A comparison of the overall NRMP match results with the results for 19 specialities for senior U.S. medical students, 1996

Dorothy Andriole, Kathy Ryan, Debra Haire-Joshu

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

8 Scopus citations

Abstract

Purpose. To compare U.S. medical student Match results in 1996 for 19 categorical residency positions by speciality with those of the overall Match reported by the National Resident Matching Program (NRMP). Method. Data for the numbers of 'active' senior U.S. student applicants (those who submitted rank lists), the numbers of U.S. seniors matched, and the numbers of unfilled positions for 19 specialities were obtained from a variety of sources. Chisquare analysis was performed to compare Match results for each independent specialty with the overall Match results. The level for statistical significance was set at p < .005. Results. Eight specialities were identified as significantly more competitive than the overall Match process for both the percentage of U.S. seniors who successfully matched in that specialty and the ratio of unmatched U.S. senior applicants to unfilled categorical positions. Five specialties were identified as significantly less competitive for these two measures. Six specialties showed no significant difference in the percentages of U.S. students matching, but for three of these specialties there were more unmatched students than untilled categorical positions. Conclusion. U.S. medical student Match results for categorical residency positions for different specialties vary significantly from the overall Match process. This information can be used in counseling senior medical students on their specialty selection and the residency application process.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)801-803
Number of pages3
JournalAcademic Medicine
Volume72
Issue number9
StatePublished - Sep 1997

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'A comparison of the overall NRMP match results with the results for 19 specialities for senior U.S. medical students, 1996'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

  • Cite this