230

240

250

260

USMLE Step 2 CKUSMLE Step 1 USMLE Step 1 USMLE Step 2 CK

*The boxes in the boxplots 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 x-shaped symbol is the mean.

Scores Above Which Programs Almost Always Grant Interviews

Scores Below Which Programs Generally Do Not Grant Interviews

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 385

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes No

97%

3%

USMLE Step 2 CS

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

75%

20%

5%

USMLE Step 3

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

71%

15% 15%

COMLEX-USA Level 1*

Sports MedicinePercentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 Clinical Skill (CS), Step 3, and COMLEX-USA Scores* When Considering Which Applicants to Interview

Figure-4

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

71%

15% 15%

COMLEX-USA Level 2-CE*

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

69%

17% 15%

COMLEX-USA Level 3*

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

73%

13% 15%

COMLEX-USA Level 2-PE*

N=58 N=56

N=55 N=55

N=55 N=54

* Osteopathic applicants only

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 CS and Step 3 Scores

Percentage of Programs That Use COMLEX-USA Level 1 and Level 2-CE Scores

Percentage of Programs That Use COMLEX-USA Level 2-PE and Level 3 Scores

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 386

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Never Seldom Often

29%

65%

6%

Would your program consider applicants who fail theexam on the first attempt?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No, not required

38%

3%

59%

Scores required?

N=31

N=37

59.7%Optional

40.3%Required

Program Requirement on Dedicated Time forResearch

N=62

0

2

4

6

8

10

Accredited Locally Funded Integrated Other

5

6

5

10

Average Number of Months if Research Time isRequired

N=6 N=2 N=8 N=5

0.0

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.6

2.0

Accredited Positions Funded Positions

1.91.8

Average Number of Accredited Positions and Funded Positions

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Positions Filled BeforeMatch Day

Positions Offered Outsidethe Match

Positions Filled Outsidethe Match

100%

88%83%

Average Percentage of Accredited Positions Offered Outside ofthe Match

N=61 N=57 N=8 N=4 N=3

Sports MedicinePrograms That Use Core Specialty Certifying Examination When Considering Applicants for Interview

Figure-5

Sports MedicinePrograms Positions Figure-6

Sports MedicineDedicated Time for Research Figure-7

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 387

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%100% 98%

51%

19%

80%

27%

U.S. Graduate OsteopathicPhysician

Canadian Fifth Pathway U.S. IMG Non-U.S. IMG

Percentage of Programs that Typically Interview and Rank Each Applicant Type

Figure-8Sports MedicineProgram's Interview Activities

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Rejected based on astandardized screening

process

In-depth review

40%

69%

Average Percentage of Applicants Rejected and Reviewed

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Number of applicationsreceived

Number of interviewinvitations sent

Number of applicantsinterviewed

53

1714

Average Number of Positions, Applications Received, InterviewInvitations Sent, and Applicants Interviewed and Ranked

N=58N=57N=57N=58

N=59

8% of Sports Medicine programs consider all applicant groups

N=58

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-USIMG

75%

32%

5%

39%

5% 7%

23%

54%

49%

56%

95% 93%

2%14%

46%

5%

Often Seldom Never

Interview

0%10%

20%

30%40%

50%60%

70%80%

90%100%

Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-USIMG

78%

36%

8%

49%

5% 7%

20%

53%

49%

46%

95% 93%

2%12%

42%

5%

Often Seldom Never

Ranking

n=59

Frequency of Programs Interviewing and Ranking Candidates

n=59

N=57

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2%

19%

44%

29%

5% 0%

Interview invitations

Interview Invitations Sent and Interviews Conducted

2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1%9%

44%38%

6%

Interviews conducted

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 388

Figure-9Sports MedicinePotential Challenges in Recruiting Applicants to Your Specialty

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

93%

36%

4%

0%

0%

We consider those applicants on an individual basis

We give those applicants serious consideration if they haveshown improvement

We do not usually consider those applicants

We favor those applicants

Other

0 1 2 3 4 5

Not enough applicants in the specialty

Undesirable income potential as a practicing physician

Undesirable work/life balance as a practicing physician

Long or irregular work hours required by specialty

Fellowship Match scheduled at inconvenient time of year

2.0

2.1

2.2

1.8

1.9

Average rating on a scale of 5 (1=least challenging; 5=most challenging)

n=53

20.4%Less than

3

26.5%3 to 5

26.5%6 to 10

10.2%11 to 15

16.3%More than 15

At Any Fellowship Program

24.5%Less than 3

32.7%3 to 5

26.5%6 to 10

6.1%11 to 15

10.2%More than 15

At Current Fellowship Program

n=56

n=49 n=49

Sports MedicineApplicants Who Applied in the Specialty in the Past But Did Not Match Figure-10

Sports MedicineYears as Program Director Figure-11

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 389

Surgical Critical Care

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 390

Surgical Critical CareGeneral Information

Table 1

119

241

208

Number of programs in the Match

Number of positions in the Match

Number of applicants ranking specialty

35.6%Response rate

Appointment Years

Number of responses 36

Match Information*

* Source: NRMP Data Warehouse

2016 Survey

2016 2015 2014

108

212

187

95

185

157

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 391

Figure-1Surgical Critical CarePercentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Selecting Applicants to Interview(N=28)

Average RatingPercent Citing Factor

¹ Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).* International Medical Graduates only

1 2 3 4 5

4.44.33.93.74.53.54.04.53.93.43.84.34.33.64.03.64.63.43.93.93.43.33.53.43.43.24.53.13.63.53.93.64.43.63.93.73.33.74.03.0

100% 50% 0%

93%86%89%82%82%71%75%68%57%68%54%57%64%64%71%43%43%50%46%64%57%36%46%46%25%32%39%32%32%21%39%25%18%29%36%36%11%71%14%14%

Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialty

Residency performance evaluation (Program Director letter)

Reputation of residency program

Demonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research

Perceived commitment to specialty

Personal statement

Perceived interest in program

Evidence of professionalism and ethics

USMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score

Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chapters

USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE score

Leadership qualities

Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicant

Oral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements

Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institution

Pass USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PE

Any failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX

USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 score

Interest in academic career

Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based)

Clinical/laboratory research experience

Awards or special honors in medical school

Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership

Other life experience

Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter)

Graduate of highly‐regarded medical school

Visa status*

Volunteer/extracurricular experiences

Awarded grant money for research

Grades in medical school

Lack of gaps in medical education

Medical school class ranking/quartile

Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP

Electives at your fellowship site

Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membership

Residency class ranking/quartile

Fluency in language spoken by your patient population

In‐Training Examination (ITE)

Residency program size

Having finished another fellowship

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 392

Surgical Critical CarePercentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Ranking Applicants(N=28)

Figure-2

Average RatingPercent Citing Factor

¹ Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).* International Medical Graduates only

1 2 3 4 5

4.94.64.44.74.14.64.33.63.84.14.53.64.44.13.74.03.83.73.64.63.83.53.83.43.83.93.73.54.13.24.35.03.34.03.83.03.04.32.73.03.34.03.54.04.03.3

100% 50% 0%

88%96%58%73%69%69%73%73%58%46%50%38%62%58%42%38%42%42%38%27%19%42%23%42%35%31%27%8%

27%19%12%12%15%12%15%8%

15%15%12%12%12%12%8%

46%12%12%

Interactions with faculty during interview and visitInterpersonal skills

Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialtyInteractions with house staff during interview and visit

Perceived commitment to specialtyFeedback from current residents and fellows

Perceived interest in programDemonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research

Reputation of residency programResidency performance evaluation (Program Director letter)

Evidence of professionalism and ethicsPersonal statement

Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicantLeadership qualities

Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chaptersInterest in academic career

Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institutionUSMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score

USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE scoreAny failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX

Passing USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PEClinical/laboratory research experience

USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 scoreOral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements

Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based)Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership

Other life experienceMedical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter)

Second interview/visitAwards or special honors in medical school

Visa status*Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP

Graduate of highly‐regarded medical schoolElectives at your fellowship site

Awarded grant money for researchVolunteer/extracurricular experiencesMedical school class ranking/quartile

Lack of gaps in medical educationGrades in medical school

Residency class ranking/quartileFluency in language spoken by your patient population

Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membershipResidency program size

In‐Training Examination (ITE)Second interview/visit

Having finished another fellowship

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 393

170

180

190

200

210

220

230

240

250

260

Surgical Critical CarePrograms That Use USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) Scores When Considering Which Applicants to Interview

Figure-3

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 (CK) Score

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Never Seldom Often

28%

56%

16%

Would your program consider applicants who fail theexam on the first attempt?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Never Seldom often

27%

62%

12%

Would your program consider applicants who failthe exam on the first attempt?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

68%

24%

8%

Scores required?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

73%

15%12%

Scores required?

N=25

N=25

N=26N=26

N=6 N=5

IQR* of Average USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 CK Scores Programs Consider When Granting Interviews

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 1 Score

170

180

190

200

210

220

230

240

250

260

USMLE Step 1 USMLE Step 1

*The boxes in the boxplots 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 x-shaped symbol is the mean.

Scores Above Which Programs Almost Always Grant Interviews

Scores Below Which Programs Generally Do Not Grant Interviews

USMLE Step 2 CK not reported

because of low response rate

USMLE Step 2 CK not reported

because of low response rate

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 394

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes No

88%

12%

USMLE Step 2 CS

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

69%

15% 15%

USMLE Step 3

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

25%

13%

63%

COMLEX-USA Level 1*

Surgical Critical CarePercentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 Clinical Skill (CS), Step 3, and COMLEX-USA Scores* When Considering Which Applicants to Interview

Figure-4

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

25%

13%

63%

COMLEX-USA Level 2-CE*

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

25%

13%

63%

COMLEX-USA Level 3*

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

25%

13%

63%

COMLEX-USA Level 2-PE*

N=25 N=26

N=16 N=16

N=16 N=16

* Osteopathic applicants only

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 CS and Step 3 Scores

Percentage of Programs That Use COMLEX-USA Level 1 and Level 2-CE Scores

Percentage of Programs That Use COMLEX-USA Level 2-PE and Level 3 Scores

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 395

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Never Seldom Often

14%

79%

7%

Would your program consider applicants who fail theexam on the first attempt?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No, not required

28%

6%

67%

Scores required?

N=14

N=18

91.7%Optional

8.3%Required

Program Requirement on Dedicated Time forResearch

N=36

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Accredited Locally Funded Integrated Other

1

12

Average Number of Months if Research Time isRequired

N=0 N=1 N=0 N=1

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

Accredited Positions Funded Positions

3.53.3

Average Number of Accredited Positions and Funded Positions

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Positions Filled BeforeMatch Day

Positions Offered Outsidethe Match

Positions Filled Outsidethe Match

86%

117%

68%

Average Percentage of Accredited Positions Offered Outside ofthe Match

N=35 N=35 N=14 N=5 N=4

Surgical Critical CarePrograms That Use Core Specialty Certifying Examination When Considering Applicants for Interview

Figure-5

Surgical Critical CarePrograms Positions Figure-6

Surgical Critical CareDedicated Time for Research Figure-7

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 396

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%100%

79%

45%

24%

52%

17%

U.S. Graduate OsteopathicPhysician

Canadian Fifth Pathway U.S. IMG Non-U.S. IMG

Percentage of Programs that Typically Interview and Rank Each Applicant Type

Figure-8Surgical Critical CareProgram's Interview Activities

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Rejected based on astandardized screening

process

In-depth review

32%

75%

Average Percentage of Applicants Rejected and Reviewed

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Number of applicationsreceived

Number of interviewinvitations sent

Number of applicantsinterviewed

60

2219

Average Number of Positions, Applications Received, InterviewInvitations Sent, and Applicants Interviewed and Ranked

N=32N=33N=33N=33

N=29

14% of Surgical Critical Care programs consider all applicant groups

N=33

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-USIMG

10%

74%

44%

11%

59%

10%

59%

26%

48%

86%

37%

90%

31%

7% 4% 4%

Often Seldom Never

Interview

0%10%

20%

30%40%

50%60%

70%80%

90%100%

Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-USIMG

10%

78%

56%

14%

73%

14%

69%

22%

41%

82%

23%

86%

21%4% 4% 4%

Often Seldom Never

Ranking

n=29

Frequency of Programs Interviewing and Ranking Candidates

n=29

N=28

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

0% 4% 0% 4%12%

37%

22%

10% 7%1% 0% 4%

Interview invitations

Interview Invitations Sent and Interviews Conducted

0% 0% 3% 0% 1%7%

32% 35%

9%1% 1% 4%

Interviews conducted

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 397

Figure-9Surgical Critical CarePotential Challenges in Recruiting Applicants to Your Specialty

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

80%

16%

16%

0%

0%

We consider those applicants on an individual basis

We give those applicants serious consideration if they haveshown improvement

We do not usually consider those applicants

We favor those applicants

Other

0 1 2 3 4 5

Not enough applicants in the specialty

Undesirable income potential as a practicing physician

Undesirable work/life balance as a practicing physician

Long or irregular work hours required by specialty

Fellowship Match scheduled at inconvenient time of year

3.1

2.3

3.6

2.8

2.4

Average rating on a scale of 5 (1=least challenging; 5=most challenging)

n=26

24.2%Less than 3

24.2%3 to 5

24.2%6 to 10

15.2%11 to 15

12.1%More than 15

At Any Fellowship Program

34.4%Less than

3

25.0%3 to 5

18.8%6 to 10

18.8%11 to 15

3.1%More than 15

At Current Fellowship Program

n=25

n=33 n=32

Surgical Critical CareApplicants Who Applied in the Specialty in the Past But Did Not Match Figure-10

Surgical Critical CareYears as Program Director Figure-11

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 398

Thoracic Surgery

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 399

Thoracic SurgeryGeneral Information

Table 1

67

90

127

Number of programs in the Match

Number of positions in the Match

Number of applicants ranking specialty

31.0%Response rate

Appointment Years

Number of responses 18

Match Information*

* Source: NRMP Data Warehouse

2016 Survey

2016 2015 2014

67

87

114

71

97

92

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 400

Figure-1Thoracic SurgeryPercentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Selecting Applicants to Interview(N=13)

Average RatingPercent Citing Factor

¹ Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).* International Medical Graduates only

1 2 3 4 5

4.64.34.03.44.14.04.04.53.93.63.94.44.03.33.74.14.34.04.33.63.43.73.83.83.63.73.63.83.23.64.03.74.53.53.34.0

4.42.71.5

100% 50% 0%

100%92%

100%85%85%

100%69%85%77%92%77%85%69%69%77%62%62%54%69%54%69%77%77%46%62%46%62%31%46%62%31%46%15%31%31%

8%0%

85%23%15%

Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialty

Residency performance evaluation (Program Director letter)

Reputation of residency program

Demonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research

Perceived commitment to specialty

Personal statement

Perceived interest in program

Evidence of professionalism and ethics

USMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score

Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chapters

USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE score

Leadership qualities

Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicant

Oral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements

Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institution

Pass USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PE

Any failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX

USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 score

Interest in academic career

Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based)

Clinical/laboratory research experience

Awards or special honors in medical school

Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership

Other life experience

Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter)

Graduate of highly‐regarded medical school

Visa status*

Volunteer/extracurricular experiences

Awarded grant money for research

Grades in medical school

Lack of gaps in medical education

Medical school class ranking/quartile

Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP

Electives at your fellowship site

Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membership

Residency class ranking/quartile

Fluency in language spoken by your patient population

In‐Training Examination (ITE)

Residency program size

Having finished another fellowship

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 401

Thoracic SurgeryPercentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Ranking Applicants(N=13)

Figure-2

Average RatingPercent Citing Factor

¹ Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).* International Medical Graduates only

1 2 3 4 5

4.64.44.34.64.14.84.13.93.94.34.14.04.33.94.03.84.33.63.64.53.53.73.73.93.63.83.63.33.53.33.83.53.33.33.83.32.73.83.03.04.03.02.84.23.53.0

100% 50% 0%

100%92%92%83%67%75%67%83%92%83%67%92%75%83%67%50%67%83%83%58%75%67%58%75%67%67%42%50%33%58%42%17%42%50%50%33%33%33%42%8%8%

17%42%75%25%25%

Interactions with faculty during interview and visitInterpersonal skills

Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialtyInteractions with house staff during interview and visit

Perceived commitment to specialtyFeedback from current residents and fellows

Perceived interest in programDemonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research

Reputation of residency programResidency performance evaluation (Program Director letter)

Evidence of professionalism and ethicsPersonal statement

Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicantLeadership qualities

Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chaptersInterest in academic career

Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institutionUSMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score

USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE scoreAny failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX

Passing USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PEClinical/laboratory research experience

USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 scoreOral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements

Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based)Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership

Other life experienceMedical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter)

Second interview/visitAwards or special honors in medical school

Visa status*Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP

Graduate of highly‐regarded medical schoolElectives at your fellowship site

Awarded grant money for researchVolunteer/extracurricular experiencesMedical school class ranking/quartile

Lack of gaps in medical educationGrades in medical school

Residency class ranking/quartileFluency in language spoken by your patient population

Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membershipResidency program size

In‐Training Examination (ITE)Second interview/visit

Having finished another fellowship

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 402

Thoracic SurgeryPrograms That Use USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) Scores When Considering Which Applicants to Interview

Figure-3

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 (CK) Score

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Never Seldom Often

33%

50%

17%

Would your program consider applicants who fail theexam on the first attempt?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Never Seldom often

33%

50%

17%

Would your program consider applicants who failthe exam on the first attempt?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

75%

25%

0%

Scores required?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

67%

25%

8%

Scores required?

N=12

N=12

N=12N=12

IQR* of Average USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 CK Scores Programs Consider When Granting Interviews

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 1 Score

*The boxes in the boxplots 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 x-shaped symbol is the mean.

Scores Above Which Programs Almost Always Grant Interviews

Scores Below Which Programs Generally Do Not Grant Interviews

USMLE Step 2 CK not reported

because of low response rate

USMLE Step 1 not reported because of low response

rate

USMLE Step 2 CK not reported

because of low response rate

USMLE Step 1 not reported because of low response

rate

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 403

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes No

92%

8%

USMLE Step 2 CS

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

55%

18%

27%

USMLE Step 3

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

50%

13%

38%

COMLEX-USA Level 1*

Thoracic SurgeryPercentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 Clinical Skill (CS), Step 3, and COMLEX-USA Scores* When Considering Which Applicants to Interview

Figure-4

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

38%

13%

50%

COMLEX-USA Level 2-CE*

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

38%

13%

50%

COMLEX-USA Level 3*

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

38%

13%

50%

COMLEX-USA Level 2-PE*

N=12 N=11

N=8 N=8

N=8 N=8

* Osteopathic applicants only

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 CS and Step 3 Scores

Percentage of Programs That Use COMLEX-USA Level 1 and Level 2-CE Scores

Percentage of Programs That Use COMLEX-USA Level 2-PE and Level 3 Scores

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 404

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Never Seldom Often

17%

67%

17%

Would your program consider applicants who fail theexam on the first attempt?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No, not required

38%

13%

50%

Scores required?

N=6

N=8

100.0%Optional

Program Requirement on Dedicated Time forResearch

N=18

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

Accredited Locally Funded Integrated Other

Average Number of Months if Research Time isRequired

N=0 N=0 N=0 N=0

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

Accredited Positions Funded Positions

4.03.9

Average Number of Accredited Positions and Funded Positions

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Positions Filled BeforeMatch Day

Positions Offered Outsidethe Match

Positions Filled Outsidethe Match

61%

Average Percentage of Accredited Positions Offered Outside ofthe Match

N=17 N=16 N=5 N=0 N=0

Thoracic SurgeryPrograms That Use Core Specialty Certifying Examination When Considering Applicants for Interview

Figure-5

Thoracic SurgeryPrograms Positions Figure-6

Thoracic SurgeryDedicated Time for Research Figure-7

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 405

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%100%

93%

67%

40%

60%

47%

U.S. Graduate OsteopathicPhysician

Canadian Fifth Pathway U.S. IMG Non-U.S. IMG

Percentage of Programs that Typically Interview and Rank Each Applicant Type

Figure-8Thoracic SurgeryProgram's Interview Activities

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Rejected based on astandardized screening

process

In-depth review

38%

64%

Average Percentage of Applicants Rejected and Reviewed

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Number of applicationsreceived

Number of interviewinvitations sent

Number of applicantsinterviewed

63

2519

Average Number of Positions, Applications Received, InterviewInvitations Sent, and Applicants Interviewed and Ranked

N=17N=17N=17N=17

N=15

27% of Thoracic Surgery programs consider all applicant groups

N=17

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-USIMG

54%

8% 7%21%

50%

31%

46% 43%

43%100%

50%

15%

46% 50%36%

Often Seldom Never

Interview

0%10%

20%

30%40%

50%60%

70%80%

90%100%

Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-USIMG

7%

54%

8% 8% 8%

43%

31%

38% 38% 42%

100%

50%

15%

54% 54% 50%

Often Seldom Never

Ranking

n=14

Frequency of Programs Interviewing and Ranking Candidates

n=14

N=13

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

38%45%

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

Interview invitations

Interview Invitations Sent and Interviews Conducted

0%

27% 30%22%

4% 4% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%7%

Interviews conducted

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 406

Figure-9Thoracic SurgeryPotential Challenges in Recruiting Applicants to Your Specialty

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

58%

8%

33%

0%

0%

We consider those applicants on an individual basis

We give those applicants serious consideration if they haveshown improvement

We do not usually consider those applicants

We favor those applicants

Other

0 1 2 3 4 5

Not enough applicants in the specialty

Undesirable income potential as a practicing physician

Undesirable work/life balance as a practicing physician

Long or irregular work hours required by specialty

Fellowship Match scheduled at inconvenient time of year

2.7

2.1

3.6

3.5

1.6

Average rating on a scale of 5 (1=least challenging; 5=most challenging)

n=12

13.3%Less than 3

13.3%3 to 5

33.3%6 to 10

13.3%11 to 15

26.7%More than 15

At Any Fellowship Program

23.1%Less than 3

23.1%3 to 5

30.8%6 to 10

23.1%More than 15

At Current Fellowship Program

n=12

n=15 n=13

Thoracic SurgeryApplicants Who Applied in the Specialty in the Past But Did Not Match Figure-10

Thoracic SurgeryYears as Program Director Figure-11

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 407

Vascular Neurology

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 408

Vascular NeurologyGeneral Information

Table 1

74

123

103

Number of programs in the Match

Number of positions in the Match

Number of applicants ranking specialty

36.1%Response rate

Appointment Years

Number of responses 26

Match Information*

* Source: NRMP Data Warehouse

2016 Survey

2016 2015 2014

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 409

Figure-1Vascular NeurologyPercentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Selecting Applicants to Interview(N=20)

Average RatingPercent Citing Factor

¹ Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).* International Medical Graduates only

1 2 3 4 5

4.44.64.23.64.63.94.24.63.83.93.84.24.43.84.03.94.33.64.13.43.33.53.13.33.93.33.83.34.24.33.83.64.84.23.33.03.53.03.0

100% 50% 0%

85%80%90%80%65%70%60%70%80%80%75%55%40%70%55%70%70%70%50%45%45%40%50%40%35%50%55%35%30%30%30%35%25%25%35%10%25%15%15%

0%

Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialty

Residency performance evaluation (Program Director letter)

Reputation of residency program

Demonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research

Perceived commitment to specialty

Personal statement

Perceived interest in program

Evidence of professionalism and ethics

USMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score

Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chapters

USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE score

Leadership qualities

Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicant

Oral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements

Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institution

Pass USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PE

Any failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX

USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 score

Interest in academic career

Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based)

Clinical/laboratory research experience

Awards or special honors in medical school

Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership

Other life experience

Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter)

Graduate of highly‐regarded medical school

Visa status*

Volunteer/extracurricular experiences

Awarded grant money for research

Grades in medical school

Lack of gaps in medical education

Medical school class ranking/quartile

Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP

Electives at your fellowship site

Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membership

Residency class ranking/quartile

Fluency in language spoken by your patient population

In‐Training Examination (ITE)

Residency program size

Having finished another fellowship

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 410

Vascular NeurologyPercentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Ranking Applicants(N=20)

Figure-2

Average RatingPercent Citing Factor

¹ Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).* International Medical Graduates only

1 2 3 4 5

5.04.84.64.84.64.94.74.04.14.34.84.04.44.73.44.14.43.43.64.13.73.23.43.63.23.84.03.84.03.63.55.04.04.03.34.54.03.35.04.04.84.03.7

4.0

100% 50% 0%

80%85%60%60%70%50%55%70%70%55%50%40%40%45%35%45%35%55%55%35%45%30%50%35%25%20%20%40%25%25%20%10%20%20%15%10%25%15%10%10%25%5%

15%0%

15%0%

Interactions with faculty during interview and visitInterpersonal skills

Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialtyInteractions with house staff during interview and visit

Perceived commitment to specialtyFeedback from current residents and fellows

Perceived interest in programDemonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research

Reputation of residency programResidency performance evaluation (Program Director letter)

Evidence of professionalism and ethicsPersonal statement

Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicantLeadership qualities

Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chaptersInterest in academic career

Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institutionUSMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score

USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE scoreAny failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX

Passing USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PEClinical/laboratory research experience

USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 scoreOral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements

Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based)Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership

Other life experienceMedical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter)

Second interview/visitAwards or special honors in medical school

Visa status*Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP

Graduate of highly‐regarded medical schoolElectives at your fellowship site

Awarded grant money for researchVolunteer/extracurricular experiencesMedical school class ranking/quartile

Lack of gaps in medical educationGrades in medical school

Residency class ranking/quartileFluency in language spoken by your patient population

Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membershipResidency program size

In‐Training Examination (ITE)Second interview/visit

Having finished another fellowship

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 411

Vascular NeurologyPrograms That Use USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) Scores When Considering Which Applicants to Interview

Figure-3

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 (CK) Score

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Never Seldom Often

26%

68%

5%

Would your program consider applicants who fail theexam on the first attempt?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Never Seldom often

32%

63%

5%

Would your program consider applicants who failthe exam on the first attempt?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

68%

32%

0%

Scores required?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

68%

32%

0%

Scores required?

N=19

N=19

N=19N=19

N=5N=5

IQR* of Average USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 CK Scores Programs Consider When Granting Interviews

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 1 Score

170

180

190

200

210

220

230

240

250

260

USMLE Step 2 CKUSMLE Step 1

*The boxes in the boxplots 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 x-shaped symbol is the mean.

Scores Above Which Programs Almost Always Grant Interviews

Scores Below Which Programs Generally Do Not Grant Interviews

USMLE Step 1 not reported because of low response

rate

USMLE Step 2 CK not reported

because of low response rate

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 412

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes No

100%

0%

USMLE Step 2 CS

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

63%

21%16%

USMLE Step 3

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

50%

0%

50%

COMLEX-USA Level 1*

Vascular NeurologyPercentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 Clinical Skill (CS), Step 3, and COMLEX-USA Scores* When Considering Which Applicants to Interview

Figure-4

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

50%

0%

50%

COMLEX-USA Level 2-CE*

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

50%

0%

50%

COMLEX-USA Level 3*

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

50%

0%

50%

COMLEX-USA Level 2-PE*

N=19 N=19

N=12 N=12

N=12 N=12

* Osteopathic applicants only

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 CS and Step 3 Scores

Percentage of Programs That Use COMLEX-USA Level 1 and Level 2-CE Scores

Percentage of Programs That Use COMLEX-USA Level 2-PE and Level 3 Scores

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 413

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Never Seldom Often

25%

75%

0%

Would your program consider applicants who fail theexam on the first attempt?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No, not required

10%

0%

90%

Scores required?

N=4

N=10

50.0%Optional

50.0%Required

Program Requirement on Dedicated Time forResearch

N=26

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Accredited Locally Funded Integrated Other

2

4

3

7

Average Number of Months if Research Time isRequired

N=6 N=5 N=3 N=1

0.0

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.6

2.0

2.4

Accredited Positions Funded Positions

2.4 2.3

Average Number of Accredited Positions and Funded Positions

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Positions Filled BeforeMatch Day

Positions Offered Outsidethe Match

Positions Filled Outsidethe Match

48% 48% 48%

Average Percentage of Accredited Positions Offered Outside ofthe Match

N=26 N=26 N=4 N=4 N=4

Vascular NeurologyPrograms That Use Core Specialty Certifying Examination When Considering Applicants for Interview

Figure-5

Vascular NeurologyPrograms Positions Figure-6

Vascular NeurologyDedicated Time for Research Figure-7

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 414

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100% 95% 95%

75%

55%

85%90%

U.S. Graduate OsteopathicPhysician

Canadian Fifth Pathway U.S. IMG Non-U.S. IMG

Percentage of Programs that Typically Interview and Rank Each Applicant Type

Figure-8Vascular NeurologyProgram's Interview Activities

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Rejected based on astandardized screening

process

In-depth review

26%

70%

Average Percentage of Applicants Rejected and Reviewed

0

4

8

12

16

20

24

28

32

Number of applicationsreceived

Number of interviewinvitations sent

Number of applicantsinterviewed

31

15

11

Average Number of Positions, Applications Received, InterviewInvitations Sent, and Applicants Interviewed and Ranked

N=22N=22N=23N=22

N=20

55% of Vascular Neurology programs consider all applicant groups

N=23

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-USIMG

50%

20%10% 5%

25%

55%

40%

60%

40%

25%

75%

45%

10%20%

50%70%

Often Seldom Never

Interview

0%10%

20%

30%40%

50%60%

70%80%

90%100%

Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-USIMG

5%

55%

20%10% 5%

20%

45%

35%

60%

40%

25%

80%

50%

10%20%

50%70%

Often Seldom Never

Ranking

n=20

Frequency of Programs Interviewing and Ranking Candidates

n=20

N=18

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

53%

19% 15%

2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3% 3% 6%

Interview invitations

Interview Invitations Sent and Interviews Conducted

17%21%

31%

6% 5%0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 4% 6%

Interviews conducted

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 415

Figure-9Vascular NeurologyPotential Challenges in Recruiting Applicants to Your Specialty

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

78%

6%

17%

0%

0%

We consider those applicants on an individual basis

We give those applicants serious consideration if they haveshown improvement

We do not usually consider those applicants

We favor those applicants

Other

0 1 2 3 4 5

Not enough applicants in the specialty

Undesirable income potential as a practicing physician

Undesirable work/life balance as a practicing physician

Long or irregular work hours required by specialty

Fellowship Match scheduled at inconvenient time of year

3.3

2.4

3.4

3.4

2.1

Average rating on a scale of 5 (1=least challenging; 5=most challenging)

n=18

31.8%Less than 3

31.8%3 to 5

22.7%6 to 10

4.5%11 to 159.1%

More than 15

At Any Fellowship Program

38.1%Less than 3

28.6%3 to 5

23.8%6 to 10

9.5%11 to

15

At Current Fellowship Program

n=18

n=22 n=21

Vascular NeurologyApplicants Who Applied in the Specialty in the Past But Did Not Match Figure-10

Vascular NeurologyYears as Program Director Figure-11

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 416

Vascular Surgery

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 417

Vascular SurgeryGeneral Information

Table 1

92

121

128

Number of programs in the Match

Number of positions in the Match

Number of applicants ranking specialty

26.1%Response rate

Appointment Years

Number of responses 24

Match Information*

* Source: NRMP Data Warehouse

2016 Survey

2016 2015 2014

90

115

111

86

115

114

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 418

Figure-1Vascular SurgeryPercentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Selecting Applicants to Interview(N=20)

Average RatingPercent Citing Factor

¹ Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).* International Medical Graduates only

1 2 3 4 5

4.74.24.03.74.23.84.14.23.93.73.94.14.33.83.64.34.93.93.53.43.53.43.73.73.43.84.33.23.43.74.13.35.02.64.03.0

4.12.03.0

100% 50% 0%

95%90%90%90%85%70%75%70%85%95%70%65%80%65%55%55%60%50%70%50%55%55%90%55%45%50%45%30%45%45%50%60%15%35%25%15%

0%85%

5%10%

Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialty

Residency performance evaluation (Program Director letter)

Reputation of residency program

Demonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research

Perceived commitment to specialty

Personal statement

Perceived interest in program

Evidence of professionalism and ethics

USMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score

Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chapters

USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE score

Leadership qualities

Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicant

Oral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements

Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institution

Pass USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PE

Any failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX

USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 score

Interest in academic career

Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based)

Clinical/laboratory research experience

Awards or special honors in medical school

Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership

Other life experience

Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter)

Graduate of highly‐regarded medical school

Visa status*

Volunteer/extracurricular experiences

Awarded grant money for research

Grades in medical school

Lack of gaps in medical education

Medical school class ranking/quartile

Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP

Electives at your fellowship site

Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membership

Residency class ranking/quartile

Fluency in language spoken by your patient population

In‐Training Examination (ITE)

Residency program size

Having finished another fellowship

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 419

Vascular SurgeryPercentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Ranking Applicants(N=20)

Figure-2

Average RatingPercent Citing Factor

¹ Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).* International Medical Graduates only

1 2 3 4 5

4.74.64.54.53.94.54.03.53.64.14.33.83.94.23.83.33.33.93.94.84.23.63.83.94.04.04.03.03.83.64.35.03.54.33.45.03.34.03.32.0

4.02.54.32.53.0

100% 50% 0%

83%89%78%83%44%67%61%67%72%56%44%33%56%39%72%44%33%44%44%39%33%33%28%50%33%50%22%17%22%28%50%11%33%22%33%11%17%33%17%6%0%

11%11%72%17%6%

Interactions with faculty during interview and visitInterpersonal skills

Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialtyInteractions with house staff during interview and visit

Perceived commitment to specialtyFeedback from current residents and fellows

Perceived interest in programDemonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research

Reputation of residency programResidency performance evaluation (Program Director letter)

Evidence of professionalism and ethicsPersonal statement

Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicantLeadership qualities

Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chaptersInterest in academic career

Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institutionUSMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score

USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE scoreAny failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX

Passing USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PEClinical/laboratory research experience

USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 scoreOral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements

Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based)Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership

Other life experienceMedical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter)

Second interview/visitAwards or special honors in medical school

Visa status*Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP

Graduate of highly‐regarded medical schoolElectives at your fellowship site

Awarded grant money for researchVolunteer/extracurricular experiencesMedical school class ranking/quartile

Lack of gaps in medical educationGrades in medical school

Residency class ranking/quartileFluency in language spoken by your patient population

Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membershipResidency program size

In‐Training Examination (ITE)Second interview/visit

Having finished another fellowship

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 420

170

180

190

200

210

220

230

240

250

260

Vascular SurgeryPrograms That Use USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) Scores When Considering Which Applicants to Interview

Figure-3

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 (CK) Score

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Never Seldom Often

42%

53%

5%

Would your program consider applicants who fail theexam on the first attempt?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Never Seldom often

37%

58%

5%

Would your program consider applicants who failthe exam on the first attempt?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

60%

40%

0%

Scores required?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

65%

35%

0%

Scores required?

N=20

N=19

N=20N=19

N=7N=8 N=7 N=6

IQR* of Average USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 CK Scores Programs Consider When Granting Interviews

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 1 Score

170

180

190

200

210

220

230

240

250

260

USMLE Step 2 CKUSMLE Step 1 USMLE Step 1 USMLE Step 2 CK

*The boxes in the boxplots 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 x-shaped symbol is the mean.

Scores Above Which Programs Almost Always Grant Interviews

Scores Below Which Programs Generally Do Not Grant Interviews

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 421

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes No

100%

0%

USMLE Step 2 CS

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

74%

21%

5%

USMLE Step 3

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

45%

9%

45%

COMLEX-USA Level 1*

Vascular SurgeryPercentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 Clinical Skill (CS), Step 3, and COMLEX-USA Scores* When Considering Which Applicants to Interview

Figure-4

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

45%

9%

45%

COMLEX-USA Level 2-CE*

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

45%

9%

45%

COMLEX-USA Level 3*

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

45%

9%

45%

COMLEX-USA Level 2-PE*

N=20 N=19

N=11 N=11

N=11 N=11

* Osteopathic applicants only

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 CS and Step 3 Scores

Percentage of Programs That Use COMLEX-USA Level 1 and Level 2-CE Scores

Percentage of Programs That Use COMLEX-USA Level 2-PE and Level 3 Scores

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 422

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Never Seldom Often

67%

33%

0%

Would your program consider applicants who fail theexam on the first attempt?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, pass only Yes, target score No, not required

11%

0%

89%

Scores required?

N=6

N=9

83.3%Optional

16.7%Required

Program Requirement on Dedicated Time forResearch

N=24

0

4

8

12

16

20

24

Accredited Locally Funded Integrated Other

13

24

12

Average Number of Months if Research Time isRequired

N=3 N=1 N=1 N=0

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

Accredited Positions Funded Positions

1.8 1.8

Average Number of Accredited Positions and Funded Positions

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Positions Filled BeforeMatch Day

Positions Offered Outsidethe Match

Positions Filled Outsidethe Match

83%

42% 42%

Average Percentage of Accredited Positions Offered Outside ofthe Match

N=24 N=24 N=2 N=2 N=2

Vascular SurgeryPrograms That Use Core Specialty Certifying Examination When Considering Applicants for Interview

Figure-5

Vascular SurgeryPrograms Positions Figure-6

Vascular SurgeryDedicated Time for Research Figure-7

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 423

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%100%

75% 75%

25%

80%

70%

U.S. Graduate OsteopathicPhysician

Canadian Fifth Pathway U.S. IMG Non-U.S. IMG

Percentage of Programs that Typically Interview and Rank Each Applicant Type

Figure-8Vascular SurgeryProgram's Interview Activities

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Rejected based on astandardized screening

process

In-depth review

29%

70%

Average Percentage of Applicants Rejected and Reviewed

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Number of applicationsreceived

Number of interviewinvitations sent

Number of applicantsinterviewed

53

2218

Average Number of Positions, Applications Received, InterviewInvitations Sent, and Applicants Interviewed and Ranked

N=23N=23N=23N=23

N=20

20% of Vascular Surgery programs consider all applicant groups

N=23

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-USIMG

5%

76%

11% 6%

79%

18%

72%

63%67%

100%

16%6%

17%37%

28%

Often Seldom Never

Interview

0%10%

20%

30%40%

50%60%

70%80%

90%100%

Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-USIMG

5%

78%

18%6%

79%

17%

65%

68% 61%

100%

16%6%

18%32% 33%

Often Seldom Never

Ranking

n=19

Frequency of Programs Interviewing and Ranking Candidates

n=19

N=21

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

73%

10%5% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0%

10%0% 0% 2%

Interview invitations

Interview Invitations Sent and Interviews Conducted

6%

32%

44%

12%

0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%5%

0%

Interviews conducted

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 424

Figure-9Vascular SurgeryPotential Challenges in Recruiting Applicants to Your Specialty

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

76%

12%

18%

0%

0%

We consider those applicants on an individual basis

We give those applicants serious consideration if they haveshown improvement

We do not usually consider those applicants

We favor those applicants

Other

0 1 2 3 4 5

Not enough applicants in the specialty

Undesirable income potential as a practicing physician

Undesirable work/life balance as a practicing physician

Long or irregular work hours required by specialty

Fellowship Match scheduled at inconvenient time of year

2.8

1.9

3.2

3.7

1.9

Average rating on a scale of 5 (1=least challenging; 5=most challenging)

n=17

25.0%Less than 3

12.5%3 to 5

12.5%6 to 1018.8%

11 to 15

31.3%More than 15

At Any Fellowship Program

37.5%Less than 3

12.5%3 to 5

6.3%6 to 10

25.0%11 to 15

18.8%More than 15

At Current Fellowship Program

n=17

n=16 n=16

Vascular SurgeryApplicants Who Applied in the Specialty in the Past But Did Not Match Figure-10

Vascular SurgeryYears as Program Director Figure-11

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 425