Results of the 2016 NRMP Program Director Survey Specialties Matching Service

October 2016

www.nrmp.org 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 Citation National 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. Table of Contents

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 Introduction

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/.

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 1 Response Rates

Specialty Surveys Sent Number Responding Response Rate Abdominal 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 Palliative 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%

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 2

All Specialties Combined All Specialties Table 1 General Information

2016 Survey Number of responses 1,474 Response rate 38.7%

Match Information* Appointment Years 2016 2015 2014 Number of programs in the Match 4,036 3,674 3,552 Number of positions in the Match 9,320 8,503 8,243 Number of applicants ranking specialty 9,893 9,538 9,297 * Source: NRMP Data Warehouse

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 4 All Specialties Figure 1 Percentage 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 Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialty 90% 4.5 Residency performance evaluation (Program Director letter) 87% 4.5 Reputation of residency program 86% 4.0 Demonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research 84% 3.9 Perceived commitment to specialty 82% 4.5 Personal statement 80% 3.9 Perceived interest in program 76% 4.3 Evidence of professionalism and ethics 75% 4.6 USMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score 74% 3.7 Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chapters 74% 3.8 USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE score 72% 3.8 Leadership qualities 70% 4.2 Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicant 69% 4.2 Oral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements 69% 3.8 Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institution 66% 4.1 Pass USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PE 65% 3.9 Any failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX 65% 4.3 USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 score 62% 3.8 Interest in academic career 61% 4.2 Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based) 59% 3.9 Clinical/laboratory research experience 57% 3.8 Awards or special honors in medical school 56% 3.4 Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership 55% 3.7 Other life experience 52% 3.7 Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter) 51% 3.5 Graduate of highly‐regarded medical school 51% 3.7 Visa status* 50% 4.1 Volunteer/extracurricular experiences 45% 3.6 Awarded grant money for research 42% 3.6 Grades in medical school 40% 3.4 Lack of gaps in medical education 38% 3.7 Medical school class ranking/quartile 38% 3.4 Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP 38% 4.7 Electives at your fellowship site 36% 3.7 Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membership 31% 3.6 Residency class ranking/quartile 26% 3.9 Fluency in language spoken by your patient population 22% 3.7 In‐Training Examination (ITE) 20% 3.9 Residency program size 19% 3.6 Having finished another fellowship 14% 2.9

¹ Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). 100% 50% 0% 1 2 345 * International Medical Graduates only

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 5 All Specialties Figure 2 Percentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Ranking Applicants (N=1,164) Percent Citing Factor Average Rating Interactions with faculty during interview and visit 91% 4.9 Interpersonal skills 91% 4.8 Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialty 79% 4.5 Interactions with house staff during interview and visit 77% 4.7 Perceived commitment to specialty 73% 4.6 Feedback from current residents and fellows 73% 4.7 Perceived interest in program 71% 4.5 Demonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research 71% 4.0 Reputation of residency program 68% 4.0 Residency performance evaluation (Program Director letter) 65% 4.4 Evidence of professionalism and ethics 64% 4.7 Personal statement 59% 4.0 Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicant 57% 4.3 Leadership qualities 56% 4.4 Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chapters 52% 4.0 Interest in academic career 51% 4.3 Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institution 50% 4.1 USMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score 49% 3.8 USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE score 49% 3.9 Any failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX 44% 4.3 Passing USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PE 44% 3.9 Clinical/laboratory research experience 44% 4.0 USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 score 43% 3.9 Oral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements 42% 3.9 Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based) 40% 4.0 Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership 33% 3.8 Other life experience 32% 3.8 Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter) 32% 3.7 Second interview/visit 32% 4.1 Awards or special honors in medical school 30% 3.6 Visa status* 30% 4.2 Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP 29% 4.8 Graduate of highly‐regarded medical school 28% 3.9 Electives at your fellowship site 28% 4.1 Awarded grant money for research 28% 3.8 Volunteer/extracurricular experiences 27% 3.9 Medical school class ranking/quartile 22% 3.5 Lack of gaps in medical education 20% 3.9 Grades in medical school 20% 3.5 Residency class ranking/quartile 19% 3.9 Fluency in language spoken by your patient population 17% 3.9 Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membership 16% 3.8 Residency program size 14% 3.7 In‐Training Examination (ITE) 13% 4.0 Second interview/visit 12% 4.1 Having finished another fellowship 9% 3.4 100% 50% 0% 12 3 4 5 ¹ Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). * International Medical Graduates only

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 6 All Specialties Figure 3 Programs 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

Scores required? Would your program consider applicants who fail the 100% exam on the first attempt? N=1,200 100% N=1,175 80% 67% 80% 69% 60% 60%

40% 40% 29%

20% 20% 17% 15% 4% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No, not required Never Seldom Often

Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 (CK) Score Scores required? Would your program consider applicants who fail the 100% exam on the first attempt? N=1,203 100% N=1,174

80% 69% 80% 66% 60% 60%

40% 40% 28% 23% 20% 20% 12% 4% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No, not required Never Seldom often

IQR* of USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 CK Scores Programs Consider When Granting Interviews Scores Below Which Programs Scores Above Which Programs Generally Do Not Grant Interviews Almost Always Grant Interviews 260 260

250 250

240 240

230 230

220 220

210 210

200 200

190 190

180 180

170 170 USMLE Step 1 USMLE Step 2 CK USMLE Step 1 USMLE Step 2 CK N=280 N=243 N=247 N=214 *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.

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 7 All Specialties Figure 4 Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 Clinical Skill (CS), Step 3, and COMLEX-USA Scores* When Considering Which Applicants to Interview

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 CS and Step 3 Scores USMLE Step 2 Clinical Skills (CS) USMLE Step 3 N=1,197 100% N=1,179 100% 96% 90% 90% 80% 80% 70% 65% 70% 60% 60% 50% 50% 40% 40% 30% 30% 23% 20% 20% 12% 10% 10% N=14 4% N=14 0% 0% Yes No Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

Percentage of Programs That Use COMLEX-USA Level 1 and Level 2-CE Scores COMLEX-USA Level 1* COMLEX-USA Level 2-CE* 100% N=873 100% N=872 90% 90% 80% 80% 70% 70% 59% 59% 60% 60% 50% 50% 40% 40% 30% 30% 23% 23% 20% 18% 20% 18% 10% 10% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

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

COMLEX-USA Level 2-PE* COMLEX-USA Level 3* 100% N=868 100% N=853 90% 90% 80% 80% 70% 70% 63% 60% 60% 56% 50% 50% 40% 40% 30% 30% 27% 23% 20% 14% 20% 17% 10% 10% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

* Osteopathic applicants only

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 8 All Specialties Figure 5 Programs That Use Core Specialty Certifying Examination When Considering Applicants for Interview

Scores required? Would your program consider applicants who fail the exam on the first attempt? 100% N=589 100% N=414 90% 90% 80% 72% 80% 70% 70% 60% 60% 60% 50% 50% 40% 40% 29% 30% 23% 30% 20% 20% 10% 10% 4% 10% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No, not required Never Seldom Often All Specialties Figure 6 Program Positions

Average Number of Accredited Positions and Funded Positions Average Percentage of Accredited Positions Offered Outside of 4.5 4.4 the Match 4.1 4.0 100% 90% 3.5 80% 70% 3.0 70% 2.5 60% 48% 50% 44% 2.0 40% 1.5 30% 1.0 20% 10% 0.5 0% 0.0 Positions Filled Before Positions Offered Outside Positions Filled Outside Accredited Positions Funded Positions Match Day the Match the Match

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

All Specialties Figure 7 Dedicated Time for Research

Program Requirement on Average Number of Months if Research Time is Dedicated Time for Research Required N=1,469 14 12 12

10 10 9 9

8 Optional Required 39.5% 6 60.5% 4

2

0 Accredited Locally Funded Integrated Other N=472 N=193 N=139 N=124

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 9

All Specialties Figure 8 Interviews and Applications

Interview Invitations Sent and Interviews Conducted N=1,185 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 28% 26% 20%25% 20% 13% 12% 10% 6% 6% 9% 8% 8% 3% 4% 2% 2% 3% 3% 2% 3% 1% 3% 2% 2% 2% 0% Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Interview invitations sent Interviews conducted

Average Number of Applications Received, Interview Invitations Sent, Average Percentage of Applicants Rejected and Reviewed and Applicants Interviewed 100% 100 98 90% 80% 68% 80 70% 60% 60 50% 40% 34% 40 30% 23 20% 19 20 10% 0% 0 Rejected based on a standardized In-depth review Number of applications Number of interview Number of applicants screening process received invitations sent interviewed N=1,338 N=1,338 N=1,339 N=1,307 N=1,312

Percentage of Programs that Typically Interview and Rank Each Applicant Type

100% 97% 29% of all programs consider all applicant groups 90% 87% 80% 75% 70% 64% 60% 59% 50% 40% 32% 30% 20% 10% 0% U.S. Graduate Osteopathic Physician Canadian Fifth Pathway U.S. IMG Non-U.S. IMG N=1,269 Frequency of Programs Interviewing and Ranking Candidates

Interview Ranking 100% 5% 100% 5% 90% 23% 90% 23% 37% 34% 80% 32% 43% 80% 30% 42% 70% 60% 70% 58% 60% 60% 91% 92% 50% 54% 50% 52% 41% 41% 40% 40% 65% 49% 30% 63% 49% 30% 36% 20% 36% 20% 25% 25% 10% 23% 22% 10% 6% 8% 5% 6% 10% 0% 3% 4% 0% 3% Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-US IMG Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-US IMG

Often Seldom Never Often Seldom Never n=1,241 n=1,210

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 10

All Specialties Figure 9 Potential Challenges in Recruiting Applicants to Your Specialty Average rating on a scale of 5 (1=least challenging; 5=most challenging) n=1,117

Not enough applicants in the specialty 3.0

Undesirable income potential as a practicing physician 2.7

Undesirable work/life balance as a practicing physician 2.7

Long or irregular work hours required by specialty 2.4

Fellowship Match scheduled at inconvenient time of year 2.0

12345

All Specialties Figure 10 Applicants Who Applied in the Specialty in the Past but Did Not Match n=1,122

We consider those applicants on an individual basis 80%

We give those applicants serious consideration if they have shown 20% improvement

We do not usually consider those applicants 13%

We favor those applicants 1%

Other 1%

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

All Specialties Figure 11 Number of Years as Program Director

At Any Fellowship Program At Current Fellowship Program

More than 15 More than 15 15.2% Less than 3 10.4% 22.3% Less than 3 11 to 15 26.7% 10.2% 11 to 15 12.0%

3 to 5 6 to 10 24.0% 26.8% 6 to 10 3 to 5 26.5% 25.9%

n=1,266 n=1,216

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 11 Abdominal Transplant Surgery

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 201612 Abdominal Transplant Surgery Table 1 General Information

2016 Survey Number of responses 20 Response rate 36.4%

Match Information* Appointment Years 2016 2015 2014 Number of programs in the Match 64 56 62 Number of positions in the Match 77 70 73 Number of applicants ranking specialty 89 81 98 * Source: NRMP Data Warehouse

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 201613 Abdominal Transplant Surgery Figure-1 Percentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Selecting Applicants to Interview (N=14) Percent Citing Factor Average Rating Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialty 86% 4.8 Residency performance evaluation (Program Director letter) 79% 4.4 Reputation of residency program 86% 4.1 Demonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research 79% 3.7 Perceived commitment to specialty 57% 4.5 Personal statement 50% 4.0 Perceived interest in program 71% 4.2 Evidence of professionalism and ethics 71% 4.3 USMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score 29% 3.0 Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chapters 57% 3.9 USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE score 29% 3.5 Leadership qualities 71% 4.0 Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicant 64% 4.7 Oral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements 50% 4.0 Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institution 36% 4.4 Pass USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PE 29% 3.5 Any failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX 14% 3.5 USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 score 29% 3.0 Interest in academic career 50% 4.1 Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based) 64% 4.0 Clinical/laboratory research experience 36% 3.8 Awards or special honors in medical school 36% 3.2 Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership 21% 3.0 Other life experience 29% 4.0 Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter) 21% 3.0 Graduate of highly‐regarded medical school 14% 3.5 Visa status* 50% 4.5 Volunteer/extracurricular experiences 14% 3.0 Awarded grant money for research 36% 3.6 Grades in medical school 14% 4.0 Lack of gaps in medical education 29% 2.8 Medical school class ranking/quartile 0% Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP 7% 4.0 Electives at your fellowship site 14% 4.0 Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membership 7% 3.0 Residency class ranking/quartile 7% 4.0 Fluency in language spoken by your patient population 21% 4.0 In‐Training Examination (ITE) 14% 4.0 Residency program size 7% 3.0 Having finished another fellowship 21% 3.3 100% 50% 0% 1 2 345

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

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 201614 Abdominal Transplant Surgery Figure-2 Percentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Ranking Applicants (N=14) Percent Citing Factor Average Rating Interactions with faculty during interview and visit 100% 5.0 Interpersonal skills 85% 4.8 Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialty 77% 4.5 Interactions with house staff during interview and visit 92% 4.8 Perceived commitment to specialty 62% 4.4 Feedback from current residents and fellows 54% 4.7 Perceived interest in program 46% 4.5 Demonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research 62% 3.5 Reputation of residency program 85% 4.3 Residency performance evaluation (Program Director letter) 54% 4.6 Evidence of professionalism and ethics 62% 4.6 Personal statement 54% 3.7 Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicant 54% 4.6 Leadership qualities 46% 4.2 Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chapters 54% 3.3 Interest in academic career 31% 3.8 Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institution 23% 4.7 USMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score 31% 3.3 USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE score 23% 3.7 Any failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX 15% 4.0 Passing USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PE 31% 3.5 Clinical/laboratory research experience 54% 3.3 USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 score 31% 3.0 Oral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements 31% 3.8 Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based) 31% 4.3 Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership 8% 3.0 Other life experience 38% 3.4 Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter) 15% 4.0 Second interview/visit 15% 3.5 Awards or special honors in medical school 23% 3.0 Visa status* 46% 4.0 Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP 8% 4.0 Graduate of highly‐regarded medical school 15% 4.0 Electives at your fellowship site 15% 4.5 Awarded grant money for research 38% 3.4 Volunteer/extracurricular experiences 15% 3.0 Medical school class ranking/quartile 8% 4.0 Lack of gaps in medical education 15% 4.0 Grades in medical school 8% 3.0 Residency class ranking/quartile 0% Fluency in language spoken by your patient population 15% 4.5 Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membership 8% 3.0 Residency program size 8% 4.0 In‐Training Examination (ITE) 8% 4.0 Second interview/visit 8% 4.0 Having finished another fellowship 8% 4.0 100% 50% 0% 12345 ¹ Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). * International Medical Graduates only

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 201615 Abdominal Transplant Surgery Figure-3 Programs That Use USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) Scores When Considering Which Applicants to Interview Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 1 Score Scores required? Would your program consider applicants who fail the 100% N=14 exam on the first attempt? 93% 90% 100% N=12 90% 80% 80% 70% 70% 67% 60% 60% 50% 50% 40% 40% 30% 30% 25% 20% 20% 10% 7% 10% 8% 0% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Never Seldom Often

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 (CK) Score Scores required? Would your program consider applicants who fail N=14 the exam on the first attempt? N=12 100% 93% 100% 90% 90% 80% 80% 70% 70% 67% 60% 60% 50% 50% 40% 40% 30% 30% 25% 20% 20% 10% 7% 10% 8% 0% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Never Seldom often

IQR* of Average USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 CK Scores Programs Consider When Granting Interviews Scores Below Which Programs Scores Above Which Programs Generally Do Not Grant Interviews Almost Always Grant Interviews

USMLE Step 2 CK USMLE Step 1 not USMLE Step 2 CK USMLE Step 1 not not reported reported because not reported reported because because of low of low response because of low of low response response rate rate response rate rate

*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.

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 201616 Abdominal Transplant Surgery Figure-4 Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 Clinical Skill (CS), Step 3, and COMLEX-USA Scores* When Considering Which Applicants to Interview Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 CS and Step 3 Scores USMLE Step 2 CS USMLE Step 3 100% N=14 100% N=14 93% 93% 90% 90% 80% 80% 70% 70% 60% 60% 50% 50% 40% 40% 30% 30% 20% 20% 10% 7% 10% 7% 0% 0% 0% Yes No Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

Percentage of Programs That Use COMLEX-USA Level 1 and Level 2-CE Scores COMLEX-USA Level 1* COMLEX-USA Level 2-CE* 100% 100% N=9 N=9 90% 90% 80% 80% 70% 70% 60% 56% 60% 56% 50% 44% 50% 44% 40% 40% 30% 30% 20% 20% 10% 10% 0% 0% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

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

COMLEX-USA Level 2-PE* COMLEX-USA Level 3* 100% N=9 100% N=9 90% 90% 80% 80% 70% 70% 60% 56% 60% 56% 50% 44% 50% 44% 40% 40% 30% 30% 20% 20% 10% 10% 0% 0% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

* Osteopathic applicants only

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 201617 Abdominal Transplant Surgery Figure-5 Programs That Use Core Specialty Certifying Examination When Considering Applicants for Interview Scores required? Would your program consider applicants who fail the 100% N=8 exam on the first attempt? 90% 88% N=2 100% 80% 100% 70% 90% 80% 60% 70% 50% 60% 40% 50% 30% 40% 30% 20% 13% 20% 10% 10% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No, not required Never Seldom Often

Abdominal Transplant Surgery Figure-6 Programs Positions

Average Number of Accredited Positions and Funded Positions Average Percentage of Accredited Positions Offered Outside of 1.4 1.4 the Match 1.3 100% 93% 1.2 90% 1.0 80% 70% 67% 67% 0.8 60% 50% 0.6 40% 30% 0.4 20% 0.2 10% 0% 0.0 Positions Filled Before Positions Offered Outside Positions Filled Outside Accredited Positions Funded Positions Match Day the Match the Match

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

Abdominal Transplant Surgery Figure-7 Dedicated Time for Research

Program Requirement on Dedicated Time for Average Number of Months if Research Time is Research Required N=20 24 24

20

Required 16 15.0% 12 12

8

4 Optional 2 85.0% 0 Accredited Locally Funded Integrated Other N=1 N=0 N=1 N=1

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 201618 Abdominal Transplant Surgery Figure-8 Program's Interview Activities

Interview Invitations Sent and Interviews Conducted

100% N=13 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 44% 41% 40% 30% 21% 20% 14% 15% 11% 13% 10% 10% 10% 8% 8% 0% 1% 0%0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%0% 0% 0% Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Interview invitations Interviews conducted

Average Number of Positions, Applications Received, Interview Average Percentage of Applicants Rejected and Reviewed Invitations Sent, and Applicants Interviewed and Ranked 24 23 100% 90% 20 80% 70% 65% 16 60% 50% 50% 12 40% 9 9 30% 8 20% 10% 4 0% Rejected based on a In-depth review 0 standardized screening Number of applications Number of interview Number of applicants process received invitations sent interviewed N=16 N=16 N=16 N=15 N=16

Percentage of Programs that Typically Interview and Rank Each Applicant Type 44% of Abdominal Transplant Surgery programs consider all applicant groups

100% N=16 90% 88% 81% 80% 75% 69% 70% 63% 60% 50% 44% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% U.S. Graduate Osteopathic Canadian Fifth Pathway U.S. IMG Non-U.S. IMG Physician Frequency of Programs Interviewing and Ranking Candidates Interview Ranking 100% 100% 90% 18% 90% 18% 33% 80% 36% 80% 50% 50% 46% 70% 53% 70% 62% 71% 64% 60% 60% 77% 50% 50% 40% 82% 43% 40% 82% 50% 29% 29% 38% 30% 27% 30% 15% 7% 14% 20% 20% 23% 23% 10% 21% 20% 21% 21% 21% 10% 21% 15% 17% 0% 0% Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-US Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-US IMG IMG Often Seldom Never Often Seldom Never n=14 n=13

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 201619 Abdominal Transplant Surgery

Figure-9 Potential Challenges in Recruiting Applicants to Your Specialty

Average rating on a scale of 5 (1=least challenging; 5=most challenging) n=12

Not enough applicants in the specialty 3.5

Undesirable income potential as a practicing physician 2.3

Undesirable work/life balance as a practicing physician 4.3

Long or irregular work hours required by specialty 4.6

Fellowship Match scheduled at inconvenient time of year 1.4

012345

Abdominal Transplant Surgery

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

n=12

We consider those applicants on an individual basis 92%

We give those applicants serious consideration if they have 33% shown improvement

We do not usually consider those applicants 17%

We favor those applicants 0%

Other 0%

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

Abdominal Transplant Surgery

Figure-11 Years as Program Director

At Any Fellowship Program At Current Fellowship Program

More than 15 More than 15 11 to 157.1% 7.1% 7.1% Less than 3 28.6% Less than 3 35.7% 6 to 10 35.7% 6 to 10 35.7% 3 to 5 21.4% 3 to 5 21.4%

n=14 n=14

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 201620 Adolescent Medicine

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 201621 Adolescent Medicine Table 1 General Information

2016 Survey Number of responses 15 Response rate 62.5%

Match Information* Appointment Years 2016 2015 2014 Number of programs in the Match 24 25 23 Number of positions in the Match 31 36 35 Number of applicants ranking specialty 29 31 22 * Source: NRMP Data Warehouse

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 201622 Adolescent Medicine Figure-1 Percentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Selecting Applicants to Interview (N=15) Percent Citing Factor Average Rating Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialty 100% 4.9 Residency performance evaluation (Program Director letter) 100% 5.0 Reputation of residency program 93% 3.4 Demonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research 100% 3.9 Perceived commitment to specialty 93% 5.0 Personal statement 100% 4.4 Perceived interest in program 93% 4.6 Evidence of professionalism and ethics 87% 4.8 USMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score 67% 3.2 Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chapters 87% 3.8 USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE score 67% 3.3 Leadership qualities 93% 4.3 Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicant 100% 3.9 Oral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements 93% 3.6 Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institution 80% 3.9 Pass USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PE 67% 4.0 Any failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX 67% 4.6 USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 score 53% 3.6 Interest in academic career 87% 4.4 Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based) 47% 3.3 Clinical/laboratory research experience 53% 3.6 Awards or special honors in medical school 93% 3.7 Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership 87% 3.4 Other life experience 73% 3.4 Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter) 87% 3.4 Graduate of highly‐regarded medical school 73% 3.4 Visa status* 47% 3.8 Volunteer/extracurricular experiences 87% 3.5 Awarded grant money for research 53% 3.4 Grades in medical school 67% 3.3 Lack of gaps in medical education 47% 3.3 Medical school class ranking/quartile 67% 3.6 Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP 47% 4.7 Electives at your fellowship site 67% 3.9 Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membership 67% 3.4 Residency class ranking/quartile 53% 3.7 Fluency in language spoken by your patient population 27% 3.7 In‐Training Examination (ITE) 7% 2.0 Residency program size 27% 3.7 Having finished another fellowship 20% 3.3 100% 50% 0% 1 2 345

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

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 201623 Adolescent Medicine Figure-2 Percentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Ranking Applicants (N=15) Percent Citing Factor Average Rating Interactions with faculty during interview and visit 100% 5.0 Interpersonal skills 92% 4.9 Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialty 92% 4.8 Interactions with house staff during interview and visit 85% 4.5 Perceived commitment to specialty 92% 4.9 Feedback from current residents and fellows 92% 4.7 Perceived interest in program 85% 4.9 Demonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research 92% 4.4 Reputation of residency program 62% 4.1 Residency performance evaluation (Program Director letter) 85% 5.0 Evidence of professionalism and ethics 92% 4.8 Personal statement 92% 4.3 Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicant 77% 4.3 Leadership qualities 85% 4.7 Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chapters 85% 3.9 Interest in academic career 77% 4.8 Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institution 62% 4.0 USMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score 31% 3.3 USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE score 31% 3.3 Any failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX 62% 4.4 Passing USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PE 38% 4.4 Clinical/laboratory research experience 54% 3.9 USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 score 38% 3.4 Oral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements 69% 3.9 Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based) 31% 3.5 Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership 46% 4.0 Other life experience 62% 3.6 Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter) 62% 4.3 Second interview/visit 54% 4.4 Awards or special honors in medical school 77% 3.9 Visa status* 31% 4.5 Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP 38% 4.6 Graduate of highly‐regarded medical school 46% 4.2 Electives at your fellowship site 69% 4.1 Awarded grant money for research 62% 3.6 Volunteer/extracurricular experiences 62% 3.8 Medical school class ranking/quartile 15% 4.0 Lack of gaps in medical education 15% 3.5 Grades in medical school 23% 3.7 Residency class ranking/quartile 38% 3.4 Fluency in language spoken by your patient population 31% 3.0 Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membership 38% 4.4 Residency program size 23% 3.7 In‐Training Examination (ITE) 0% Second interview/visit 31% 4.0 Having finished another fellowship 31% 3.0 100% 50% 0% 12345 ¹ Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). * International Medical Graduates only

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 201624 Adolescent Medicine Figure-3 Programs That Use USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) Scores When Considering Which Applicants to Interview Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 1 Score Scores required? Would your program consider applicants who fail the N=15 exam on the first attempt? 100% 93% 90% 100% N=14 90% 80% 80% 70% 70% 60% 60% 50% 50% 50% 50% 40% 40% 30% 30% 20% 20% 10% 7% 10% 0% 0% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Never Seldom Often

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 (CK) Score Scores required? Would your program consider applicants who fail N=15 the exam on the first attempt? N=15 100% 93% 100% 90% 90% 80% 80% 70% 70% 67% 60% 60% 50% 50% 40% 40% 33% 30% 30% 20% 20% 10% 7% 10% 0% 0% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Never Seldom often

IQR* of Average USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 CK Scores Programs Consider When Granting Interviews Scores Below Which Programs Scores Above Which Programs Generally Do Not Grant Interviews Almost Always Grant Interviews

USMLE Step 2 CK USMLE Step 1 not USMLE Step 2 CK USMLE Step 1 not not reported reported because not reported reported because because of low of low response because of low of low response response rate rate response rate rate

*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.

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 201625 Adolescent Medicine Figure-4 Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 Clinical Skill (CS), Step 3, and COMLEX-USA Scores* When Considering Which Applicants to Interview Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 CS and Step 3 Scores USMLE Step 2 CS USMLE Step 3 100% N=15 100% N=15 100% 90% 90% 80% 80% 80% 70% 70% 60% 60% 50% 50% 40% 40% 30% 30% 20% 20% 13% 10% 10% 7% 0% 0% 0% Yes No Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

Percentage of Programs That Use COMLEX-USA Level 1 and Level 2-CE Scores COMLEX-USA Level 1* COMLEX-USA Level 2-CE* 100% 100% N=12 N=12 90% 90% 80% 80% 70% 67% 70% 67% 60% 60% 50% 50% 40% 40% 30% 25% 30% 25% 20% 20% 10% 8% 10% 8% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

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

COMLEX-USA Level 2-PE* COMLEX-USA Level 3* 100% N=12 100% N=12 90% 90% 80% 80% 70% 67% 70% 60% 60% 58% 50% 50%

40% 40% 33% 30% 25% 30% 20% 20% 10% 8% 10% 8% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

* Osteopathic applicants only

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 201626 Adolescent Medicine Figure-5 Programs That Use Core Specialty Certifying Examination When Considering Applicants for Interview Scores required? Would your program consider applicants who fail the 100% N=7 exam on the first attempt? 90% N=5 80% 100% 71% 70% 90% 80% 60% 70% 50% 60% 50% 40% 40% 40% 30% 29% 40% 30% 20% 20% 20% 10% 10% 0% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No, not required Never Seldom Often

Adolescent Medicine Figure-6 Programs Positions

Average Number of Accredited Positions and Funded Positions Average Percentage of Accredited Positions Offered Outside of 2.8 2.7 the Match 100% 2.4 2.1 90% 2.0 80% 70% 1.6 60% 55% 54% 54% 50% 1.2 40% 30% 0.8 20% 0.4 10% 0% 0.0 Positions Filled Before Positions Offered Outside Positions Filled Outside Accredited Positions Funded Positions Match Day the Match the Match

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

Adolescent Medicine Figure-7 Dedicated Time for Research

Program Requirement on Dedicated Time for Average Number of Months if Research Time is Research Required N=15 20 18 18

16 15

Optional 13.3% 12

8

4 Required 86.7% 0 Accredited Locally Funded Integrated Other N=6 N=0 N=2 N=1

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 201627 Adolescent Medicine Figure-8 Program's Interview Activities

Interview Invitations Sent and Interviews Conducted

100% N=14 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 41% 42% 40% 38% 29% 29% 30% 20% 17% 10% 0%0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% 2% 0%1% 0% 0% 0% Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Interview invitations Interviews conducted

Average Number of Positions, Applications Received, Interview Average Percentage of Applicants Rejected and Reviewed Invitations Sent, and Applicants Interviewed and Ranked 14 100% 89% 12 90% 12 80% 10 70% 8 60% 8 7 50% 40% 6 30% 4 20% 12% 10% 2 0% Rejected based on a In-depth review 0 standardized screening Number of applications Number of interview Number of applicants process received invitations sent interviewed N=15 N=15 N=15 N=15 N=15

Percentage of Programs that Typically Interview and Rank Each Applicant Type 0% of Adolescent Medicine programs consider all applicant groups 100% 100% N=15 90% 87% 80% 73% 70% 60% 53% 50% 40% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 0% U.S. Graduate Osteopathic Canadian Fifth Pathway U.S. IMG Non-U.S. IMG Physician Frequency of Programs Interviewing and Ranking Candidates Interview Ranking 100% 100% 8% 13% 90% 13% 90% 29% 29% 80% 80% 70% 60% 64% 70% 60% 64% 60% 60% 67% 50% 100% 67% 50% 100% 100% 92% 50% 50% 40% 40% 30% 30% 20% 40% 36% 20% 40% 36% 10% 21% 20% 10% 21% 20% 0% 0% Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-US Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-US IMG IMG Often Seldom Never Often Seldom Never n=15 n=15

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 201628 Adolescent Medicine

Figure-9 Potential Challenges in Recruiting Applicants to Your Specialty

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

Not enough applicants in the specialty 4.9

Undesirable income potential as a practicing physician 3.9

Undesirable work/life balance as a practicing physician 1.7

Long or irregular work hours required by specialty 1.2

Fellowship Match scheduled at inconvenient time of year 1.5

012345

Adolescent Medicine

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

n=12

We consider those applicants on an individual basis 92%

We give those applicants serious consideration if they have 17% shown improvement

We do not usually consider those applicants 8%

We favor those applicants 0%

Other 8%

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

Adolescent Medicine

Figure-11 Years as Program Director

At Any Fellowship Program At Current Fellowship Program

More than 15 More than 15 10.0% 16.7% Less than 3 25.0% Less than 3 30.0%

6 to 10 6 to 10 16.7% 30.0%

3 to 5 3 to 5 41.7% 30.0%

n=12 n=10

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 201629 Allergy and Immunology

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 201630 Allergy and Immunology Table 1 General Information

2016 Survey Number of responses 22 Response rate 29.7%

Match Information* Appointment Years 2016 2015 2014 Number of programs in the Match 86 82 81 Number of positions in the Match 137 126 132 Number of applicants ranking specialty 151 155 179 * Source: NRMP Data Warehouse

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 201631 Allergy and Immunology Figure-1 Percentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Selecting Applicants to Interview (N=14) Percent Citing Factor Average Rating Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialty 86% 4.5 Residency performance evaluation (Program Director letter) 93% 4.3 Reputation of residency program 86% 4.1 Demonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research 93% 4.3 Perceived commitment to specialty 71% 4.4 Personal statement 71% 4.0 Perceived interest in program 79% 4.8 Evidence of professionalism and ethics 50% 4.9 USMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score 93% 4.1 Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chapters 79% 4.2 USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE score 86% 4.1 Leadership qualities 50% 4.3 Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicant 64% 4.4 Oral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements 64% 4.3 Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institution 50% 4.7 Pass USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PE 79% 4.3 Any failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX 43% 4.5 USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 score 86% 4.2 Interest in academic career 79% 4.4 Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based) 50% 4.1 Clinical/laboratory research experience 79% 4.2 Awards or special honors in medical school 86% 3.8 Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership 79% 4.0 Other life experience 14% 3.5 Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter) 50% 3.9 Graduate of highly‐regarded medical school 64% 3.9 Visa status* 43% 4.0 Volunteer/extracurricular experiences 21% 3.3 Awarded grant money for research 57% 4.3 Grades in medical school 43% 3.7 Lack of gaps in medical education 21% 4.0 Medical school class ranking/quartile 57% 3.3 Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP 21% 4.7 Electives at your fellowship site 36% 4.2 Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membership 43% 3.7 Residency class ranking/quartile 57% 3.9 Fluency in language spoken by your patient population 21% 4.3 In‐Training Examination (ITE) 0% Residency program size 14% 4.0 Having finished another fellowship 7% 5.0 100% 50% 0% 1 2 345

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

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 201632 Allergy and Immunology Figure-2 Percentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Ranking Applicants (N=14) Percent Citing Factor Average Rating Interactions with faculty during interview and visit 93% 4.7 Interpersonal skills 100% 4.6 Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialty 86% 4.5 Interactions with house staff during interview and visit 71% 4.7 Perceived commitment to specialty 57% 4.5 Feedback from current residents and fellows 86% 4.7 Perceived interest in program 86% 4.3 Demonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research 71% 4.7 Reputation of residency program 71% 4.2 Residency performance evaluation (Program Director letter) 64% 4.4 Evidence of professionalism and ethics 57% 4.9 Personal statement 36% 4.2 Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicant 57% 4.3 Leadership qualities 29% 4.5 Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chapters 64% 4.6 Interest in academic career 64% 4.8 Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institution 50% 4.3 USMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score 57% 4.4 USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE score 57% 4.4 Any failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX 50% 4.6 Passing USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PE 50% 4.4 Clinical/laboratory research experience 57% 4.6 USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 score 64% 4.3 Oral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements 57% 4.5 Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based) 36% 4.2 Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership 57% 4.3 Other life experience 0% Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter) 29% 4.7 Second interview/visit 21% 4.7 Awards or special honors in medical school 50% 3.9 Visa status* 14% 4.5 Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP 7% 5.0 Graduate of highly‐regarded medical school 43% 4.0 Electives at your fellowship site 21% 4.3 Awarded grant money for research 43% 4.8 Volunteer/extracurricular experiences 14% 3.5 Medical school class ranking/quartile 29% 4.0 Lack of gaps in medical education 21% 4.7 Grades in medical school 14% 4.5 Residency class ranking/quartile 29% 4.0 Fluency in language spoken by your patient population 7% 4.0 Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membership 14% 4.0 Residency program size 14% 4.5 In‐Training Examination (ITE) 0% Second interview/visit 21% 5.0 Having finished another fellowship 7% 5.0 100% 50% 0% 12345 ¹ Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). * International Medical Graduates only

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 201633 Allergy and Immunology Figure-3 Programs That Use USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) Scores When Considering Which Applicants to Interview Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 1 Score Scores required? Would your program consider applicants who fail the 100% N=14 exam on the first attempt? 90% 100% N=13 90% 80% 85% 80% 70% 70% 60% 57% 60% 50% 50% 40% 36% 40% 30% 30% 20% 20% 15% 10% 7% 10% 0% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Never Seldom Often

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 (CK) Score Scores required? Would your program consider applicants who fail N=14 the exam on the first attempt? N=13 100% 100% 90% 90% 80% 80% 70% 70% 62% 60% 57% 60% 50% 50% 40% 36% 40% 38% 30% 30% 20% 20% 10% 7% 10% 0% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Never Seldom often

IQR* of Average USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 CK Scores Programs Consider When Granting Interviews Scores Below Which Programs Scores Above Which Programs Generally Do Not Grant Interviews Almost Always Grant Interviews 260 260

250 250

240 240

230 230

220 220

210 210

200 200

190 190

180 180

170 170 USMLE Step 1 USMLE Step 2 CK USMLE Step 1 USMLE Step 2 CK N=6 N=5 N=7 N=6

*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.

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 201634 Allergy and Immunology Figure-4 Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 Clinical Skill (CS), Step 3, and COMLEX-USA Scores* When Considering Which Applicants to Interview Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 CS and Step 3 Scores USMLE Step 2 CS USMLE Step 3 100% N=14 100% N=14 93% 90% 90% 80% 80% 70% 70% 60% 60% 50% 50% 50% 40% 40% 36% 30% 30% 20% 20% 14% 10% 7% 10% 0% 0% Yes No Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

Percentage of Programs That Use COMLEX-USA Level 1 and Level 2-CE Scores COMLEX-USA Level 1* COMLEX-USA Level 2-CE* 100% 100% N=9 N=9 90% 90% 80% 80% 70% 70% 60% 60% 50% 44% 44% 50% 44% 44% 40% 40% 30% 30% 20% 20% 11% 11% 10% 10% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

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

COMLEX-USA Level 2-PE* COMLEX-USA Level 3* 100% N=9 100% N=9 90% 90% 80% 80% 70% 70% 60% 60% 56% 50% 44% 50% 40% 33% 40% 33% 30% 30% 22% 20% 20% 11% 10% 10% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

* Osteopathic applicants only

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 201635 Allergy and Immunology Figure-5 Programs That Use Core Specialty Certifying Examination When Considering Applicants for Interview Scores required? Would your program consider applicants who fail the 100% N=10 exam on the first attempt? 90% N=6 80% 100% 70% 90% 60% 80% 60% 70% 67% 50% 60% 40% 50% 30% 40% 33% 20% 20% 30% 20% 20% 10% 10% 0% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No, not required Never Seldom Often

Allergy and Immunology Figure-6 Programs Positions

Average Number of Accredited Positions and Funded Positions Average Percentage of Accredited Positions Offered Outside of 4.0 3.8 the Match 100% 3.5 3.3 90% 3.0 80% 71% 2.5 70% 60% 2.0 50% 40% 1.5 30% 30% 29% 1.0 20% 0.5 10% 0% 0.0 Positions Filled Before Positions Offered Outside Positions Filled Outside Accredited Positions Funded Positions Match Day the Match the Match

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

Allergy and Immunology Figure-7 Dedicated Time for Research

Program Requirement on Dedicated Time for Average Number of Months if Research Time is Research Required N=22 24 24

20

Optional 16 13.6%

12 9 8 7 6

Required 4 86.4% 0 Accredited Locally Funded Integrated Other N=11 N=7 N=1 N=1

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 201636 Allergy and Immunology Figure-8 Program's Interview Activities

Interview Invitations Sent and Interviews Conducted

100% N=14 90% 80% 70% 60% 58% 49% 50% 40% 30% 30% 20% 20% 10% 12% 10% 8% 7% 0%0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Interview invitations Interviews conducted

Average Number of Positions, Applications Received, Interview Average Percentage of Applicants Rejected and Reviewed Invitations Sent, and Applicants Interviewed and Ranked 70 100% 62 90% 60 80% 70% 50 60% 60% 49% 40 50% 40% 30 30% 18 20 15 20% 10% 10 0% Rejected based on a In-depth review 0 standardized screening Number of applications Number of interview Number of applicants process received invitations sent interviewed N=15 N=16 N=18 N=18 N=18

Percentage of Programs that Typically Interview and Rank Each Applicant Type 29% of Allergy and Immunology programs consider all applicant groups

100% 93% N=14 90% 80% 71% 70% 64% 60% 57% 50% 43% 40% 36% 30% 20% 10% 0% U.S. Graduate Osteopathic Canadian Fifth Pathway U.S. IMG Non-U.S. IMG Physician Frequency of Programs Interviewing and Ranking Candidates Interview Ranking 100% 100% 7% 90% 13% 13% 90% 33% 80% 40% 33% 80% 40% 47% 47% 70% 53% 70% 40% 60% 60% 60% 88% 60% 87% 50% 50% 40% 33% 53% 40% 47% 53% 30% 30% 53% 47% 53% 47% 20% 20% 33% 27% 10% 27% 10% 13% 13% 13% 13% 13% 0% 0% Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-US Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-US IMG IMG Often Seldom Never Often Seldom Never n=16 n=15

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 201637 Allergy and Immunology

Figure-9 Potential Challenges in Recruiting Applicants to Your Specialty

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

Not enough applicants in the specialty 2.2

Undesirable income potential as a practicing physician 1.8

Undesirable work/life balance as a practicing physician 1.2

Long or irregular work hours required by specialty 1.2

Fellowship Match scheduled at inconvenient time of year 1.3

012345

Allergy and Immunology

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

n=13

We consider those applicants on an individual basis 85%

We give those applicants serious consideration if they have 15% shown improvement

We do not usually consider those applicants 15%

We favor those applicants 0%

Other 0%

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

Allergy and Immunology

Figure-11 Years as Program Director

At Any Fellowship Program At Current Fellowship Program

Less than 3 More than 15 More than 15 7.1% 20.0% 3 to 5 21.4% 26.7% 3 to 5 21.4%

11 to 13.3%15 11 to 15 14.3%

6 to 10 6 to 10 40.0% 35.7%

n=15 n=14

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 201638 Cardiovascular Disease

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 201639 Cardiovascular Disease Table 1 General Information

2016 Survey Number of responses 57 Response rate 30.8%

Match Information* Appointment Years 2016 2015 2014 Number of programs in the Match 193 187 181 Number of positions in the Match 844 835 800 Number of applicants ranking specialty 1,108 1,142 1,106 * Source: NRMP Data Warehouse

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 201640 Cardiovascular Disease Figure-1 Percentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Selecting Applicants to Interview (N=48) Percent Citing Factor Average Rating Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialty 81% 4.4 Residency performance evaluation (Program Director letter) 88% 4.5 Reputation of residency program 94% 4.5 Demonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research 90% 4.0 Perceived commitment to specialty 60% 4.0 Personal statement 69% 3.5 Perceived interest in program 73% 4.2 Evidence of professionalism and ethics 67% 4.5 USMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score 81% 4.0 Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chapters 79% 4.0 USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE score 83% 4.0 Leadership qualities 77% 4.1 Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicant 67% 4.2 Oral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements 71% 4.0 Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institution 79% 4.2 Pass USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PE 63% 4.3 Any failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX 83% 4.7 USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 score 79% 4.1 Interest in academic career 52% 4.0 Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based) 75% 4.4 Clinical/laboratory research experience 52% 3.6 Awards or special honors in medical school 54% 3.5 Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership 52% 4.2 Other life experience 46% 3.5 Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter) 46% 3.4 Graduate of highly‐regarded medical school 54% 3.8 Visa status* 44% 4.1 Volunteer/extracurricular experiences 31% 3.8 Awarded grant money for research 40% 3.8 Grades in medical school 23% 3.4 Lack of gaps in medical education 48% 3.7 Medical school class ranking/quartile 31% 3.5 Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP 52% 4.8 Electives at your fellowship site 27% 3.9 Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membership 25% 3.5 Residency class ranking/quartile 56% 3.9 Fluency in language spoken by your patient population 19% 3.6 In‐Training Examination (ITE) 10% 3.0 Residency program size 10% 3.3 Having finished another fellowship 19% 2.6 100% 50% 0% 1 2 345

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

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 201641 Cardiovascular Disease Figure-2 Percentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Ranking Applicants (N=48) Percent Citing Factor Average Rating Interactions with faculty during interview and visit 89% 4.8 Interpersonal skills 89% 4.7 Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialty 82% 4.5 Interactions with house staff during interview and visit 76% 4.8 Perceived commitment to specialty 36% 4.6 Feedback from current residents and fellows 78% 4.6 Perceived interest in program 71% 4.5 Demonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research 78% 4.1 Reputation of residency program 82% 4.4 Residency performance evaluation (Program Director letter) 71% 4.5 Evidence of professionalism and ethics 51% 4.8 Personal statement 49% 3.8 Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicant 49% 4.6 Leadership qualities 47% 4.4 Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chapters 49% 4.2 Interest in academic career 44% 4.3 Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institution 47% 4.0 USMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score 51% 4.2 USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE score 53% 4.2 Any failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX 47% 4.6 Passing USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PE 44% 4.2 Clinical/laboratory research experience 31% 4.0 USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 score 49% 4.3 Oral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements 33% 4.1 Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based) 53% 4.3 Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership 38% 4.1 Other life experience 20% 4.1 Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter) 27% 3.7 Second interview/visit 31% 4.2 Awards or special honors in medical school 22% 3.7 Visa status* 20% 4.3 Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP 36% 4.8 Graduate of highly‐regarded medical school 31% 4.1 Electives at your fellowship site 20% 4.2 Awarded grant money for research 20% 4.1 Volunteer/extracurricular experiences 9% 4.0 Medical school class ranking/quartile 18% 3.6 Lack of gaps in medical education 16% 4.4 Grades in medical school 13% 3.3 Residency class ranking/quartile 27% 4.5 Fluency in language spoken by your patient population 11% 4.4 Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membership 4% 4.0 Residency program size 9% 3.8 In‐Training Examination (ITE) 4% 4.0 Second interview/visit 7% 4.3 Having finished another fellowship 4% 4.5 100% 50% 0% 12345 ¹ Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). * International Medical Graduates only

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 201642 Cardiovascular Disease Figure-3 Programs That Use USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) Scores When Considering Which Applicants to Interview Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 1 Score Scores required? Would your program consider applicants who fail the 100% N=48 exam on the first attempt? 90% 100% N=48 90% 80% 80% 70% 70% 60% 54% 60% 58% 50% 46% 50% 40% 40% 38% 30% 30% 20% 20% 10% 10% 4% 0% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Never Seldom Often

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 (CK) Score Scores required? Would your program consider applicants who fail N=48 the exam on the first attempt? N=48 100% 100% 90% 90% 80% 80% 70% 70% 60% 54% 60% 58% 50% 46% 50% 40% 40% 38% 30% 30% 20% 20% 10% 10% 4% 0% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Never Seldom often

IQR* of Average USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 CK Scores Programs Consider When Granting Interviews Scores Below Which Programs Scores Above Which Programs Generally Do Not Grant Interviews Almost Always Grant Interviews 260 260

250 250

240 240

230 230

220 220

210 210

200 200

190 190

180 180

170 170 USMLE Step 1 USMLE Step 2 CK USMLE Step 1 USMLE Step 2 CK N=24 N=20 N=18 N=14

*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.

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 201643 Cardiovascular Disease Figure-4 Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 Clinical Skill (CS), Step 3, and COMLEX-USA Scores* When Considering Which Applicants to Interview Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 CS and Step 3 Scores USMLE Step 2 CS USMLE Step 3 100% N=48 100% N=46 100% 90% 90% 80% 80% 70% 70% 60% 60% 52% 50% 50% 40% 40% 35% 30% 30% 20% 20% 13% 10% 10% 0% 0% 0% Yes No Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

Percentage of Programs That Use COMLEX-USA Level 1 and Level 2-CE Scores COMLEX-USA Level 1* COMLEX-USA Level 2-CE* 100% 100% N=38 N=38 90% 90% 80% 80% 70% 70% 60% 60% 50% 45% 50% 45% 40% 40% 32% 32% 30% 24% 30% 24% 20% 20% 10% 10% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

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

COMLEX-USA Level 2-PE* COMLEX-USA Level 3* 100% N=37 100% N=35 90% 90% 80% 80% 70% 70%

60% 54% 60% 50% 50% 40% 40% 37% 34% 30% 30% 29% 22% 24% 20% 20% 10% 10% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

* Osteopathic applicants only

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 201644 Cardiovascular Disease Figure-5 Programs That Use Core Specialty Certifying Examination When Considering Applicants for Interview Scores required? Would your program consider applicants who fail the 100% N=26 exam on the first attempt? 90% N=18 80% 100% 69% 70% 90% 80% 60% 70% 50% 60% 50% 40% 50% 44% 30% 40% 23% 30% 20% 20% 10% 8% 10% 6% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No, not required Never Seldom Often

Cardiovascular Disease Figure-6 Programs Positions

Average Number of Accredited Positions and Funded Positions Average Percentage of Accredited Positions Offered Outside of 12 the Match 10.9 10.3 100% 10 90% 80% 8 70% 60% 58% 6 50% 40% 4 30% 20% 20% 15% 2 10% 0% 0 Positions Filled Before Positions Offered Outside Positions Filled Outside Accredited Positions Funded Positions Match Day the Match the Match

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

Cardiovascular Disease Figure-7 Dedicated Time for Research

Program Requirement on Dedicated Time for Average Number of Months if Research Time is Research Required N=56 6

5 5 4

4 3 Optional 3 37.5%

2 2 Required 62.5% 1

0 Accredited Locally Funded Integrated Other N=20 N=9 N=5 N=6

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 201645 Cardiovascular Disease Figure-8 Program's Interview Activities

Interview Invitations Sent and Interviews Conducted

100% N=50 90% 80% 70% 60% 56% 49% 50% 40% 40% 30% 28% 20% 10% 7% 6% 0%1% 0% 1% 0%0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 4% 0% 1% 2% 0% 0% Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Interview invitations Interviews conducted

Average Number of Positions, Applications Received, Interview Average Percentage of Applicants Rejected and Reviewed Invitations Sent, and Applicants Interviewed and Ranked 450 435 100% 400 90% 80% 350 70% 300 60% 53% 250 50% 42% 200 40% 30% 150 20% 100 10% 49 50 42 0% Rejected based on a In-depth review 0 standardized screening Number of applications Number of interview Number of applicants process received invitations sent interviewed N=48 N=49 N=51 N=51 N=51

Percentage of Programs that Typically Interview and Rank Each Applicant Type 22% of Cardiovascular Disease programs consider all applicant groups

100% 96% N=51 90% 76% 80% 73% 69% 70% 60% 53% 50% 40% 30% 22% 20% 10% 0% U.S. Graduate Osteopathic Canadian Fifth Pathway U.S. IMG Non-U.S. IMG Physician Frequency of Programs Interviewing and Ranking Candidates Interview Ranking 100% 2% 100% 4% 14% 90% 20% 17% 90% 17% 80% 80% 44% 47% 48% 49% 70% 57% 70% 56% 60% 60% 53% 50% 96% 59% 50% 98% 40% 78% 40% 79% 44% 35% 30% 45% 30% 40% 37% 36% 20% 20% 33% 24% 10% 10% 16% 13% 8% 12% 8% 0% 2% 6% 0% 2% Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-US Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-US IMG IMG Often Seldom Never Often Seldom Never n=49 n=50

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 201646 Cardiovascular Disease

Figure-9 Potential Challenges in Recruiting Applicants to Your Specialty

Average rating on a scale of 5 (1=least challenging; 5=most challenging) n=43

Not enough applicants in the specialty 1.4

Undesirable income potential as a practicing physician 1.5

Undesirable work/life balance as a practicing physician 2.9

Long or irregular work hours required by specialty 2.8

Fellowship Match scheduled at inconvenient time of year 1.9

012345

Cardiovascular Disease

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

n=45

We consider those applicants on an individual basis 71%

We give those applicants serious consideration if they have 20% shown improvement

We do not usually consider those applicants 20%

We favor those applicants 0%

Other 0%

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

Cardiovascular Disease

Figure-11 Years as Program Director

At Any Fellowship Program At Current Fellowship Program

More than 15 Less than 3 More than 15 8.5% 16.0% Less than 3 20.0% 11 to 15 21.3% 10.6%

11 to 10.0% 15 3 to 5 26.0% 6 to 10 29.8% 3 to 5 29.8% 6 to 10 28.0%

n=50 n=47

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 201647 Child and Adolescent Psychiatry

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 201648 Child and Adolescent Psychiatry Table 1 General Information

2016 Survey Number of responses 42 Response rate 40.8%

Match Information* Appointment Years 2016 2015 2014 Number of programs in the Match 107 104 107 Number of positions in the Match 340 338 351 Number of applicants ranking specialty 309 320 317 * Source: NRMP Data Warehouse

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 201649 Child and Adolescent Psychiatry Figure-1 Percentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Selecting Applicants to Interview (N=33) Percent Citing Factor Average Rating Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialty 88% 4.3 Residency performance evaluation (Program Director letter) 79% 4.8 Reputation of residency program 82% 3.6 Demonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research 73% 3.1 Perceived commitment to specialty 88% 4.6 Personal statement 94% 4.2 Perceived interest in program 82% 4.4 Evidence of professionalism and ethics 85% 4.8 USMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score 55% 3.2 Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chapters 61% 3.4 USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE score 55% 3.3 Leadership qualities 67% 4.1 Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicant 61% 4.0 Oral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements 61% 3.5 Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institution 73% 4.1 Pass USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PE 61% 3.6 Any failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX 79% 3.5 USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 score 64% 3.4 Interest in academic career 45% 3.5 Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based) 33% 3.1 Clinical/laboratory research experience 48% 3.1 Awards or special honors in medical school 48% 3.5 Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership 48% 3.4 Other life experience 79% 3.9 Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter) 70% 3.8 Graduate of highly‐regarded medical school 42% 3.3 Visa status* 52% 4.0 Volunteer/extracurricular experiences 67% 3.8 Awarded grant money for research 39% 3.4 Grades in medical school 42% 3.3 Lack of gaps in medical education 67% 3.7 Medical school class ranking/quartile 45% 3.3 Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP 48% 4.8 Electives at your fellowship site 18% 3.5 Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membership 52% 3.3 Residency class ranking/quartile 18% 3.7 Fluency in language spoken by your patient population 58% 3.8 In‐Training Examination (ITE) 12% 3.5 Residency program size 6% 3.0 Having finished another fellowship 12% 3.0 100% 50% 0% 1 2 345

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

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 201650 Child and Adolescent Psychiatry Figure-2 Percentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Ranking Applicants (N=33) Percent Citing Factor Average Rating Interactions with faculty during interview and visit 100% 4.9 Interpersonal skills 100% 4.9 Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialty 69% 4.4 Interactions with house staff during interview and visit 100% 4.9 Perceived commitment to specialty 81% 4.7 Feedback from current residents and fellows 97% 4.9 Perceived interest in program 81% 4.5 Demonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research 63% 3.3 Reputation of residency program 53% 3.9 Residency performance evaluation (Program Director letter) 63% 4.7 Evidence of professionalism and ethics 75% 4.8 Personal statement 75% 4.3 Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicant 56% 4.3 Leadership qualities 63% 4.3 Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chapters 50% 3.6 Interest in academic career 38% 3.8 Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institution 63% 4.5 USMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score 34% 3.5 USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE score 34% 3.7 Any failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX 63% 3.8 Passing USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PE 50% 3.9 Clinical/laboratory research experience 38% 3.3 USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 score 50% 3.6 Oral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements 50% 3.6 Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based) 19% 3.7 Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership 25% 3.5 Other life experience 47% 4.0 Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter) 50% 3.9 Second interview/visit 47% 3.9 Awards or special honors in medical school 47% 3.4 Visa status* 38% 4.2 Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP 44% 4.9 Graduate of highly‐regarded medical school 28% 3.7 Electives at your fellowship site 13% 4.0 Awarded grant money for research 28% 3.2 Volunteer/extracurricular experiences 47% 3.9 Medical school class ranking/quartile 28% 3.6 Lack of gaps in medical education 31% 3.7 Grades in medical school 31% 3.3 Residency class ranking/quartile 16% 4.0 Fluency in language spoken by your patient population 34% 3.9 Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membership 25% 3.5 Residency program size 3% 3.0 In‐Training Examination (ITE) 9% 3.7 Second interview/visit 9% 4.0 Having finished another fellowship 9% 3.3 100% 50% 0% 12345 ¹ Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). * International Medical Graduates only

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 201651 Child and Adolescent Psychiatry Figure-3 Programs That Use USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) Scores When Considering Which Applicants to Interview Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 1 Score Scores required? Would your program consider applicants who fail the 100% 94% N=33 exam on the first attempt? 90% 100% N=33 90% 80% 80% 70% 70% 60% 60% 50% 52% 50% 45% 40% 40% 30% 30% 20% 20% 10% 6% 10% 0% 3% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Never Seldom Often

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 (CK) Score Scores required? Would your program consider applicants who fail N=33 the exam on the first attempt? N=33 100% 94% 100% 90% 90% 80% 80% 70% 70% 60% 60% 50% 50% 48% 48% 40% 40% 30% 30% 20% 20% 10% 6% 10% 3% 0% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Never Seldom often

IQR* of Average USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 CK Scores Programs Consider When Granting Interviews Scores Below Which Programs Scores Above Which Programs Generally Do Not Grant Interviews Almost Always Grant Interviews

USMLE Step 2 CK USMLE Step 1 not USMLE Step 2 CK USMLE Step 1 not not reported reported because not reported reported because because of low of low response because of low of low response response rate rate response rate rate

*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.

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 201652 Child and Adolescent Psychiatry Figure-4 Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 Clinical Skill (CS), Step 3, and COMLEX-USA Scores* When Considering Which Applicants to Interview Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 CS and Step 3 Scores USMLE Step 2 CS USMLE Step 3 100% N=33 100% N=33 100% 91% 90% 90% 80% 80% 70% 70% 60% 60% 50% 50% 40% 40% 30% 30% 20% 20% 10% 6% 10% 3% 0% 0% 0% Yes No Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

Percentage of Programs That Use COMLEX-USA Level 1 and Level 2-CE Scores COMLEX-USA Level 1* COMLEX-USA Level 2-CE* 100% 100% N=32 N=31 90% 88% 90% 87% 80% 80% 70% 70% 60% 60% 50% 50% 40% 40% 30% 30% 20% 20% 9% 10% 10% 3% 10% 3% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

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

COMLEX-USA Level 2-PE* COMLEX-USA Level 3* 100% N=31 100% N=31 87% 90% 90% 84% 80% 80% 70% 70% 60% 60% 50% 50% 40% 40% 30% 30% 20% 20% 13% 10% 10% 3% 10% 3% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

* Osteopathic applicants only

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 201653 Child and Adolescent Psychiatry Figure-5 Programs That Use Core Specialty Certifying Examination When Considering Applicants for Interview Scores required? Would your program consider applicants who fail the N=12 100% exam on the first attempt? 100% N=2 90% 100% 80% 100% 90% 70% 80% 60% 70% 50% 60% 40% 50% 40% 30% 30% 20% 20% 10% 10% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No, not required Never Seldom Often

Child and Adolescent Psychiatry Figure-6 Programs Positions

Average Number of Accredited Positions and Funded Positions Average Percentage of Accredited Positions Offered Outside of 7 the Match 6.0 100% 6 5.5 90% 5 80% 70% 62% 4 60% 50% 43% 43% 3 40% 30% 2 20% 1 10% 0% 0 Positions Filled Before Positions Offered Outside Positions Filled Outside Accredited Positions Funded Positions Match Day the Match the Match

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

Child and Adolescent Psychiatry Figure-7 Dedicated Time for Research

Program Requirement on Dedicated Time for Average Number of Months if Research Time is Research Required N=42 7 7

6

5 5 Required 19.0% 4

3

2

1 1 Optional 1 81.0%

0 Accredited Locally Funded Integrated Other N=1 N=1 N=1 N=4

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 201654 Child and Adolescent Psychiatry Figure-8 Program's Interview Activities

Interview Invitations Sent and Interviews Conducted

100% N=32 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 43% 40% 40% 28% 30% 21% 25% 20% 18% 10% 5% 6% 3% 3% 0%0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%3% 0% 1% 0% 0% Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Interview invitations Interviews conducted

Average Number of Positions, Applications Received, Interview Average Percentage of Applicants Rejected and Reviewed Invitations Sent, and Applicants Interviewed and Ranked 50 46 100% 45 90% 84% 40 80% 35 70% 60% 30 50% 25 23 40% 18 20 30% 23% 15 20% 10 10% 5 0% Rejected based on a In-depth review 0 standardized screening Number of applications Number of interview Number of applicants process received invitations sent interviewed N=38 N=38 N=38 N=38 N=38

Percentage of Programs that Typically Interview and Rank Each Applicant Type 38% of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry programs consider all applicant groups

100% 97% 94% N=34 94% 90% 85% 80% 74% 70% 60% 50% 44% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% U.S. Graduate Osteopathic Canadian Fifth Pathway U.S. IMG Non-U.S. IMG Physician Frequency of Programs Interviewing and Ranking Candidates Interview Ranking 100% 100% 7% 7% 90% 23% 90% 19% 80% 80% 40% 70% 43% 70% 61% 61% 70% 60% 73% 60% 88% 82% 91% 87% 50% 55% 50% 58% 40% 40% 30% 30% 50% 53% 27% 20% 33% 20% 30% 10% 23% 27% 10% 23% 9% 18% 6% 13% 12% 0% 3% 6% 0% 3% Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-US Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-US IMG IMG Often Seldom Never Often Seldom Never n=34 n=32

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 201655 Child and Adolescent Psychiatry

Figure-9 Potential Challenges in Recruiting Applicants to Your Specialty

Average rating on a scale of 5 (1=least challenging; 5=most challenging) n=31

Not enough applicants in the specialty 4.5

Undesirable income potential as a practicing physician 3.0

Undesirable work/life balance as a practicing physician 2.0

Long or irregular work hours required by specialty 1.8

Fellowship Match scheduled at inconvenient time of year 2.1

012345

Child and Adolescent Psychiatry

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

n=32

We consider those applicants on an individual basis 88%

We give those applicants serious consideration if they have 28% shown improvement

We do not usually consider those applicants 6%

We favor those applicants 6%

Other 3%

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

Child and Adolescent Psychiatry

Figure-11 Years as Program Director

At Any Fellowship Program At Current Fellowship Program

Less than 3 More than 15 More than 13.2% 20.5%15 17.9% Less than 3 28.9% 11 to 15 13.2%

3 to 5 11 to 15 20.5% 17.9%

6 to 10 3 to 5 18.4% 6 to 10 26.3% 23.1%

n=39 n=38

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 201656 Colon and Rectal Surgery

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 201657 Colon and Rectal Surgery Table 1 General Information

2016 Survey Number of responses 18 Response rate 34.0%

Match Information* Appointment Years 2016 2015 2014 Number of programs in the Match 54 55 54 Number of positions in the Match 93 93 92 Number of applicants ranking specialty 110 110 128 * Source: NRMP Data Warehouse

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 201658 Colon and Rectal Surgery Figure-1 Percentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Selecting Applicants to Interview (N=17) Percent Citing Factor Average Rating Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialty 100% 4.5 Residency performance evaluation (Program Director letter) 82% 4.6 Reputation of residency program 82% 3.9 Demonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research 94% 3.6 Perceived commitment to specialty 71% 4.1 Personal statement 82% 3.7 Perceived interest in program 71% 4.3 Evidence of professionalism and ethics 82% 4.6 USMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score 71% 3.6 Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chapters 88% 3.7 USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE score 76% 3.6 Leadership qualities 82% 4.1 Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicant 59% 3.7 Oral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements 71% 3.6 Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institution 18% 3.3 Pass USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PE 65% 3.5 Any failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX 47% 3.5 USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 score 59% 3.6 Interest in academic career 41% 3.4 Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based) 35% 3.8 Clinical/laboratory research experience 71% 3.4 Awards or special honors in medical school 53% 3.6 Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership 53% 3.9 Other life experience 71% 3.8 Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter) 35% 3.0 Graduate of highly‐regarded medical school 35% 3.5 Visa status* 35% 3.5 Volunteer/extracurricular experiences 47% 3.6 Awarded grant money for research 29% 3.8 Grades in medical school 18% 2.7 Lack of gaps in medical education 24% 3.0 Medical school class ranking/quartile 35% 3.3 Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP 29% 4.6 Electives at your fellowship site 0% Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membership 24% 3.5 Residency class ranking/quartile 29% 4.2 Fluency in language spoken by your patient population 12% 3.5 In‐Training Examination (ITE) 94% 4.1 Residency program size 6% 4.0 Having finished another fellowship 18% 2.7 100% 50% 0% 1 2 345

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

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 201659 Colon and Rectal Surgery Figure-2 Percentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Ranking Applicants (N=17) Percent Citing Factor Average Rating Interactions with faculty during interview and visit 100% 4.8 Interpersonal skills 94% 4.8 Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialty 81% 4.3 Interactions with house staff during interview and visit 94% 4.6 Perceived commitment to specialty 50% 4.1 Feedback from current residents and fellows 63% 4.4 Perceived interest in program 56% 4.4 Demonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research 50% 3.6 Reputation of residency program 63% 3.7 Residency performance evaluation (Program Director letter) 56% 4.1 Evidence of professionalism and ethics 50% 4.5 Personal statement 50% 3.5 Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicant 44% 4.1 Leadership qualities 38% 4.3 Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chapters 31% 3.6 Interest in academic career 13% 3.5 Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institution 0% USMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score 25% 4.0 USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE score 25% 4.0 Any failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX 31% 4.2 Passing USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PE 19% 4.0 Clinical/laboratory research experience 13% 4.0 USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 score 25% 3.5 Oral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements 25% 3.8 Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based) 13% 2.5 Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership 19% 4.7 Other life experience 31% 4.2 Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter) 19% 2.7 Second interview/visit 19% 4.3 Awards or special honors in medical school 25% 3.5 Visa status* 25% 4.0 Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP 19% 5.0 Graduate of highly‐regarded medical school 13% 4.0 Electives at your fellowship site 6% 5.0 Awarded grant money for research 13% 4.0 Volunteer/extracurricular experiences 25% 4.5 Medical school class ranking/quartile 6% 4.0 Lack of gaps in medical education 13% 4.5 Grades in medical school 0% Residency class ranking/quartile 13% 4.5 Fluency in language spoken by your patient population 6% 4.0 Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membership 6% 5.0 Residency program size 0% In‐Training Examination (ITE) 69% 4.0 Second interview/visit 13% 3.5 Having finished another fellowship 6% 2.0 100% 50% 0% 12345 ¹ Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). * International Medical Graduates only

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 201660 Colon and Rectal Surgery Figure-3 Programs That Use USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) Scores When Considering Which Applicants to Interview Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 1 Score Scores required? Would your program consider applicants who fail the 100% N=17 exam on the first attempt? 90% 100% N=16 90% 80% 80% 70% 70% 60% 63% 53% 60% 50% 50% 40% 35% 40% 30% 30% 25% 20% 12% 20% 13% 10% 10% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Never Seldom Often

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 (CK) Score Scores required? Would your program consider applicants who fail N=17 the exam on the first attempt? N=16 100% 100% 90% 90% 80% 80% 70% 70% 63% 60% 53% 60% 50% 50% 40% 35% 40% 30% 30% 25% 20% 20% 12% 13% 10% 10% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Never Seldom often

IQR* of Average USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 CK Scores Programs Consider When Granting Interviews Scores Below Which Programs Scores Above Which Programs Generally Do Not Grant Interviews Almost Always Grant Interviews 260 260

250 250

240 240

230 230

220 220

210 210

200 200

190 190

180 180

170 170 USMLE Step 1 USMLE Step 2 CK USMLE Step 1 USMLE Step 2 CK N=6 N=6 N=6 N=6

*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.

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 201661 Colon and Rectal Surgery Figure-4 Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 Clinical Skill (CS), Step 3, and COMLEX-USA Scores* When Considering Which Applicants to Interview Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 CS and Step 3 Scores USMLE Step 2 CS USMLE Step 3 100% N=17 100% N=17 90% 88% 90% 80% 80% 70% 70% 60% 60% 50% 50% 47% 41% 40% 40% 30% 30% 20% 20% 12% 12% 10% 10% 0% 0% Yes No Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

Percentage of Programs That Use COMLEX-USA Level 1 and Level 2-CE Scores COMLEX-USA Level 1* COMLEX-USA Level 2-CE* 100% 100% N=10 N=10 90% 90% 80% 80% 70% 70% 60% 60% 50% 50% 50% 50% 40% 40% 40% 40% 30% 30% 20% 20% 10% 10% 10% 10% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

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

COMLEX-USA Level 2-PE* COMLEX-USA Level 3* 100% N=10 100% N=10 90% 90% 80% 80% 70% 70% 60% 60% 50% 50% 50% 50% 40% 40% 40% 40% 30% 30% 20% 20% 10% 10% 10% 10% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

* Osteopathic applicants only

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 201662 Colon and Rectal Surgery Figure-5 Programs That Use Core Specialty Certifying Examination When Considering Applicants for Interview Scores required? Would your program consider applicants who fail the 100% N=7 exam on the first attempt? 90% N=5 80% 100% 70% 90% 80% 60% 70% 50% 60% 43% 60% 40% 50% 30% 29% 29% 40% 30% 20% 20% 20% 20% 10% 10% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No, not required Never Seldom Often

Colon and Rectal Surgery Figure-6 Programs Positions

Average Number of Accredited Positions and Funded Positions Average Percentage of Accredited Positions Offered Outside of 1.8 the Match 1.6 1.6 1.5 100% 90% 1.4 83% 80% 1.2 70% 61% 61% 1.0 60% 50% 0.8 40% 0.6 30% 0.4 20% 10% 0.2 0% 0.0 Positions Filled Before Positions Offered Outside Positions Filled Outside Accredited Positions Funded Positions Match Day the Match the Match

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

Colon and Rectal Surgery Figure-7 Dedicated Time for Research

Program Requirement on Dedicated Time for Average Number of Months if Research Time is Research Required N=18 12 12

10

Required 8 8 16.7%

6

4

Optional 2 83.3% 0 Accredited Locally Funded Integrated Other N=0 N=1 N=2 N=0

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 201663 Colon and Rectal Surgery Figure-8 Program's Interview Activities

Interview Invitations Sent and Interviews Conducted

100% N=15 90% 80% 70% 60% 55% 54% 50% 40% 30% 27% 27% 19% 20% 18% 10% 0%0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%0% 0% 0% 0% Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Interview invitations Interviews conducted

Average Number of Positions, Applications Received, Interview Average Percentage of Applicants Rejected and Reviewed Invitations Sent, and Applicants Interviewed and Ranked 70 70 100% 90% 60 80% 70% 66% 50 60% 40 50% 41% 40% 30 27 23 30% 20 20% 10% 10 0% Rejected based on a In-depth review 0 standardized screening Number of applications Number of interview Number of applicants process received invitations sent interviewed N=17 N=17 N=18 N=18 N=18

Percentage of Programs that Typically Interview and Rank Each Applicant Type 38% of Colon and Rectal Surgery programs consider all applicant groups

100% 94% N=16 90% 81% 81% 80% 69% 70% 60% 50% 50% 44% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% U.S. Graduate Osteopathic Canadian Fifth Pathway U.S. IMG Non-U.S. IMG Physician Frequency of Programs Interviewing and Ranking Candidates Interview Ranking 100% 100% 90% 20% 90% 17% 80% 80% 42% 43% 50% 47% 47% 53% 70% 56% 70% 57% 60% 60% 87% 93% 58% 50% 60% 50% 40% 40% 30% 30% 58% 29% 57% 50% 53% 38% 53% 40% 20% 20% 25% 10% 7% 20% 10% 14% 0% 7% 6% 0% 7% 7% Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-US Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-US IMG IMG Often Seldom Never Often Seldom Never n=15 n=14

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 201664 Colon and Rectal Surgery

Figure-9 Potential Challenges in Recruiting Applicants to Your Specialty

Average rating on a scale of 5 (1=least challenging; 5=most challenging) n=15

Not enough applicants in the specialty 2.0

Undesirable income potential as a practicing physician 1.9

Undesirable work/life balance as a practicing physician 2.1

Long or irregular work hours required by specialty 2.5

Fellowship Match scheduled at inconvenient time of year 2.1

012345

Colon and Rectal Surgery

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

n=15

We consider those applicants on an individual basis 87%

We give those applicants serious consideration if they have 33% shown improvement

We do not usually consider those applicants 0%

We favor those applicants 0%

Other 0%

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

Colon and Rectal Surgery

Figure-11 Years as Program Director

At Any Fellowship Program At Current Fellowship Program

Less than 3 Less than 3 8.3% More than 15 8.3% More than 3 to 5 16.7% 3 to 5 25.0%15 8.3% 8.3% 11 to 15 8.3%

11 to 15 8.3%

6 to 10 50.0% 6 to 10 58.3%

n=12 n=12

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 201665 Developmental-Behavioral Pediatrics

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 201666 Developmental-Behavioral Pediatrics Table 1 General Information

2016 Survey Number of responses 16 Response rate 47.1%

Match Information* Appointment Years 2016 2015 2014 Number of programs in the Match 36 33 29 Number of positions in the Match 48 41 38 Number of applicants ranking specialty 28 38 28 * Source: NRMP Data Warehouse

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 201667 Developmental-Behavioral Pediatrics Figure-1 Percentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Selecting Applicants to Interview (N=14) Percent Citing Factor Average Rating Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialty 86% 4.7 Residency performance evaluation (Program Director letter) 86% 4.8 Reputation of residency program 93% 3.5 Demonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research 79% 3.8 Perceived commitment to specialty 93% 4.8 Personal statement 100% 4.5 Perceived interest in program 93% 4.5 Evidence of professionalism and ethics 86% 5.0 USMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score 57% 3.4 Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chapters 79% 3.7 USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE score 50% 3.6 Leadership qualities 93% 4.7 Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicant 79% 4.0 Oral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements 71% 3.5 Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institution 71% 3.9 Pass USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PE 50% 3.6 Any failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX 57% 3.9 USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 score 50% 3.9 Interest in academic career 71% 4.3 Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based) 29% 3.8 Clinical/laboratory research experience 64% 3.7 Awards or special honors in medical school 64% 3.9 Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership 50% 3.6 Other life experience 64% 3.8 Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter) 64% 3.3 Graduate of highly‐regarded medical school 71% 3.5 Visa status* 79% 4.5 Volunteer/extracurricular experiences 79% 3.7 Awarded grant money for research 50% 3.7 Grades in medical school 50% 3.4 Lack of gaps in medical education 14% 4.0 Medical school class ranking/quartile 50% 3.4 Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP 21% 5.0 Electives at your fellowship site 50% 3.7 Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membership 36% 4.0 Residency class ranking/quartile 21% 4.0 Fluency in language spoken by your patient population 50% 3.4 In‐Training Examination (ITE) 7% 3.0 Residency program size 7% 2.0 Having finished another fellowship 7% 3.0 100% 50% 0% 1 2 345

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

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 201668 Developmental-Behavioral Pediatrics Figure-2 Percentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Ranking Applicants (N=14) Percent Citing Factor Average Rating Interactions with faculty during interview and visit 93% 4.9 Interpersonal skills 86% 4.9 Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialty 93% 4.7 Interactions with house staff during interview and visit 79% 4.5 Perceived commitment to specialty 86% 4.9 Feedback from current residents and fellows 79% 4.4 Perceived interest in program 79% 4.7 Demonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research 86% 4.2 Reputation of residency program 71% 3.4 Residency performance evaluation (Program Director letter) 64% 4.9 Evidence of professionalism and ethics 86% 4.9 Personal statement 71% 4.5 Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicant 50% 4.0 Leadership qualities 79% 4.9 Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chapters 57% 4.0 Interest in academic career 71% 4.5 Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institution 57% 4.0 USMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score 36% 3.8 USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE score 43% 3.8 Any failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX 43% 4.7 Passing USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PE 50% 3.6 Clinical/laboratory research experience 50% 4.0 USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 score 50% 3.9 Oral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements 50% 3.8 Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based) 7% 3.0 Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership 43% 4.0 Other life experience 64% 4.0 Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter) 43% 3.7 Second interview/visit 29% 4.0 Awards or special honors in medical school 29% 4.0 Visa status* 43% 4.5 Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP 21% 5.0 Graduate of highly‐regarded medical school 50% 3.7 Electives at your fellowship site 43% 3.7 Awarded grant money for research 43% 4.3 Volunteer/extracurricular experiences 57% 3.9 Medical school class ranking/quartile 21% 4.0 Lack of gaps in medical education 7% 5.0 Grades in medical school 50% 3.7 Residency class ranking/quartile 29% 3.8 Fluency in language spoken by your patient population 50% 3.6 Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membership 36% 4.0 Residency program size 0% In‐Training Examination (ITE) 7% 4.0 Second interview/visit 0% Having finished another fellowship 7% 4.0 100% 50% 0% 12345 ¹ Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). * International Medical Graduates only

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 201669 Developmental-Behavioral Pediatrics Figure-3 Programs That Use USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) Scores When Considering Which Applicants to Interview Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 1 Score Scores required? Would your program consider applicants who fail the 100% N=13 exam on the first attempt? 90% 100% N=14 90% 86% 80% 77% 80% 70% 70% 60% 60% 50% 50% 40% 40% 30% 30% 20% 15% 20% 10% 8% 10% 7% 7% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Never Seldom Often

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 (CK) Score Scores required? Would your program consider applicants who fail N=13 the exam on the first attempt? N=14 100% 100% 90% 90% 80% 77% 80% 79% 70% 70% 60% 60% 50% 50% 40% 40% 30% 30% 20% 15% 20% 14% 10% 8% 10% 7% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Never Seldom often

IQR* of Average USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 CK Scores Programs Consider When Granting Interviews Scores Below Which Programs Scores Above Which Programs Generally Do Not Grant Interviews Almost Always Grant Interviews

USMLE Step 2 CK USMLE Step 1 not USMLE Step 2 CK USMLE Step 1 not not reported reported because not reported reported because because of low of low response because of low of low response response rate rate response rate rate

*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.

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 201670 Developmental-Behavioral Pediatrics Figure-4 Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 Clinical Skill (CS), Step 3, and COMLEX-USA Scores* When Considering Which Applicants to Interview Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 CS and Step 3 Scores USMLE Step 2 CS USMLE Step 3 100% N=13 100% N=13 92% 90% 90% 80% 80% 77% 70% 70% 60% 60% 50% 50% 40% 40% 30% 30% 20% 20% 15% 10% 8% 10% 8% 0% 0% Yes No Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

Percentage of Programs That Use COMLEX-USA Level 1 and Level 2-CE Scores COMLEX-USA Level 1* COMLEX-USA Level 2-CE* 100% 100% N=12 N=12 90% 90% 80% 80% 75% 70% 67% 70% 60% 60% 50% 50% 40% 40% 30% 30% 20% 17% 17% 20% 17% 10% 10% 8% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

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

COMLEX-USA Level 2-PE* COMLEX-USA Level 3* 100% N=12 100% N=12 90% 90% 80% 75% 80% 70% 70% 67% 60% 60% 50% 50% 40% 40% 30% 30% 20% 17% 20% 17% 17% 10% 8% 10% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

* Osteopathic applicants only

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 201671 Developmental-Behavioral Pediatrics Figure-5 Programs That Use Core Specialty Certifying Examination When Considering Applicants for Interview Scores required? Would your program consider applicants who fail the N=8 100% exam on the first attempt? 100% N=6 90% 80% 100% 90% 83% 70% 80% 60% 70% 50% 60% 40% 50% 40% 30% 30% 20% 20% 17% 10% 10% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No, not required Never Seldom Often

Developmental-Behavioral Pediatrics Figure-6 Programs Positions

Average Number of Accredited Positions and Funded Positions Average Percentage of Accredited Positions Offered Outside of 4.0 the Match 3.6 3.5 100% 90% 3.0 80% 2.6 2.5 70% 60% 58% 2.0 50% 1.5 40% 30% 1.0 20% 0.5 10% 0% 0.0 Positions Filled Before Positions Offered Outside Positions Filled Outside Accredited Positions Funded Positions Match Day the Match the Match

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

Developmental-Behavioral Pediatrics Figure-7 Dedicated Time for Research

Program Requirement on Dedicated Time for Average Number of Months if Research Time is Research Required N=16 24 21 20

Optional 16 15 6.3% 14

12 12

8

4 Required 93.8% 0 Accredited Locally Funded Integrated Other N=3 N=4 N=2 N=1

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 201672 Developmental-Behavioral Pediatrics Figure-8 Program's Interview Activities

Interview Invitations Sent and Interviews Conducted

100% N=14 90% 80% 70% 60% 54% 50% 40% 40% 34% 30% 23% 20% 9% 10% 7% 5% 7% 8% 0%0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 4% 1% 1% 0% Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Interview invitations Interviews conducted

Average Number of Positions, Applications Received, Interview Average Percentage of Applicants Rejected and Reviewed Invitations Sent, and Applicants Interviewed and Ranked 10 100% 88% 8 90% 8 80% 70% 60% 6 6 5 50% 40% 4 30% 20% 14% 2 10% 0% Rejected based on a In-depth review 0 standardized screening Number of applications Number of interview Number of applicants process received invitations sent interviewed N=14 N=14 N=14 N=14 N=14

Percentage of Programs that Typically Interview and Rank Each Applicant Type 15% of Developmental-Behavioral Pediatrics programs consider all applicant groups 100% 100% 100% N=13 90% 80% 69% 70% 60% 54% 50% 40% 38% 30% 23% 20% 10% 0% U.S. Graduate Osteopathic Canadian Fifth Pathway U.S. IMG Non-U.S. IMG Physician Frequency of Programs Interviewing and Ranking Candidates Interview Ranking 100% 100% 90% 15% 15% 90% 17% 17% 31% 33% 80% 80% 50% 46% 70% 31% 70% 25% 60% 79% 60% 86% 79% 23% 86% 17% 50% 50% 40% 85% 21% 40% 83% 31% 30% 30% 58% 54% 50% 20% 46% 20% 29% 23% 10% 14% 21% 10% 14% 21% 0% 0% Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-US Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-US IMG IMG Often Seldom Never Often Seldom Never n=14 n=14

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 201673 Developmental-Behavioral Pediatrics

Figure-9 Potential Challenges in Recruiting Applicants to Your Specialty

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

Not enough applicants in the specialty 4.7

Undesirable income potential as a practicing physician 4.2

Undesirable work/life balance as a practicing physician 2.2

Long or irregular work hours required by specialty 1.4

Fellowship Match scheduled at inconvenient time of year 1.4

012345

Developmental-Behavioral Pediatrics

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

n=14

We consider those applicants on an individual basis 100%

We give those applicants serious consideration if they have 7% shown improvement

We do not usually consider those applicants 0%

We favor those applicants 0%

Other 0%

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

Developmental-Behavioral Pediatrics

Figure-11 Years as Program Director

At Any Fellowship Program At Current Fellowship Program

Less than 3 Less than 3 More than 15 20.0% 11 to 15 20.0% 26.7% 26.7%

3 to 5 6.7% 3 to 5 20.0% 11 to 15 20.0% 6 to 10 26.7% 6 to 10 33.3%

n=15 n=15

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 201674 Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Metabolism

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 201675 Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Metabolism Table 1 General Information

2016 Survey Number of responses 51 Response rate 41.8%

Match Information* Appointment Years 2016 2015 2014 Number of programs in the Match 136 134 128 Number of positions in the Match 270 271 261 Number of applicants ranking specialty 325 324 306 * Source: NRMP Data Warehouse

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 201676 Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Metabolism Figure-1 Percentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Selecting Applicants to Interview (N=45) Percent Citing Factor Average Rating Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialty 87% 4.3 Residency performance evaluation (Program Director letter) 78% 4.7 Reputation of residency program 84% 4.2 Demonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research 89% 4.2 Perceived commitment to specialty 82% 4.5 Personal statement 80% 3.9 Perceived interest in program 76% 4.4 Evidence of professionalism and ethics 67% 4.6 USMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score 69% 4.0 Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chapters 87% 4.3 USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE score 71% 4.0 Leadership qualities 62% 4.2 Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicant 78% 4.3 Oral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements 82% 3.9 Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institution 82% 4.2 Pass USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PE 60% 4.0 Any failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX 80% 4.4 USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 score 62% 4.1 Interest in academic career 60% 4.2 Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based) 71% 3.8 Clinical/laboratory research experience 58% 4.2 Awards or special honors in medical school 64% 3.4 Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership 62% 4.0 Other life experience 42% 3.6 Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter) 58% 3.7 Graduate of highly‐regarded medical school 62% 4.3 Visa status* 73% 4.2 Volunteer/extracurricular experiences 47% 3.4 Awarded grant money for research 44% 4.1 Grades in medical school 51% 3.6 Lack of gaps in medical education 44% 3.5 Medical school class ranking/quartile 47% 3.4 Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP 36% 4.8 Electives at your fellowship site 51% 3.7 Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membership 31% 3.3 Residency class ranking/quartile 29% 4.3 Fluency in language spoken by your patient population 22% 3.8 In‐Training Examination (ITE) 9% 3.0 Residency program size 20% 3.2 Having finished another fellowship 16% 2.9 100% 50% 0% 1 2 345

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

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 201677 Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Metabolism Figure-2 Percentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Ranking Applicants (N=45) Percent Citing Factor Average Rating Interactions with faculty during interview and visit 93% 4.9 Interpersonal skills 93% 4.9 Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialty 73% 4.5 Interactions with house staff during interview and visit 78% 4.8 Perceived commitment to specialty 76% 4.7 Feedback from current residents and fellows 71% 4.8 Perceived interest in program 93% 4.6 Demonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research 88% 4.2 Reputation of residency program 68% 4.3 Residency performance evaluation (Program Director letter) 71% 4.5 Evidence of professionalism and ethics 76% 4.7 Personal statement 68% 3.9 Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicant 68% 4.3 Leadership qualities 63% 4.4 Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chapters 63% 4.0 Interest in academic career 61% 4.5 Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institution 73% 4.3 USMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score 51% 3.9 USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE score 59% 3.9 Any failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX 44% 4.4 Passing USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PE 46% 3.8 Clinical/laboratory research experience 56% 4.2 USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 score 44% 4.0 Oral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements 54% 3.9 Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based) 59% 4.0 Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership 29% 4.6 Other life experience 32% 3.5 Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter) 39% 3.7 Second interview/visit 32% 3.8 Awards or special honors in medical school 34% 3.8 Visa status* 49% 4.2 Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP 37% 4.8 Graduate of highly‐regarded medical school 37% 4.2 Electives at your fellowship site 34% 4.2 Awarded grant money for research 32% 3.8 Volunteer/extracurricular experiences 17% 3.9 Medical school class ranking/quartile 32% 3.3 Lack of gaps in medical education 27% 3.7 Grades in medical school 17% 3.8 Residency class ranking/quartile 20% 4.3 Fluency in language spoken by your patient population 24% 3.9 Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membership 15% 4.6 Residency program size 17% 3.0 In‐Training Examination (ITE) 5% 3.0 Second interview/visit 5% 5.0 Having finished another fellowship 10% 2.8 100% 50% 0% 12345 ¹ Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). * International Medical Graduates only

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 201678 Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Metabolism Figure-3 Programs That Use USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) Scores When Considering Which Applicants to Interview Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 1 Score Scores required? Would your program consider applicants who fail the 100% N=42 exam on the first attempt? 90% 100% N=42 90% 80% 81% 80% 70% 70% 60% 55% 60% 50% 45% 50% 40% 40% 30% 30% 20% 20% 17% 10% 10% 0% 2% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Never Seldom Often

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 (CK) Score Scores required? Would your program consider applicants who fail N=42 the exam on the first attempt? N=43 100% 100% 90% 90% 80% 80% 70% 70% 63% 60% 57% 60% 50% 43% 50% 40% 40% 35% 30% 30% 20% 20% 10% 10% 0% 2% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Never Seldom often

IQR* of Average USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 CK Scores Programs Consider When Granting Interviews Scores Below Which Programs Scores Above Which Programs Generally Do Not Grant Interviews Almost Always Grant Interviews 260 260

250 250

240 240

230 230

220 220

210 210

200 200

190 190

180 180

170 170 USMLE Step 1 USMLE Step 2 CK USMLE Step 1 USMLE Step 2 CK N=14 N=12 N=12 N=10

*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.

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 201679 Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Metabolism Figure-4 Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 Clinical Skill (CS), Step 3, and COMLEX-USA Scores* When Considering Which Applicants to Interview Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 CS and Step 3 Scores USMLE Step 2 CS USMLE Step 3 100% N=42 100% N=41 100% 90% 90% 80% 80% 70% 70% 60% 60% 49% 50% 50% 44% 40% 40% 30% 30% 20% 20% 10% 10% 7% 0% 0% 0% Yes No Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

Percentage of Programs That Use COMLEX-USA Level 1 and Level 2-CE Scores COMLEX-USA Level 1* COMLEX-USA Level 2-CE* 100% 100% N=29 N=28 90% 90% 80% 80% 70% 70% 60% 60% 50% 45% 50% 46% 40% 40% 34% 32% 30% 30% 21% 21% 20% 20% 10% 10% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

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

COMLEX-USA Level 2-PE* COMLEX-USA Level 3* 100% N=28 100% N=29 90% 90% 80% 80% 70% 70% 60% 60% 50% 46% 50% 38% 40% 36% 40% 34% 30% 30% 28% 20% 18% 20% 10% 10% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

* Osteopathic applicants only

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 201680 Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Metabolism Figure-5 Programs That Use Core Specialty Certifying Examination When Considering Applicants for Interview Scores required? Would your program consider applicants who fail the N=16 100% exam on the first attempt? 100% N=8 90% 80% 100% 90% 70% 80% 60% 70% 63% 50% 60% 40% 50% 40% 38% 30% 30% 20% 20% 10% 10% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No, not required Never Seldom Often

Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Metabolism Figure-6 Programs Positions

Average Number of Accredited Positions and Funded Positions Average Percentage of Accredited Positions Offered Outside of 4.0 the Match 3.6 3.5 3.5 100% 90% 3.0 80% 78% 2.5 70% 60% 50% 2.0 50% 42% 1.5 40% 30% 1.0 20% 0.5 10% 0% 0.0 Positions Filled Before Positions Offered Outside Positions Filled Outside Accredited Positions Funded Positions Match Day the Match the Match

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

Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Metabolism Figure-7 Dedicated Time for Research

Program Requirement on Dedicated Time for Average Number of Months if Research Time is Research Required N=50 12 11 10 10

8 8 Optional 26.0% 6 6

4

Required 74.0% 2

0 Accredited Locally Funded Integrated Other N=16 N=13 N=9 N=6

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 201681 Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Metabolism Figure-8 Program's Interview Activities

Interview Invitations Sent and Interviews Conducted

100% N=40 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 44% 48% 40% 37% 38% 30% 20% 14% 10% 6% 6% 6% 0%0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Interview invitations Interviews conducted

Average Number of Positions, Applications Received, Interview Average Percentage of Applicants Rejected and Reviewed Invitations Sent, and Applicants Interviewed and Ranked 120 116 100% 90% 100 80% 70% 80 60% 49% 49% 50% 60 40% 30% 40 20% 24 19 10% 20 0% Rejected based on a In-depth review 0 standardized screening Number of applications Number of interview Number of applicants process received invitations sent interviewed N=43 N=43 N=43 N=45 N=45

Percentage of Programs that Typically Interview and Rank Each Applicant Type 36% of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Metabolism programs consider all applicant groups

100% 98% N=44 90% 82% 80% 77% 75% 70% 70% 60% 50% 39% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% U.S. Graduate Osteopathic Canadian Fifth Pathway U.S. IMG Non-U.S. IMG Physician Frequency of Programs Interviewing and Ranking Candidates Interview Ranking 100% 100% 5% 15% 90% 19% 90% 80% 80% 43% 49% 38% 49% 55% 70% 59% 63% 70% 60% 60% 60% 90% 93% 50% 65% 50% 70% 40% 40% 30% 42% 57% 30% 40% 57% 40% 33% 20% 39% 30% 20% 10% 10% 20% 9% 12% 10% 12% 8% 0% 7% 2% 7% 0% 5% Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-US Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-US IMG IMG Often Seldom Never Often Seldom Never n=44 n=41

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 201682 Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Metabolism

Figure-9 Potential Challenges in Recruiting Applicants to Your Specialty

Average rating on a scale of 5 (1=least challenging; 5=most challenging) n=37

Not enough applicants in the specialty 3.4

Undesirable income potential as a practicing physician 3.8

Undesirable work/life balance as a practicing physician 2.0

Long or irregular work hours required by specialty 1.8

Fellowship Match scheduled at inconvenient time of year 2.0

012345

Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Metabolism

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

n=41

We consider those applicants on an individual basis 78%

We give those applicants serious consideration if they have 7% shown improvement

We do not usually consider those applicants 17%

We favor those applicants 0%

Other 0%

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

Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Metabolism

Figure-11 Years as Program Director

At Any Fellowship Program At Current Fellowship Program

More than 15 More than 15 11 to 158.5% 8.5% 2.1% Less than 3 29.8% Less than 3 36.2% 6 to 10 27.7% 6 to 36.2%10

3 to 5 23.4% 3 to 27.7%5

n=47 n=47

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 201683 Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 201684 Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery Table 1 General Information

2016 Survey Number of responses 16 Response rate 35.6%

Match Information* Appointment Years 2016 2015 2014 Number of programs in the Match 48 53 50 Number of positions in the Match 54 58 55 Number of applicants ranking specialty 77 77 61 * Source: NRMP Data Warehouse

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 201685 Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery Figure-1 Percentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Selecting Applicants to Interview (N=12) Percent Citing Factor Average Rating Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialty 100% 4.7 Residency performance evaluation (Program Director letter) 92% 4.1 Reputation of residency program 83% 3.2 Demonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research 100% 4.4 Perceived commitment to specialty 92% 4.3 Personal statement 83% 3.5 Perceived interest in program 75% 4.1 Evidence of professionalism and ethics 92% 4.7 USMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score 83% 3.2 Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chapters 75% 4.7 USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE score 83% 3.2 Leadership qualities 92% 4.6 Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicant 75% 3.9 Oral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements 83% 4.3 Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institution 25% 3.7 Pass USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PE 83% 3.1 Any failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX 50% 4.0 USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 score 58% 3.3 Interest in academic career 75% 4.4 Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based) 67% 3.3 Clinical/laboratory research experience 75% 4.4 Awards or special honors in medical school 58% 3.4 Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership 58% 3.3 Other life experience 50% 4.0 Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter) 17% 3.5 Graduate of highly‐regarded medical school 33% 3.5 Visa status* 42% 4.2 Volunteer/extracurricular experiences 33% 4.3 Awarded grant money for research 50% 4.3 Grades in medical school 17% 3.0 Lack of gaps in medical education 33% 3.0 Medical school class ranking/quartile 8% 4.0 Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP 8% 4.0 Electives at your fellowship site 25% 4.0 Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membership 33% 3.0 Residency class ranking/quartile 8% 4.0 Fluency in language spoken by your patient population 25% 4.0 In‐Training Examination (ITE) 33% 4.0 Residency program size 0% Having finished another fellowship 8% 4.0 100% 50% 0% 1 2 345

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

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 201686 Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery Figure-2 Percentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Ranking Applicants (N=12) Percent Citing Factor Average Rating Interactions with faculty during interview and visit 82% 4.9 Interpersonal skills 91% 4.8 Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialty 91% 4.6 Interactions with house staff during interview and visit 73% 5.0 Perceived commitment to specialty 91% 4.4 Feedback from current residents and fellows 82% 4.8 Perceived interest in program 82% 4.1 Demonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research 91% 4.5 Reputation of residency program 45% 3.4 Residency performance evaluation (Program Director letter) 64% 4.3 Evidence of professionalism and ethics 91% 4.8 Personal statement 64% 4.0 Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicant 36% 4.5 Leadership qualities 82% 4.7 Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chapters 55% 4.0 Interest in academic career 73% 4.6 Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institution 9% 3.0 USMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score 9% 3.0 USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE score 9% 3.0 Any failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX 9% 3.0 Passing USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PE 18% 3.5 Clinical/laboratory research experience 45% 4.2 USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 score 18% 3.5 Oral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements 45% 4.0 Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based) 55% 3.3 Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership 9% 4.0 Other life experience 27% 4.3 Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter) 0% Second interview/visit 36% 4.5 Awards or special honors in medical school 9% 3.0 Visa status* 9% 5.0 Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP 9% 5.0 Graduate of highly‐regarded medical school 0% Electives at your fellowship site 27% 4.3 Awarded grant money for research 18% 3.5 Volunteer/extracurricular experiences 27% 4.0 Medical school class ranking/quartile 0% Lack of gaps in medical education 9% 3.0 Grades in medical school 0% Residency class ranking/quartile 0% Fluency in language spoken by your patient population 18% 4.0 Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membership 9% 4.0 Residency program size 9% 4.0 In‐Training Examination (ITE) 9% 4.0 Second interview/visit 18% 4.0 Having finished another fellowship 0% 100% 50% 0% 12345 ¹ Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). * International Medical Graduates only

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 201687 Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery Figure-3 Programs That Use USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) Scores When Considering Which Applicants to Interview Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 1 Score Scores required? Would your program consider applicants who fail the 100% N=12 exam on the first attempt? 90% 100% N=12 90% 80% 80% 70% 67% 70% 60% 60% 58% 50% 50% 40% 40% 33% 30% 30% 20% 17% 17% 20% 10% 10% 8% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Never Seldom Often

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 (CK) Score Scores required? Would your program consider applicants who fail N=12 the exam on the first attempt? N=12 100% 100% 90% 90% 80% 80% 70% 67% 70% 60% 60% 58% 50% 50% 40% 40% 33% 30% 30% 20% 17% 17% 20% 10% 10% 8% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Never Seldom often

IQR* of Average USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 CK Scores Programs Consider When Granting Interviews Scores Below Which Programs Scores Above Which Programs Generally Do Not Grant Interviews Almost Always Grant Interviews

USMLE Step 2 CK USMLE Step 1 not USMLE Step 2 CK USMLE Step 1 not not reported reported because not reported reported because because of low of low response because of low of low response response rate rate response rate rate

*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.

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 201688 Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery Figure-4 Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 Clinical Skill (CS), Step 3, and COMLEX-USA Scores* When Considering Which Applicants to Interview Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 CS and Step 3 Scores USMLE Step 2 CS USMLE Step 3 100% N=12 100% N=12

90% 83% 90% 80% 80% 70% 70% 67% 60% 60% 50% 50% 40% 40% 30% 30% 25% 20% 17% 20% 10% 10% 8% 0% 0% Yes No Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

Percentage of Programs That Use COMLEX-USA Level 1 and Level 2-CE Scores COMLEX-USA Level 1* COMLEX-USA Level 2-CE* 100% 100% N=10 N=10 90% 90% 80% 80% 70% 70% 60% 60% 50% 50% 50% 50% 40% 40% 40% 40% 30% 30% 20% 20% 10% 10% 10% 10% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

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

COMLEX-USA Level 2-PE* COMLEX-USA Level 3* 100% N=10 100% N=10 90% 90% 80% 80% 70% 70% 60% 60% 50% 50% 50% 50% 40% 40% 40% 40% 30% 30% 20% 20% 10% 10% 10% 10% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

* Osteopathic applicants only

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 201689 Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery Figure-5 Programs That Use Core Specialty Certifying Examination When Considering Applicants for Interview Scores required? Would your program consider applicants who fail the 100% N=8 exam on the first attempt? 90% N=5 80% 100% 70% 90% 63% 80% 60% 70% 60% 50% 60% 38% 50% 40% 40% 30% 40% 30% 20% 20% 10% 10% 0% 0% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No, not required Never Seldom Often

Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery Figure-6 Programs Positions

Average Number of Accredited Positions and Funded Positions Average Percentage of Accredited Positions Offered Outside of 3.2 3.1 the Match

2.8 2.7 100% 90% 2.4 80% 78% 2.0 70% 60% 1.6 50% 1.2 40% 30% 0.8 20% 0.4 10% 0% 0.0 Positions Filled Before Positions Offered Outside Positions Filled Outside Accredited Positions Funded Positions Match Day the Match the Match

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

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

Program Requirement on Dedicated Time for Average Number of Months if Research Time is Research Required N=16 12 12 12 12 12

10

8

6

4

2 Required 100.0% 0 Accredited Locally Funded Integrated Other N=13 N=1 N=1 N=1

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 201690 Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery Figure-8 Program's Interview Activities

Interview Invitations Sent and Interviews Conducted

100% N=14 90% 80% 70% 60% 55% 57% 50% 40% 30% 25% 20% 16% 14% 10% 10% 7% 7% 8% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Interview invitations Interviews conducted

Average Number of Positions, Applications Received, Interview Average Percentage of Applicants Rejected and Reviewed Invitations Sent, and Applicants Interviewed and Ranked 45 41 100% 40 90% 86% 80% 35 70% 30 60% 25 50% 20 20 40% 15 30% 15 21% 20% 10 10% 5 0% Rejected based on a In-depth review 0 standardized screening Number of applications Number of interview Number of applicants process received invitations sent interviewed N=16 N=16 N=16 N=16 N=16

Percentage of Programs that Typically Interview and Rank Each Applicant Type 8% of Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery programs consider all applicant 100% 100% groupsN=13 90% 85% 80% 70% 60% 54% 50% 46% 40% 31% 30% 20% 15% 10% 0% U.S. Graduate Osteopathic Canadian Fifth Pathway U.S. IMG Non-U.S. IMG Physician Frequency of Programs Interviewing and Ranking Candidates Interview Ranking 100% 100% 8% 8% 90% 90% 30% 31% 27% 31% 80% 80% 50% 54% 50% 70% 62% 70% 60% 85% 67% 60% 83% 67% 50% 50% 46% 46% 40% 40% 70% 73% 30% 30% 50% 46% 50% 20% 38% 20% 25% 23% 25% 23% 10% 15% 10% 17% 0% 0% Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-US Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-US IMG IMG Often Seldom Never Often Seldom Never n=13 n=12

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 201691 Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery

Figure-9 Potential Challenges in Recruiting Applicants to Your Specialty

Average rating on a scale of 5 (1=least challenging; 5=most challenging) n=12

Not enough applicants in the specialty 2.0

Undesirable income potential as a practicing physician 2.0

Undesirable work/life balance as a practicing physician 1.5

Long or irregular work hours required by specialty 1.7

Fellowship Match scheduled at inconvenient time of year 2.5

012345

Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery

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

n=12

We consider those applicants on an individual basis 75%

We give those applicants serious consideration if they have 25% shown improvement

We do not usually consider those applicants 17%

We favor those applicants 0%

Other 0%

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

Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery

Figure-11 Years as Program Director

At Any Fellowship Program At Current Fellowship Program

More than 15 More than 6.7% 11 to 157.7%15 11 to 15 Less than 3 7.7% 13.3% 26.7% Less than 3 30.8%

6 to 10 23.1%

6 to 10 3 to 5 33.3% 20.0% 3 to 5 30.8%

n=15 n=13

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 201692 Gastroenterology

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 201693 Gastroenterology Table 1 General Information

2016 Survey Number of responses 54 Response rate 35.8%

Match Information* Appointment Years 2016 2015 2014 Number of programs in the Match 179 181 173 Number of positions in the Match 466 464 461 Number of applicants ranking specialty 718 717 703 * Source: NRMP Data Warehouse

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 201694 Gastroenterology Figure-1 Percentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Selecting Applicants to Interview (N=43) Percent Citing Factor Average Rating Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialty 88% 4.5 Residency performance evaluation (Program Director letter) 93% 4.5 Reputation of residency program 93% 4.3 Demonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research 91% 4.1 Perceived commitment to specialty 72% 4.3 Personal statement 79% 3.5 Perceived interest in program 70% 4.3 Evidence of professionalism and ethics 81% 4.5 USMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score 81% 4.1 Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chapters 86% 4.1 USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE score 77% 4.2 Leadership qualities 72% 4.1 Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicant 60% 4.0 Oral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements 81% 4.1 Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institution 72% 3.9 Pass USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PE 63% 4.3 Any failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX 72% 4.6 USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 score 63% 4.2 Interest in academic career 65% 4.3 Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based) 81% 4.3 Clinical/laboratory research experience 63% 3.9 Awards or special honors in medical school 58% 3.7 Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership 65% 3.7 Other life experience 42% 4.1 Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter) 53% 3.8 Graduate of highly‐regarded medical school 58% 3.8 Visa status* 47% 4.6 Volunteer/extracurricular experiences 44% 3.9 Awarded grant money for research 42% 3.6 Grades in medical school 44% 3.6 Lack of gaps in medical education 56% 4.0 Medical school class ranking/quartile 42% 3.8 Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP 40% 4.8 Electives at your fellowship site 30% 3.7 Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membership 28% 3.5 Residency class ranking/quartile 47% 4.3 Fluency in language spoken by your patient population 16% 3.6 In‐Training Examination (ITE) 21% 3.3 Residency program size 12% 3.3 Having finished another fellowship 5% 3.5 100% 50% 0% 1 2 345

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

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 201695 Gastroenterology Figure-2 Percentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Ranking Applicants (N=43) Percent Citing Factor Average Rating Interactions with faculty during interview and visit 93% 4.8 Interpersonal skills 95% 4.8 Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialty 73% 4.3 Interactions with house staff during interview and visit 73% 4.7 Perceived commitment to specialty 44% 4.7 Feedback from current residents and fellows 68% 4.7 Perceived interest in program 54% 4.4 Demonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research 78% 4.2 Reputation of residency program 76% 4.2 Residency performance evaluation (Program Director letter) 63% 4.4 Evidence of professionalism and ethics 61% 4.6 Personal statement 39% 3.8 Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicant 46% 4.4 Leadership qualities 51% 4.2 Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chapters 61% 4.3 Interest in academic career 49% 4.4 Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institution 56% 4.1 USMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score 54% 4.0 USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE score 54% 4.0 Any failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX 49% 4.5 Passing USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PE 46% 4.1 Clinical/laboratory research experience 46% 4.2 USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 score 41% 4.1 Oral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements 56% 4.3 Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based) 61% 4.1 Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership 39% 4.0 Other life experience 22% 4.2 Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter) 51% 3.5 Second interview/visit 29% 3.9 Awards or special honors in medical school 34% 3.8 Visa status* 29% 4.4 Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP 29% 4.9 Graduate of highly‐regarded medical school 20% 3.6 Electives at your fellowship site 22% 3.9 Awarded grant money for research 24% 4.2 Volunteer/extracurricular experiences 24% 4.1 Medical school class ranking/quartile 27% 3.7 Lack of gaps in medical education 37% 3.9 Grades in medical school 24% 3.8 Residency class ranking/quartile 37% 4.2 Fluency in language spoken by your patient population 12% 3.8 Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membership 17% 3.3 Residency program size 10% 3.5 In‐Training Examination (ITE) 12% 3.6 Second interview/visit 5% 4.0 Having finished another fellowship 5% 3.0 100% 50% 0% 12345 ¹ Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). * International Medical Graduates only

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 201696 Gastroenterology Figure-3 Programs That Use USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) Scores When Considering Which Applicants to Interview Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 1 Score Scores required? Would your program consider applicants who fail the 100% N=44 exam on the first attempt? 90% 100% N=42 90% 80% 80% 79% 70% 70% 60% 55% 60% 50% 43% 50% 40% 40% 30% 30% 20% 20% 17% 10% 2% 10% 5% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Never Seldom Often

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 (CK) Score Scores required? Would your program consider applicants who fail N=44 the exam on the first attempt? N=42 100% 100% 90% 90% 80% 80% 70% 70% 60% 52% 60% 52% 50% 45% 50% 45% 40% 40% 30% 30% 20% 20% 10% 10% 2% 2% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Never Seldom often

IQR* of Average USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 CK Scores Programs Consider When Granting Interviews Scores Below Which Programs Scores Above Which Programs Generally Do Not Grant Interviews Almost Always Grant Interviews 260 260

250 250

240 240

230 230

220 220

210 210

200 200

190 190

180 180

170 170 USMLE Step 1 USMLE Step 2 CK USMLE Step 1 USMLE Step 2 CK N=21 N=17 N=14 N=11

*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.

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 201697 Gastroenterology Figure-4 Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 Clinical Skill (CS), Step 3, and COMLEX-USA Scores* When Considering Which Applicants to Interview Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 CS and Step 3 Scores USMLE Step 2 CS USMLE Step 3 100% N=41 100% N=42 93% 90% 90% 80% 80% 70% 70% 60% 60% 50% 50% 43% 40% 40% 40% 30% 30% 20% 20% 17% 10% 7% 10% 0% 0% Yes No Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

Percentage of Programs That Use COMLEX-USA Level 1 and Level 2-CE Scores COMLEX-USA Level 1* COMLEX-USA Level 2-CE* 100% 100% N=26 N=26 90% 90% 80% 80% 70% 70%

60% 60% 54% 50% 50% 50% 40% 35% 40% 31% 30% 30% 20% 15% 20% 15% 10% 10% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

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

COMLEX-USA Level 2-PE* COMLEX-USA Level 3* 100% N=26 100% N=25 90% 90% 80% 80% 70% 70% 62% 60% 60% 50% 50% 48% 40% 40% 28% 30% 30% 24% 19% 19% 20% 20% 10% 10% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

* Osteopathic applicants only

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 201698 Gastroenterology Figure-5 Programs That Use Core Specialty Certifying Examination When Considering Applicants for Interview Scores required? Would your program consider applicants who fail the 100% N=16 exam on the first attempt? 90% N=14 80% 100% 70% 69% 90% 80% 60% 70% 50% 60% 50% 40% 50% 43% 31% 30% 40% 30% 20% 20% 10% 10% 7% 0% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No, not required Never Seldom Often

Gastroenterology Figure-6 Programs Positions

Average Number of Accredited Positions and Funded Positions Average Percentage of Accredited Positions Offered Outside of 10 the Match

8.3 100% 7.8 8 90% 82% 80% 70% 6 60% 50% 4 40% 30% 20% 2 12% 12% 10% 0% 0 Positions Filled Before Positions Offered Outside Positions Filled Outside Accredited Positions Funded Positions Match Day the Match the Match

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

Gastroenterology Figure-7 Dedicated Time for Research

Program Requirement on Dedicated Time for Average Number of Months if Research Time is Research Required N=54 7 7

6 5 5 Optional 4 16.7% 4 4

3

2

Required 1 83.3% 0 Accredited Locally Funded Integrated Other N=24 N=9 N=9 N=7

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 201699 Gastroenterology Figure-8 Program's Interview Activities

Interview Invitations Sent and Interviews Conducted

100% N=42 90% 80% 70% 60% 53% 50% 47% 39% 40% 30% 25% 20% 14% 10% 5% 8% 0%0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%1% 0% 1% 2% 1% 0% 0% 0% Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Interview invitations Interviews conducted

Average Number of Positions, Applications Received, Interview Average Percentage of Applicants Rejected and Reviewed Invitations Sent, and Applicants Interviewed and Ranked 400 380 100% 350 90% 80% 300 70% 250 60% 55% 50% 42% 200 40% 150 30% 20% 100 10% 50 34 30 0% Rejected based on a In-depth review 0 standardized screening Number of applications Number of interview Number of applicants process received invitations sent interviewed N=46 N=46 N=47 N=47 N=47

Percentage of Programs that Typically Interview and Rank Each Applicant Type 32% of Gastroenterology programs consider all applicant groups

100% 98% N=44 90% 80% 75% 70% 70% 61% 60% 50% 50% 40% 36% 30% 20% 10% 0% U.S. Graduate Osteopathic Canadian Fifth Pathway U.S. IMG Non-U.S. IMG Physician Frequency of Programs Interviewing and Ranking Candidates Interview Ranking 100% 100% 3% 10% 10% 90% 90% 34% 80% 39% 41% 80% 42% 36% 42% 46% 70% 56% 70% 60% 60% 69% 64% 50% 95% 50% 98% 40% 40% 52% 50% 55% 45% 47% 30% 51% 30% 51% 20% 44% 20% 10% 21% 10% 26% 14% 12% 11% 16% 0% 5% 7% 7% 0% 2% Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-US Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-US IMG IMG Often Seldom Never Often Seldom Never n=44 n=43

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 100 Gastroenterology

Figure-9 Potential Challenges in Recruiting Applicants to Your Specialty

Average rating on a scale of 5 (1=least challenging; 5=most challenging) n=39

Not enough applicants in the specialty 1.2

Undesirable income potential as a practicing physician 1.5

Undesirable work/life balance as a practicing physician 2.2

Long or irregular work hours required by specialty 2.1

Fellowship Match scheduled at inconvenient time of year 1.8

012345

Gastroenterology

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

n=40

We consider those applicants on an individual basis 85%

We give those applicants serious consideration if they have 25% shown improvement

We do not usually consider those applicants 10%

We favor those applicants 0%

Other 0%

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

Gastroenterology

Figure-11 Years as Program Director

At Any Fellowship Program At Current Fellowship Program

More than 15 More than 15 11.4% 17.4% Less than 3 26.1% 11 to 15 Less than 3 11.4% 31.8% 11 to 15 8.7%

6 to 10 6 to 10 3 to 5 25.0% 23.9% 23.9% 3 to 5 20.5%

n=46 n=44

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 101 Geriatric Medicine

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 102 Geriatric Medicine Table 1 General Information

2016 Survey Number of responses 45 Response rate 34.6%

Match Information* Appointment Years 2016 2015 2014 Number of programs in the Match 137 126 109 Number of positions in the Match 385 353 297 Number of applicants ranking specialty 213 163 132 * Source: NRMP Data Warehouse

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 103 Geriatric Medicine Figure-1 Percentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Selecting Applicants to Interview (N=42) Percent Citing Factor Average Rating Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialty 74% 4.3 Residency performance evaluation (Program Director letter) 81% 4.6 Reputation of residency program 67% 3.7 Demonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research 48% 3.3 Perceived commitment to specialty 93% 4.6 Personal statement 90% 4.4 Perceived interest in program 88% 4.6 Evidence of professionalism and ethics 83% 4.7 USMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score 81% 3.2 Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chapters 38% 3.0 USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE score 79% 3.4 Leadership qualities 52% 4.2 Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicant 62% 4.3 Oral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements 43% 3.4 Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institution 64% 4.3 Pass USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PE 69% 3.6 Any failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX 62% 3.9 USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 score 64% 3.5 Interest in academic career 45% 3.7 Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based) 36% 3.2 Clinical/laboratory research experience 24% 3.0 Awards or special honors in medical school 48% 3.0 Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership 29% 3.5 Other life experience 48% 3.9 Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter) 45% 3.5 Graduate of highly‐regarded medical school 36% 3.5 Visa status* 45% 4.3 Volunteer/extracurricular experiences 33% 3.4 Awarded grant money for research 21% 2.4 Grades in medical school 38% 3.5 Lack of gaps in medical education 38% 3.7 Medical school class ranking/quartile 29% 3.3 Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP 36% 4.9 Electives at your fellowship site 19% 3.5 Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membership 21% 3.4 Residency class ranking/quartile 7% 4.0 Fluency in language spoken by your patient population 26% 3.9 In‐Training Examination (ITE) 7% 4.3 Residency program size 5% 3.0 Having finished another fellowship 12% 2.4 100% 50% 0% 1 2 345

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

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 104 Geriatric Medicine Figure-2 Percentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Ranking Applicants (N=42) Percent Citing Factor Average Rating Interactions with faculty during interview and visit 88% 5.0 Interpersonal skills 90% 4.8 Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialty 60% 4.4 Interactions with house staff during interview and visit 74% 4.8 Perceived commitment to specialty 88% 4.7 Feedback from current residents and fellows 67% 4.7 Perceived interest in program 79% 4.6 Demonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research 38% 3.9 Reputation of residency program 55% 3.7 Residency performance evaluation (Program Director letter) 71% 4.3 Evidence of professionalism and ethics 69% 4.8 Personal statement 83% 4.3 Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicant 52% 4.5 Leadership qualities 43% 4.3 Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chapters 21% 3.2 Interest in academic career 33% 4.2 Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institution 50% 4.5 USMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score 43% 3.6 USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE score 43% 3.7 Any failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX 36% 4.1 Passing USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PE 43% 3.6 Clinical/laboratory research experience 14% 3.2 USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 score 38% 3.6 Oral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements 19% 3.5 Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based) 17% 3.7 Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership 12% 2.8 Other life experience 26% 3.9 Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter) 21% 3.4 Second interview/visit 31% 4.2 Awards or special honors in medical school 19% 3.3 Visa status* 40% 4.2 Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP 33% 4.8 Graduate of highly‐regarded medical school 14% 4.0 Electives at your fellowship site 19% 3.9 Awarded grant money for research 12% 3.4 Volunteer/extracurricular experiences 21% 3.6 Medical school class ranking/quartile 14% 2.7 Lack of gaps in medical education 24% 3.9 Grades in medical school 14% 3.0 Residency class ranking/quartile 12% 3.8 Fluency in language spoken by your patient population 21% 4.2 Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membership 7% 4.0 Residency program size 0% In‐Training Examination (ITE) 5% 4.5 Second interview/visit 14% 4.3 Having finished another fellowship 0% 100% 50% 0% 12345 ¹ Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). * International Medical Graduates only

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 105 Geriatric Medicine Figure-3 Programs That Use USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) Scores When Considering Which Applicants to Interview Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 1 Score Scores required? Would your program consider applicants who fail the 100% N=43 exam on the first attempt? 100% N=41 90% 84% 90% 80% 80% 70% 73% 70% 60% 60% 50% 50% 40% 40% 30% 30% 24% 20% 14% 20% 10% 2% 10% 2% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Never Seldom Often

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 (CK) Score Scores required? Would your program consider applicants who fail N=43 the exam on the first attempt? N=41 100% 100% 90% 81% 90% 80% 80% 76% 70% 70% 60% 60% 50% 50% 40% 40% 30% 30% 20% 20% 16% 20% 10% 10% 2% 5% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Never Seldom often

IQR* of Average USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 CK Scores Programs Consider When Granting Interviews Scores Below Which Programs Scores Above Which Programs Generally Do Not Grant Interviews Almost Always Grant Interviews

USMLE Step 2 CK USMLE Step 1 not USMLE Step 2 CK USMLE Step 1 not not reported reported because not reported reported because because of low of low response because of low of low response response rate rate response rate rate

*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.

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 106 Geriatric Medicine Figure-4 Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 Clinical Skill (CS), Step 3, and COMLEX-USA Scores* When Considering Which Applicants to Interview Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 CS and Step 3 Scores USMLE Step 2 CS USMLE Step 3 100% 98% N=43 100% N=42 90% 90% 79% 80% 80% 70% 70% 60% 60% 50% 50% 40% 40% 30% 30% 20% 20% 12% 10% 10% 10% 2% 0% 0% Yes No Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

Percentage of Programs That Use COMLEX-USA Level 1 and Level 2-CE Scores COMLEX-USA Level 1* COMLEX-USA Level 2-CE* 100% 100% N=28 N=28 90% 90% 80% 80% 71% 71% 70% 70% 60% 60% 50% 50% 40% 40% 30% 30% 21% 21% 20% 20% 10% 7% 10% 7% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

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

COMLEX-USA Level 2-PE* COMLEX-USA Level 3* 100% N=28 100% N=28 90% 90% 80% 80% 75% 71% 70% 70% 60% 60% 50% 50% 40% 40% 30% 30% 21% 21% 20% 20% 7% 10% 10% 4% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

* Osteopathic applicants only

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 107 Geriatric Medicine Figure-5 Programs That Use Core Specialty Certifying Examination When Considering Applicants for Interview Scores required? Would your program consider applicants who fail the 100% N=20 exam on the first attempt? 90% N=18 80% 80% 100% 70% 90% 80% 60% 72% 70% 50% 60% 40% 50% 40% 30% 28% 20% 30% 20% 20% 10% 10% 0% 0% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No, not required Never Seldom Often

Geriatric Medicine Figure-6 Programs Positions

Average Number of Accredited Positions and Funded Positions Average Percentage of Accredited Positions Offered Outside of 4.0 3.7 the Match 3.5 3.4 100% 90% 3.0 80% 2.5 70% 60% 2.0 50% 43% 40% 41% 1.5 40% 30% 1.0 20% 0.5 10% 0% 0.0 Positions Filled Before Positions Offered Outside Positions Filled Outside Accredited Positions Funded Positions Match Day the Match the Match

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

Geriatric Medicine Figure-7 Dedicated Time for Research

Program Requirement on Dedicated Time for Average Number of Months if Research Time is Research Required N=45 14 12 12

10 Required 13.3% 8

6

4

Optional 2 2 1 86.7% 0 Accredited Locally Funded Integrated Other N=0 N=1 N=4 N=1

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 108 Geriatric Medicine Figure-8 Program's Interview Activities

Interview Invitations Sent and Interviews Conducted

100% N=38 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 38% 40% 34% 30% 26% 25% 20% 14% 13% 10% 7% 7% 7% 8% 3% 0%0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%1% 0%1% 0% 1% 3% 0% Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Interview invitations Interviews conducted

Average Number of Positions, Applications Received, Interview Average Percentage of Applicants Rejected and Reviewed Invitations Sent, and Applicants Interviewed and Ranked 18 17 100% 16 90% 80% 77% 14 70% 12 10 60% 10 50% 8 8 40% 30% 26% 6 20% 4 10% 2 0% Rejected based on a In-depth review 0 standardized screening Number of applications Number of interview Number of applicants process received invitations sent interviewed N=42 N=43 N=44 N=44 N=44

Percentage of Programs that Typically Interview and Rank Each Applicant Type 28% of Geriatric Medicine programs consider all applicant groups

100% 98% N=43 91% 90% 80% 74% 70% 60% 60% 53% 50% 40% 35% 30% 20% 10% 0% U.S. Graduate Osteopathic Canadian Fifth Pathway U.S. IMG Non-U.S. IMG Physician Frequency of Programs Interviewing and Ranking Candidates Interview Ranking 100% 100% 12% 90% 13% 20% 90% 32% 80% 80% 21% 24% 55% 57% 70% 63% 70% 66% 60% 74% 60% 78% 95% 53% 50% 98% 50% 43% 40% 40% 21% 19% 30% 66% 30% 65% 28% 20% 20% 26% 21% 28% 10% 24% 10% 20% 24% 24% 10% 8% 0% 5% 5% 0% 3% 3% Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-US Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-US IMG IMG Often Seldom Never Often Seldom Never n=42 n=40

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 109 Geriatric Medicine

Figure-9 Potential Challenges in Recruiting Applicants to Your Specialty

Average rating on a scale of 5 (1=least challenging; 5=most challenging) n=39

Not enough applicants in the specialty 4.8

Undesirable income potential as a practicing physician 4.5

Undesirable work/life balance as a practicing physician 2.0

Long or irregular work hours required by specialty 1.6

Fellowship Match scheduled at inconvenient time of year 2.3

012345

Geriatric Medicine

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

n=36

We consider those applicants on an individual basis 92%

We give those applicants serious consideration if they have 17% shown improvement

We do not usually consider those applicants 6%

We favor those applicants 0%

Other 0%

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

Geriatric Medicine

Figure-11 Years as Program Director

At Any Fellowship Program At Current Fellowship Program

More than 15 More than 15 10.8% 22.0% Less than 3 11 to 15 29.3% Less than 3 10.8% 35.1%

11 to 15 12.2% 6 to 10 3 to 5 27.0% 6 to 10 17.1% 3 to 5 19.5% 16.2%

n=41 n=37

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 110 Gynecologic Oncology

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 111 Gynecologic Oncology Table 1 General Information

2016 Survey Number of responses 10 Response rate 24.4%

Match Information* Appointment Years 2016 2015 2014 Number of programs in the Match 41 44 40 Number of positions in the Match 56 52 53 Number of applicants ranking specialty 80 91 87 * Source: NRMP Data Warehouse

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 112 Gynecologic Oncology Figure-1 Percentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Selecting Applicants to Interview (N=9) Percent Citing Factor Average Rating Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialty 78% 4.8 Residency performance evaluation (Program Director letter) 78% 4.0 Reputation of residency program 100% 4.3 Demonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research 100% 4.4 Perceived commitment to specialty 78% 4.7 Personal statement 67% 3.5 Perceived interest in program 44% 4.0 Evidence of professionalism and ethics 78% 4.6 USMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score 78% 3.6 Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chapters 100% 4.1 USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE score 78% 3.6 Leadership qualities 89% 4.4 Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicant 56% 5.0 Oral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements 78% 4.0 Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institution 56% 3.5 Pass USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PE 67% 3.5 Any failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX 67% 4.8 USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 score 78% 3.6 Interest in academic career 89% 4.5 Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based) 78% 4.4 Clinical/laboratory research experience 78% 4.4 Awards or special honors in medical school 56% 3.5 Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership 78% 3.4 Other life experience 56% 3.6 Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter) 67% 2.8 Graduate of highly‐regarded medical school 56% 3.8 Visa status* 67% 4.5 Volunteer/extracurricular experiences 44% 3.8 Awarded grant money for research 56% 3.0 Grades in medical school 22% 3.0 Lack of gaps in medical education 33% 4.0 Medical school class ranking/quartile 33% 4.0 Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP 56% 4.8 Electives at your fellowship site 22% 5.0 Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membership 44% 3.7 Residency class ranking/quartile 22% 3.5 Fluency in language spoken by your patient population 0% In‐Training Examination (ITE) 67% 4.5 Residency program size 22% 3.0 Having finished another fellowship 11% 2.0 100% 50% 0% 1 2 345

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

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 113 Gynecologic Oncology Figure-2 Percentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Ranking Applicants (N=9) Percent Citing Factor Average Rating Interactions with faculty during interview and visit 100% 4.9 Interpersonal skills 100% 4.9 Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialty 86% 4.5 Interactions with house staff during interview and visit 100% 4.9 Perceived commitment to specialty 100% 4.7 Feedback from current residents and fellows 71% 4.8 Perceived interest in program 86% 4.7 Demonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research 100% 4.3 Reputation of residency program 71% 3.8 Residency performance evaluation (Program Director letter) 71% 3.8 Evidence of professionalism and ethics 86% 5.0 Personal statement 29% 3.0 Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicant 71% 4.8 Leadership qualities 86% 4.8 Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chapters 86% 4.2 Interest in academic career 86% 4.5 Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institution 29% 3.5 USMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score 57% 3.5 USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE score 57% 3.5 Any failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX 43% 4.7 Passing USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PE 43% 3.3 Clinical/laboratory research experience 71% 3.8 USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 score 57% 3.5 Oral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements 57% 4.3 Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based) 57% 4.0 Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership 57% 3.3 Other life experience 29% 4.0 Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter) 29% 3.5 Second interview/visit 29% 3.5 Awards or special honors in medical school 29% 3.5 Visa status* 43% 4.3 Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP 43% 4.7 Graduate of highly‐regarded medical school 14% 5.0 Electives at your fellowship site 29% 4.5 Awarded grant money for research 43% 4.0 Volunteer/extracurricular experiences 43% 4.3 Medical school class ranking/quartile 0% Lack of gaps in medical education 14% 3.0 Grades in medical school 0% Residency class ranking/quartile 0% Fluency in language spoken by your patient population 0% Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membership 0% Residency program size 0% In‐Training Examination (ITE) 43% 4.0 Second interview/visit 14% 3.0 Having finished another fellowship 0% 100% 50% 0% 12345 ¹ Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). * International Medical Graduates only

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 114 Gynecologic Oncology Figure-3 Programs That Use USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) Scores When Considering Which Applicants to Interview Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 1 Score Scores required? Would your program consider applicants who fail the 100% N=9 exam on the first attempt? 90% 100% N=9 90% 80% 80% 70% 70% 60% 56% 60% 56% 50% 50% 40% 33% 40% 30% 30% 22% 22% 20% 20% 11% 10% 10% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Never Seldom Often

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 (CK) Score Scores required? Would your program consider applicants who fail N=9 the exam on the first attempt? N=9 100% 100% 90% 90% 80% 80% 70% 70% 60% 56% 60% 50% 50% 44% 44% 40% 33% 40% 30% 30% 20% 20% 11% 11% 10% 10% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Never Seldom often

IQR* of Average USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 CK Scores Programs Consider When Granting Interviews Scores Below Which Programs Scores Above Which Programs Generally Do Not Grant Interviews Almost Always Grant Interviews

USMLE Step 2 CK USMLE Step 1 not USMLE Step 2 CK USMLE Step 1 not not reported reported because not reported reported because because of low of low response because of low of low response response rate rate response rate rate

*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.

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 115 Gynecologic Oncology Figure-4 Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 Clinical Skill (CS), Step 3, and COMLEX-USA Scores* When Considering Which Applicants to Interview Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 CS and Step 3 Scores USMLE Step 2 CS USMLE Step 3 100% N=9 100% N=9 89% 90% 90% 80% 80% 70% 70% 60% 60% 56% 50% 50%

40% 40% 33% 30% 30% 20% 20% 11% 11% 10% 10% 0% 0% Yes No Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

Percentage of Programs That Use COMLEX-USA Level 1 and Level 2-CE Scores COMLEX-USA Level 1* COMLEX-USA Level 2-CE* 100% 100% N=7 N=7 90% 90% 80% 80% 71% 71% 70% 70% 60% 60% 50% 50% 40% 40% 30% 30% 20% 14% 14% 20% 14% 14% 10% 10% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

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

COMLEX-USA Level 2-PE* COMLEX-USA Level 3* 100% N=7 100% N=7 90% 90% 80% 80% 71% 71% 70% 70% 60% 60% 50% 50% 40% 40% 30% 30% 20% 14% 14% 20% 14% 14% 10% 10% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

* Osteopathic applicants only

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 116 Gynecologic Oncology Figure-5 Programs That Use Core Specialty Certifying Examination When Considering Applicants for Interview Scores required? Would your program consider applicants who fail the 100% N=5 exam on the first attempt? 90% N=3 80% 100% 70% 90% 60% 80% 60% 70% 67% 50% 60% 40% 50% 30% 40% 33% 20% 20% 30% 20% 20% 10% 10% 0% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No, not required Never Seldom Often

Gynecologic Oncology Figure-6 Programs Positions

Average Number of Accredited Positions and Funded Positions Average Percentage of Accredited Positions Offered Outside of 2.0 1.9 the Match 100% 1.8 100% 1.6 90% 80% 70% 67% 1.2 60% 50% 0.8 40% 33% 30% 20% 0.4 10% 0% 0.0 Positions Filled Before Positions Offered Outside Positions Filled Outside Accredited Positions Funded Positions Match Day the Match the Match

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

Gynecologic Oncology Figure-7 Dedicated Time for Research

Program Requirement on Dedicated Time for Average Number of Months if Research Time is Research Required N=10 24 22

20

16 16

12 12

8

4 Required 100.0% 0 Accredited Locally Funded Integrated Other N=8 N=3 N=2 N=0

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 117 Gynecologic Oncology Figure-8 Program's Interview Activities

Interview Invitations Sent and Interviews Conducted

100% N=10 90% 80% 70% 60% 53% 50% 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 20% 10% 12% 10% 0%0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Interview invitations Interviews conducted

Average Number of Positions, Applications Received, Interview Average Percentage of Applicants Rejected and Reviewed Invitations Sent, and Applicants Interviewed and Ranked 100 100% 89% 87 90% 80 80% 70% 60% 60 50% 40% 33% 40 30% 20% 23 21 20 10% 0% Rejected based on a In-depth review 0 standardized screening Number of applications Number of interview Number of applicants process received invitations sent interviewed N=10 N=10 N=10 N=10 N=10

Percentage of Programs that Typically Interview and Rank Each Applicant Type 40% of Gynecologic Oncology programs consider all applicant groups 100% 100% N=10 90% 90% 80% 80% 80% 70% 70% 60% 50% 40% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% U.S. Graduate Osteopathic Canadian Fifth Pathway U.S. IMG Non-U.S. IMG Physician Frequency of Programs Interviewing and Ranking Candidates Interview Ranking 100% 100% 10% 10% 10% 10% 90% 20% 90% 30% 80% 40% 40% 80% 40% 70% 70% 70% 50% 60% 60% 50% 100% 80% 50% 100% 80% 90% 70% 40% 40% 50% 70% 50% 30% 60% 30% 20% 20% 40% 30% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 0% 0% Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-US Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-US IMG IMG Often Seldom Never Often Seldom Never n=10 n=10

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 118 Gynecologic Oncology

Figure-9 Potential Challenges in Recruiting Applicants to Your Specialty

Average rating on a scale of 5 (1=least challenging; 5=most challenging) n=6

Not enough applicants in the specialty 1.5

Undesirable income potential as a practicing physician 1.7

Undesirable work/life balance as a practicing physician 2.2

Long or irregular work hours required by specialty 2.5

Fellowship Match scheduled at inconvenient time of year 1.5

012345

Gynecologic Oncology

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

n=7

We consider those applicants on an individual basis 71%

We give those applicants serious consideration if they have 29% shown improvement

We do not usually consider those applicants 14%

We favor those applicants 0%

Other 0%

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

Gynecologic Oncology

Figure-11 Years as Program Director

At Any Fellowship Program At Current Fellowship Program

Less than 3 12.5% Less than 3 25.0% More than 15 More than 15 37.5% 37.5%

3 to 5 50.0% 3 to 5 37.5%

n=8 n=8

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 119 Hand Surgery

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 120 Hand Surgery Table 1 General Information

2016 Survey Number of responses 34 Response rate 43.0%

Match Information* Appointment Years 2016 2015 2014 Number of programs in the Match 82 83 80 Number of positions in the Match 168 166 160 Number of applicants ranking specialty 199 173 205 * Source: NRMP Data Warehouse

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 121 Hand Surgery Figure-1 Percentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Selecting Applicants to Interview (N=33) Percent Citing Factor Average Rating Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialty 97% 4.7 Residency performance evaluation (Program Director letter) 85% 4.5 Reputation of residency program 94% 3.8 Demonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research 88% 4.0 Perceived commitment to specialty 76% 4.3 Personal statement 88% 3.9 Perceived interest in program 70% 4.3 Evidence of professionalism and ethics 70% 4.7 USMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score 79% 3.5 Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chapters 70% 3.7 USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE score 76% 3.4 Leadership qualities 67% 4.4 Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicant 76% 3.9 Oral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements 61% 3.6 Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institution 36% 3.8 Pass USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PE 58% 3.9 Any failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX 30% 4.1 USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 score 48% 3.4 Interest in academic career 58% 4.1 Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based) 45% 3.8 Clinical/laboratory research experience 55% 3.7 Awards or special honors in medical school 73% 3.3 Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership 73% 3.3 Other life experience 67% 3.9 Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter) 61% 3.4 Graduate of highly‐regarded medical school 48% 3.0 Visa status* 36% 4.3 Volunteer/extracurricular experiences 61% 3.8 Awarded grant money for research 39% 3.2 Grades in medical school 52% 3.1 Lack of gaps in medical education 30% 3.7 Medical school class ranking/quartile 58% 3.3 Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP 45% 4.8 Electives at your fellowship site 18% 4.0 Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membership 30% 3.4 Residency class ranking/quartile 33% 3.7 Fluency in language spoken by your patient population 21% 3.4 In‐Training Examination (ITE) 18% 3.2 Residency program size 9% 3.3 Having finished another fellowship 21% 2.4 100% 50% 0% 1 2 345

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

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 122 Hand Surgery Figure-2 Percentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Ranking Applicants (N=33) Percent Citing Factor Average Rating Interactions with faculty during interview and visit 97% 4.8 Interpersonal skills 97% 4.7 Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialty 97% 4.7 Interactions with house staff during interview and visit 90% 4.8 Perceived commitment to specialty 74% 4.4 Feedback from current residents and fellows 77% 4.8 Perceived interest in program 68% 4.3 Demonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research 87% 3.8 Reputation of residency program 71% 4.0 Residency performance evaluation (Program Director letter) 74% 4.5 Evidence of professionalism and ethics 61% 4.6 Personal statement 77% 4.0 Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicant 61% 4.0 Leadership qualities 61% 4.4 Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chapters 61% 3.7 Interest in academic career 45% 4.0 Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institution 26% 3.8 USMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score 55% 3.8 USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE score 39% 3.9 Any failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX 23% 4.9 Passing USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PE 32% 3.9 Clinical/laboratory research experience 45% 3.6 USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 score 32% 3.7 Oral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements 42% 3.8 Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based) 35% 3.5 Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership 48% 3.7 Other life experience 42% 4.1 Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter) 45% 3.6 Second interview/visit 23% 4.0 Awards or special honors in medical school 45% 3.1 Visa status* 23% 4.4 Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP 35% 4.9 Graduate of highly‐regarded medical school 19% 3.3 Electives at your fellowship site 16% 3.8 Awarded grant money for research 23% 3.5 Volunteer/extracurricular experiences 39% 3.9 Medical school class ranking/quartile 29% 3.4 Lack of gaps in medical education 16% 3.8 Grades in medical school 29% 3.3 Residency class ranking/quartile 19% 3.7 Fluency in language spoken by your patient population 10% 3.7 Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membership 19% 3.5 Residency program size 3% 2.0 In‐Training Examination (ITE) 16% 2.8 Second interview/visit 10% 3.7 Having finished another fellowship 13% 4.0 100% 50% 0% 12345 ¹ Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). * International Medical Graduates only

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 123 Hand Surgery Figure-3 Programs That Use USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) Scores When Considering Which Applicants to Interview Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 1 Score Scores required? Would your program consider applicants who fail the 100% N=31 exam on the first attempt? 90% 100% N=30 90% 80% 80% 70% 65% 70% 60% 63% 60% 50% 50% 40% 40% 29% 33% 30% 30% 20% 20% 10% 6% 10% 3% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Never Seldom Often

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 (CK) Score Scores required? Would your program consider applicants who fail N=30 the exam on the first attempt? N=30 100% 100% 90% 90% 80% 73% 80% 70% 70% 60% 60% 57% 50% 50% 40% 40% 40% 30% 23% 30% 20% 20% 10% 3% 10% 3% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Never Seldom often

IQR* of Average USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 CK Scores Programs Consider When Granting Interviews Scores Below Which Programs Scores Above Which Programs Generally Do Not Grant Interviews Almost Always Grant Interviews 260 260

250 250

240 240

230 230

220 220

210 210

200 200

190 190

180 180

170 170 USMLE Step 1 USMLE Step 2 CK USMLE Step 1 USMLE Step 2 CK N=8 N=7 N=8 N=7

*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.

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 124 Hand Surgery Figure-4 Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 Clinical Skill (CS), Step 3, and COMLEX-USA Scores* When Considering Which Applicants to Interview Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 CS and Step 3 Scores USMLE Step 2 CS USMLE Step 3 N=31 N=29 100% 94% 100% 90% 90% 80% 80% 72% 70% 70% 60% 60% 50% 50% 40% 40% 30% 30% 20% 20% 17% 10% 10% 6% 10% 0% 0% Yes No Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

Percentage of Programs That Use COMLEX-USA Level 1 and Level 2-CE Scores COMLEX-USA Level 1* COMLEX-USA Level 2-CE* 100% 100% N=11 N=11 90% 90% 80% 80% 73% 73% 70% 70% 60% 60% 50% 50% 40% 40% 30% 27% 30% 27% 20% 20% 10% 10% 0% 0% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

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

COMLEX-USA Level 2-PE* COMLEX-USA Level 3* 100% N=11 100% N=11 90% 90% 80% 80% 73% 73% 70% 70% 60% 60% 50% 50% 40% 40% 30% 27% 30% 27% 20% 20% 10% 10% 0% 0% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

* Osteopathic applicants only

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 125 Hand Surgery Figure-5 Programs That Use Core Specialty Certifying Examination When Considering Applicants for Interview Scores required? Would your program consider applicants who fail the 100% N=10 exam on the first attempt? 90% 90% N=9 80% 100% 70% 90% 80% 60% 70% 50% 60% 56% 40% 50% 44% 30% 40% 30% 20% 20% 10% 10% 10% 0% 0% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No, not required Never Seldom Often

Hand Surgery Figure-6 Programs Positions

Average Number of Accredited Positions and Funded Positions Average Percentage of Accredited Positions Offered Outside of 2.8 the Match 2.5 100% 100% 2.4 2.3 90% 2.0 80% 70% 1.6 60% 50% 1.2 40% 30% 0.8 20% 0.4 10% 0% 0.0 Positions Filled Before Positions Offered Outside Positions Filled Outside Accredited Positions Funded Positions Match Day the Match the Match

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

Hand Surgery Figure-7 Dedicated Time for Research

Program Requirement on Dedicated Time for Average Number of Months if Research Time is Research Required 4.0 N=34 4 3.5 3 3 3.0

2.5

2.0 Optional 2 Required 47.1% 1.5 52.9% 1.0

0.5

0.0 Accredited Locally Funded Integrated Other N=5 N=5 N=4 N=2

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 126 Hand Surgery Figure-8 Program's Interview Activities

Interview Invitations Sent and Interviews Conducted

100% N=31 90% 80% 77% 70% 60% 50% 50% 40% 30% 23% 20% 13% 10% 8% 5% 5% 6% 0% 0%3% 0%0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%1% 0%2% 0% 3% 0% Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Interview invitations Interviews conducted

Average Number of Positions, Applications Received, Interview Average Percentage of Applicants Rejected and Reviewed Invitations Sent, and Applicants Interviewed and Ranked 80 75 100% 90% 70 79% 80% 60 70% 50 60% 50% 40 35 40% 30 31% 30 30% 20% 20 10% 10 0% Rejected based on a In-depth review 0 standardized screening Number of applications Number of interview Number of applicants process received invitations sent interviewed N=33 N=33 N=33 N=33 N=33

Percentage of Programs that Typically Interview and Rank Each Applicant Type 7% of Hand Surgery programs consider all applicant groups 100% 100% N=30 90% 80% 77% 70% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 17% 17% 13% 10% 0% U.S. Graduate Osteopathic Canadian Fifth Pathway U.S. IMG Non-U.S. IMG Physician Frequency of Programs Interviewing and Ranking Candidates Interview Ranking 100% 3% 100% 4% 7% 90% 90% 27% 36% 29% 80% 38% 40% 80% 40% 46% 70% 55% 70% 66% 57% 60% 81% 60% 83% 50% 50% 50% 40% 50% 40% 64% 53% 68% 53% 30% 30% 54% 20% 45% 20% 31% 36% 13% 10% 14% 23% 10% 13% 0% 6% 7% 0% 3% 7% Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-US Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-US IMG IMG Often Seldom Never Often Seldom Never n=32 n=29

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 127 Hand Surgery

Figure-9 Potential Challenges in Recruiting Applicants to Your Specialty

Average rating on a scale of 5 (1=least challenging; 5=most challenging) n=31

Not enough applicants in the specialty 1.5

Undesirable income potential as a practicing physician 2.2

Undesirable work/life balance as a practicing physician 2.4

Long or irregular work hours required by specialty 2.5

Fellowship Match scheduled at inconvenient time of year 1.9

012345

Hand Surgery

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

n=30

We consider those applicants on an individual basis 77%

We give those applicants serious consideration if they have 20% shown improvement

We do not usually consider those applicants 13%

We favor those applicants 0%

Other 0%

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

Hand Surgery

Figure-11 Years as Program Director

At Any Fellowship Program At Current Fellowship Program

Less than Less than 3 17.2%3 14.3% More than 15 More than 15 31.0% 32.1% 3 to 5 3 to 5 14.3% 13.8%

11 to 15 11 to 15 3.6% 13.8% 6 to 10 6 to 10 24.1% 35.7%

n=29 n=28

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 128 Hematology and Oncology

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 129 Hematology and Oncology Table 1 General Information

2016 Survey Number of responses 48 Response rate 36.9%

Match Information* Appointment Years 2016 2015 2014 Number of programs in the Match 131 134 130 Number of positions in the Match 521 521 517 Number of applicants ranking specialty 693 725 689 * Source: NRMP Data Warehouse

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 130 Hematology and Oncology Figure-1 Percentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Selecting Applicants to Interview (N=36) Percent Citing Factor Average Rating Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialty 72% 4.2 Residency performance evaluation (Program Director letter) 89% 4.4 Reputation of residency program 92% 4.1 Demonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research 94% 4.1 Perceived commitment to specialty 61% 4.5 Personal statement 67% 3.8 Perceived interest in program 69% 4.4 Evidence of professionalism and ethics 61% 4.7 USMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score 83% 3.9 Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chapters 75% 4.3 USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE score 81% 4.0 Leadership qualities 50% 4.1 Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicant 69% 4.3 Oral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements 67% 4.1 Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institution 83% 4.1 Pass USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PE 75% 4.0 Any failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX 81% 4.5 USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 score 72% 3.8 Interest in academic career 67% 4.5 Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based) 81% 4.1 Clinical/laboratory research experience 75% 4.0 Awards or special honors in medical school 39% 3.6 Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership 56% 4.0 Other life experience 56% 3.6 Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter) 50% 3.7 Graduate of highly‐regarded medical school 64% 3.7 Visa status* 56% 4.0 Volunteer/extracurricular experiences 33% 3.2 Awarded grant money for research 50% 3.8 Grades in medical school 31% 3.3 Lack of gaps in medical education 36% 4.0 Medical school class ranking/quartile 39% 3.5 Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP 36% 4.7 Electives at your fellowship site 42% 3.5 Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membership 25% 3.4 Residency class ranking/quartile 22% 3.9 Fluency in language spoken by your patient population 22% 3.8 In‐Training Examination (ITE) 0% Residency program size 17% 3.2 Having finished another fellowship 14% 2.8 100% 50% 0% 1 2 345

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

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 131 Hematology and Oncology Figure-2 Percentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Ranking Applicants (N=36) Percent Citing Factor Average Rating Interactions with faculty during interview and visit 85% 5.0 Interpersonal skills 85% 4.8 Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialty 58% 4.3 Interactions with house staff during interview and visit 73% 4.7 Perceived commitment to specialty 61% 4.5 Feedback from current residents and fellows 76% 4.5 Perceived interest in program 61% 4.3 Demonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research 91% 4.2 Reputation of residency program 67% 3.9 Residency performance evaluation (Program Director letter) 64% 4.4 Evidence of professionalism and ethics 64% 4.6 Personal statement 55% 3.9 Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicant 48% 4.4 Leadership qualities 48% 4.2 Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chapters 67% 4.2 Interest in academic career 64% 4.4 Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institution 52% 4.1 USMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score 64% 3.9 USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE score 58% 3.9 Any failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX 52% 4.7 Passing USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PE 58% 4.0 Clinical/laboratory research experience 67% 4.1 USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 score 48% 3.9 Oral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements 42% 4.1 Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based) 45% 4.1 Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership 36% 3.7 Other life experience 21% 3.7 Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter) 18% 3.8 Second interview/visit 27% 4.3 Awards or special honors in medical school 21% 4.0 Visa status* 36% 4.3 Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP 27% 4.9 Graduate of highly‐regarded medical school 24% 3.9 Electives at your fellowship site 18% 4.2 Awarded grant money for research 42% 3.9 Volunteer/extracurricular experiences 12% 3.8 Medical school class ranking/quartile 21% 3.4 Lack of gaps in medical education 6% 4.5 Grades in medical school 9% 3.7 Residency class ranking/quartile 21% 4.0 Fluency in language spoken by your patient population 21% 4.0 Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membership 12% 3.0 Residency program size 6% 3.5 In‐Training Examination (ITE) 0% Second interview/visit 3% 5.0 Having finished another fellowship 9% 3.3 100% 50% 0% 12345 ¹ Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). * International Medical Graduates only

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 132 Hematology and Oncology Figure-3 Programs That Use USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) Scores When Considering Which Applicants to Interview Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 1 Score Scores required? Would your program consider applicants who fail the 100% N=35 exam on the first attempt? 90% 100% N=36 90% 80% 81% 80% 70% 63% 70% 60% 60% 50% 50% 40% 37% 40% 30% 30% 20% 20% 17% 10% 10% 0% 3% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Never Seldom Often

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 (CK) Score Scores required? Would your program consider applicants who fail N=36 the exam on the first attempt? N=35 100% 100% 90% 90% 80% 80% 71% 70% 67% 70% 60% 60% 50% 50% 40% 33% 40% 30% 30% 26% 20% 20% 10% 10% 0% 3% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Never Seldom often

IQR* of Average USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 CK Scores Programs Consider When Granting Interviews Scores Below Which Programs Scores Above Which Programs Generally Do Not Grant Interviews Almost Always Grant Interviews 260 260

250 250

240 240

230 230

220 220

210 210

200 200

190 190

180 180

170 170 USMLE Step 1 USMLE Step 2 CK USMLE Step 1 USMLE Step 2 CK N=12 N=11 N=9 N=8

*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.

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 133 Hematology and Oncology Figure-4 Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 Clinical Skill (CS), Step 3, and COMLEX-USA Scores* When Considering Which Applicants to Interview Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 CS and Step 3 Scores USMLE Step 2 CS USMLE Step 3 100% N=36 100% N=35 100% 90% 90% 80% 80% 70% 70% 60% 60% 51% 50% 50% 37% 40% 40% 30% 30% 20% 20% 11% 10% 10% 0% 0% 0% Yes No Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

Percentage of Programs That Use COMLEX-USA Level 1 and Level 2-CE Scores COMLEX-USA Level 1* COMLEX-USA Level 2-CE* 100% 100% N=22 N=22 90% 90% 80% 80%

70% 64% 70% 64% 60% 60% 50% 50% 40% 40% 32% 32% 30% 30% 20% 20% 10% 5% 10% 5% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

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

COMLEX-USA Level 2-PE* COMLEX-USA Level 3* 100% N=22 100% N=22 90% 90% 80% 80% 70% 68% 70% 60% 60% 55% 50% 50% 40% 40% 36% 30% 27% 30% 20% 20% 9% 10% 5% 10% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

* Osteopathic applicants only

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 134 Hematology and Oncology Figure-5 Programs That Use Core Specialty Certifying Examination When Considering Applicants for Interview Scores required? Would your program consider applicants who fail the 100% N=13 exam on the first attempt? 90% N=8 80% 77% 100% 70% 90% 80% 60% 70% 63% 50% 60% 40% 50% 30% 40% 30% 25% 20% 15% 20% 13% 10% 8% 10% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No, not required Never Seldom Often

Hematology and Oncology Figure-6 Programs Positions

Average Number of Accredited Positions and Funded Positions Average Percentage of Accredited Positions Offered Outside of 10 the Match 9.0 8.8 100% 8 90% 80% 70% 68% 6 60% 50% 4 40% 31% 31% 30% 20% 2 10% 0% 0 Positions Filled Before Positions Offered Outside Positions Filled Outside Accredited Positions Funded Positions Match Day the Match the Match

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

Hematology and Oncology Figure-7 Dedicated Time for Research

Program Requirement on Dedicated Time for Average Number of Months if Research Time is Research Required N=48 12 12

10 10

8 Optional 7 7 31.3% 6

4 Required 68.8% 2

0 Accredited Locally Funded Integrated Other N=14 N=11 N=5 N=5

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 135 Hematology and Oncology Figure-8 Program's Interview Activities

Interview Invitations Sent and Interviews Conducted

100% N=37 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 47% 46% 38% 40% 34% 30% 20% 11% 10% 5% 6% 0%0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%3% 0%0% 0% 0% 1% 3% 0% 0% 0% Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Interview invitations Interviews conducted

Average Number of Positions, Applications Received, Interview Average Percentage of Applicants Rejected and Reviewed Invitations Sent, and Applicants Interviewed and Ranked 320 302 100% 280 90% 80% 240 70% 200 60% 51% 50% 41% 160 40% 120 30% 20% 80 10% 44 37 40 0% Rejected based on a In-depth review 0 standardized screening Number of applications Number of interview Number of applicants process received invitations sent interviewed N=41 N=42 N=44 N=44 N=44

Percentage of Programs that Typically Interview and Rank Each Applicant Type 40% of Hematology and Oncology programs consider all applicant groups

100% 93% N=43 88% 90% 84% 84% 80% 72% 70% 60% 50% 42% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% U.S. Graduate Osteopathic Canadian Fifth Pathway U.S. IMG Non-U.S. IMG Physician Frequency of Programs Interviewing and Ranking Candidates Interview Ranking 100% 100% 5% 5% 90% 23% 90% 24% 80% 80% 48% 38% 50% 39% 51% 56% 70% 70% 69% 60% 78% 60% 50% 93% 50% 98% 64% 63% 40% 40% 30% 30% 52% 56% 48% 55% 46% 20% 44% 20% 23% 10% 17% 10% 5% 13% 13% 8% 0% 2% 5% 0% 3% 3% 3% Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-US Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-US IMG IMG Often Seldom Never Often Seldom Never n=42 n=40

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 136 Hematology and Oncology

Figure-9 Potential Challenges in Recruiting Applicants to Your Specialty

Average rating on a scale of 5 (1=least challenging; 5=most challenging) n=31

Not enough applicants in the specialty 1.4

Undesirable income potential as a practicing physician 1.7

Undesirable work/life balance as a practicing physician 2.8

Long or irregular work hours required by specialty 2.4

Fellowship Match scheduled at inconvenient time of year 1.8

012345

Hematology and Oncology

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

n=31

We consider those applicants on an individual basis 77%

We give those applicants serious consideration if they have 16% shown improvement

We do not usually consider those applicants 16%

We favor those applicants 0%

Other 3%

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

Hematology and Oncology

Figure-11 Years as Program Director

At Any Fellowship Program At Current Fellowship Program

Less than 3 More than 15 Less than 3 More than 13.6% 20.5%15 17.1% 17.1%

11 to 15 11 to 15 3 to 5 14.6% 13.6% 27.3% 3 to 5 29.3%

6 to 10 6 to 10 22.0% 25.0%

n=44 n=41

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 Medicine Table 1 General Information

2016 Survey Number of responses 42 Response rate 39.6%

Match Information* Appointment Years 2016 2015 2014 Number of programs in the Match 122 Number of positions in the Match 280 Number of applicants ranking specialty 259 * Source: NRMP Data Warehouse

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 139 Hospice and Palliative Medicine Figure-1 Percentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Selecting Applicants to Interview (N=38) Percent Citing Factor Average Rating Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialty 92% 4.4 Residency performance evaluation (Program Director letter) 89% 4.4 Reputation of residency program 79% 4.0 Demonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research 66% 3.5 Perceived commitment to specialty 95% 4.7 Personal statement 95% 4.6 Perceived interest in program 79% 4.5 Evidence of professionalism and ethics 82% 4.8 USMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score 61% 3.6 Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chapters 55% 3.6 USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE score 53% 3.7 Leadership qualities 71% 4.1 Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicant 71% 4.1 Oral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements 63% 3.7 Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institution 55% 4.0 Pass USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PE 55% 3.9 Any failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX 58% 4.3 USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 score 45% 3.6 Interest in academic career 34% 3.7 Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based) 34% 3.9 Clinical/laboratory research experience 16% 3.2 Awards or special honors in medical school 63% 3.4 Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership 47% 3.9 Other life experience 76% 4.1 Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter) 63% 3.6 Graduate of highly‐regarded medical school 61% 3.8 Visa status* 45% 4.5 Volunteer/extracurricular experiences 50% 3.8 Awarded grant money for research 13% 4.0 Grades in medical school 47% 3.5 Lack of gaps in medical education 32% 3.5 Medical school class ranking/quartile 42% 3.3 Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP 39% 4.7 Electives at your fellowship site 45% 4.2 Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membership 37% 4.2 Residency class ranking/quartile 24% 3.5 Fluency in language spoken by your patient population 39% 3.7 In‐Training Examination (ITE) 8% 3.0 Residency program size 5% 3.5 Having finished another fellowship 26% 3.2 100% 50% 0% 1 2 345

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

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 140 Hospice and Palliative Medicine Figure-2 Percentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Ranking Applicants (N=38) Percent Citing Factor Average Rating Interactions with faculty during interview and visit 92% 4.9 Interpersonal skills 92% 4.9 Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialty 81% 4.5 Interactions with house staff during interview and visit 68% 4.8 Perceived commitment to specialty 89% 4.7 Feedback from current residents and fellows 59% 4.7 Perceived interest in program 81% 4.6 Demonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research 35% 3.5 Reputation of residency program 54% 4.0 Residency performance evaluation (Program Director letter) 54% 4.5 Evidence of professionalism and ethics 73% 4.8 Personal statement 76% 4.7 Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicant 59% 4.2 Leadership qualities 46% 4.4 Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chapters 35% 4.1 Interest in academic career 30% 3.9 Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institution 46% 4.1 USMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score 27% 3.6 USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE score 30% 3.6 Any failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX 41% 4.3 Passing USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PE 27% 3.9 Clinical/laboratory research experience 14% 3.6 USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 score 27% 3.7 Oral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements 35% 3.8 Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based) 30% 3.8 Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership 30% 3.7 Other life experience 46% 4.2 Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter) 43% 3.9 Second interview/visit 24% 4.2 Awards or special honors in medical school 30% 3.8 Visa status* 24% 4.3 Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP 30% 4.8 Graduate of highly‐regarded medical school 27% 3.9 Electives at your fellowship site 30% 4.5 Awarded grant money for research 14% 4.2 Volunteer/extracurricular experiences 27% 3.8 Medical school class ranking/quartile 19% 3.7 Lack of gaps in medical education 11% 3.8 Grades in medical school 16% 3.5 Residency class ranking/quartile 22% 4.0 Fluency in language spoken by your patient population 27% 4.3 Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membership 22% 3.8 Residency program size 3% 3.0 In‐Training Examination (ITE) 5% 4.0 Second interview/visit 14% 4.4 Having finished another fellowship 19% 3.6 100% 50% 0% 12345 ¹ Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). * International Medical Graduates only

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 141 Hospice and Palliative Medicine Figure-3 Programs That Use USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) Scores When Considering Which Applicants to Interview Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 1 Score Scores required? Would your program consider applicants who fail the 100% N=35 exam on the first attempt? 90% 100% N=31 90% 80% 74% 80% 70% 70% 60% 60% 50% 52% 50% 40% 40% 30% 30% 26% 20% 23% 20% 20% 10% 6% 10% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Never Seldom Often

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 (CK) Score Scores required? Would your program consider applicants who fail N=35 the exam on the first attempt? N=31 100% 100% 90% 90% 80% 74% 80% 70% 70% 60% 60% 55% 50% 50% 40% 40% 30% 30% 26% 20% 19% 20% 20% 10% 6% 10% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Never Seldom often

IQR* of Average USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 CK Scores Programs Consider When Granting Interviews Scores Below Which Programs Scores Above Which Programs Generally Do Not Grant Interviews Almost Always Grant Interviews

USMLE Step 2 CK USMLE Step 1 not USMLE Step 2 CK USMLE Step 1 not not reported reported because not reported reported because because of low of low response because of low of low response response rate rate response rate rate

*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.

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 142 Hospice and Palliative Medicine Figure-4 Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 Clinical Skill (CS), Step 3, and COMLEX-USA Scores* When Considering Which Applicants to Interview Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 CS and Step 3 Scores USMLE Step 2 CS USMLE Step 3 100% 94% N=35 100% N=36 90% 90% 80% 80% 78% 70% 70% 60% 60% 50% 50% 40% 40% 30% 30% 20% 20% 17% 10% 6% 10% 6% 0% 0% Yes No Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

Percentage of Programs That Use COMLEX-USA Level 1 and Level 2-CE Scores COMLEX-USA Level 1* COMLEX-USA Level 2-CE* 100% 100% N=25 N=25 90% 90% 80% 76% 80% 76% 70% 70% 60% 60% 50% 50% 40% 40% 30% 30% 20% 20% 12% 12% 12% 12% 10% 10% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

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

COMLEX-USA Level 2-PE* COMLEX-USA Level 3* 100% N=25 100% N=24 90% 90% 80% 76% 80% 75% 70% 70% 60% 60% 50% 50% 40% 40% 30% 30% 20% 20% 12% 12% 13% 13% 10% 10% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

* Osteopathic applicants only

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 143 Hospice and Palliative Medicine Figure-5 Programs That Use Core Specialty Certifying Examination When Considering Applicants for Interview Scores required? Would your program consider applicants who fail the 100% N=21 exam on the first attempt? 90% N=18 80% 100% 70% 90% 80% 60% 57% 70% 61% 50% 43% 60% 40% 50% 30% 40% 30% 22% 20% 20% 17% 10% 10% 0% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No, not required Never Seldom Often

Hospice and Palliative Medicine Figure-6 Programs Positions

Average Number of Accredited Positions and Funded Positions Average Percentage of Accredited Positions Offered Outside of 3.2 the Match 3.0 2.8 2.8 100% 90% 2.4 80% 72% 2.0 70% 60% 57% 57% 1.6 50% 1.2 40% 30% 0.8 20% 0.4 10% 0% 0.0 Positions Filled Before Positions Offered Outside Positions Filled Outside Accredited Positions Funded Positions Match Day the Match the Match

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

Hospice and Palliative Medicine Figure-7 Dedicated Time for Research

Program Requirement on Dedicated Time for Average Number of Months if Research Time is Research Required N=41 3.5 3

3.0

2.5

Required 26.8% 2.0

1.5

1 1.0 11 Optional 73.2% 0.5

0.0 Accredited Locally Funded Integrated Other N=5 N=2 N=2 N=2

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 144 Hospice and Palliative Medicine Figure-8 Program's Interview Activities

Interview Invitations Sent and Interviews Conducted

100% N=38 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 35% 40% 33% 31% 30% 24% 20% 16% 17% 10% 8% 6% 7% 6% 1%0% 1% 0% 0%3% 0% 0%1% 0%3% 0% 1% 3% 0% Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Interview invitations Interviews conducted

Average Number of Positions, Applications Received, Interview Average Percentage of Applicants Rejected and Reviewed Invitations Sent, and Applicants Interviewed and Ranked 35 33 100% 90% 30 80% 76% 25 70% 60% 20 50% 16 40% 15 30% 13 30% 10 20% 10% 5 0% Rejected based on a In-depth review 0 standardized screening Number of applications Number of interview Number of applicants process received invitations sent interviewed N=37 N=38 N=39 N=39 N=39

Percentage of Programs that Typically Interview and Rank Each Applicant Type 11% of Hospice and Palliative Medicine programs consider all applicant groups

100% 97% 97% N=38 90% 80% 70% 68% 60% 50% 47% 39% 40% 30% 20% 13% 10% 0% U.S. Graduate Osteopathic Canadian Fifth Pathway U.S. IMG Non-U.S. IMG Physician Frequency of Programs Interviewing and Ranking Candidates Interview Ranking 100% 100% 6% 6% 11% 90% 19% 90% 12% 23% 15% 25% 32% 31% 80% 80% 70% 70% 39% 29% 60% 82% 31% 46% 60% 81% 50% 100% 50% 97% 53% 40% 79% 51% 40% 82% 30% 30% 44% 49% 50% 20% 35% 20% 10% 16% 16% 10% 16% 17% 0% 3% 0% 3% 3% Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-US Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-US IMG IMG Often Seldom Never Often Seldom Never n=37 n=37

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 145 Hospice and Palliative Medicine

Figure-9 Potential Challenges in Recruiting Applicants to Your Specialty

Average rating on a scale of 5 (1=least challenging; 5=most challenging) n=34

Not enough applicants in the specialty 3.8

Undesirable income potential as a practicing physician 2.6

Undesirable work/life balance as a practicing physician 2.3

Long or irregular work hours required by specialty 1.7

Fellowship Match scheduled at inconvenient time of year 2.5

012345

Hospice and Palliative Medicine

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

n=33

We consider those applicants on an individual basis 91%

We give those applicants serious consideration if they have 27% shown improvement

We do not usually consider those applicants 0%

We favor those applicants 0%

Other 0%

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

Hospice and Palliative Medicine

Figure-11 Years as Program Director

At Any Fellowship Program At Current Fellowship Program

11More to than 15 11 to 15 2.5% 7.5%15 5.1% Less than 3 27.5% 6 to 10 Less than 25.6% 33.3%3 6 to 10 30.0%

3 to 5 3 to 5 32.5% 35.9%

n=40 n=39

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 146 Infectious Disease

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 147 Infectious Disease Table 1 General Information

2016 Survey Number of responses 59 Response rate 44.4%

Match Information* Appointment Years 2016 2015 2014 Number of programs in the Match 142 138 134 Number of positions in the Match 335 327 328 Number of applicants ranking specialty 229 254 276 * Source: NRMP Data Warehouse

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 148 Infectious Disease Figure-1 Percentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Selecting Applicants to Interview (N=50) Percent Citing Factor Average Rating Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialty 84% 4.3 Residency performance evaluation (Program Director letter) 90% 4.4 Reputation of residency program 82% 3.9 Demonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research 62% 4.0 Perceived commitment to specialty 82% 4.3 Personal statement 78% 3.9 Perceived interest in program 66% 4.4 Evidence of professionalism and ethics 68% 4.6 USMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score 74% 3.5 Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chapters 58% 3.8 USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE score 74% 3.6 Leadership qualities 48% 4.1 Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicant 56% 4.3 Oral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements 52% 3.8 Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institution 66% 4.3 Pass USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PE 72% 3.6 Any failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX 72% 4.1 USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 score 70% 3.5 Interest in academic career 40% 4.2 Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based) 68% 4.1 Clinical/laboratory research experience 52% 4.0 Awards or special honors in medical school 48% 3.5 Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership 50% 3.8 Other life experience 44% 3.9 Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter) 60% 3.5 Graduate of highly‐regarded medical school 46% 4.0 Visa status* 42% 4.0 Volunteer/extracurricular experiences 42% 3.5 Awarded grant money for research 36% 3.4 Grades in medical school 36% 3.4 Lack of gaps in medical education 34% 3.7 Medical school class ranking/quartile 44% 3.5 Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP 36% 4.7 Electives at your fellowship site 24% 3.5 Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membership 26% 3.8 Residency class ranking/quartile 30% 4.1 Fluency in language spoken by your patient population 22% 3.6 In‐Training Examination (ITE) 10% 4.4 Residency program size 24% 3.7 Having finished another fellowship 6% 3.0 100% 50% 0% 1 2 345

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

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 149 Infectious Disease Figure-2 Percentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Ranking Applicants (N=50) Percent Citing Factor Average Rating Interactions with faculty during interview and visit 90% 4.8 Interpersonal skills 83% 4.8 Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialty 79% 4.4 Interactions with house staff during interview and visit 63% 4.6 Perceived commitment to specialty 79% 4.6 Feedback from current residents and fellows 65% 4.5 Perceived interest in program 67% 4.3 Demonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research 69% 4.0 Reputation of residency program 77% 4.1 Residency performance evaluation (Program Director letter) 69% 4.3 Evidence of professionalism and ethics 56% 4.7 Personal statement 48% 3.9 Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicant 52% 4.4 Leadership qualities 35% 4.4 Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chapters 40% 4.1 Interest in academic career 44% 4.2 Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institution 56% 4.3 USMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score 60% 3.8 USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE score 58% 3.9 Any failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX 42% 4.2 Passing USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PE 46% 3.8 Clinical/laboratory research experience 46% 4.1 USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 score 58% 3.8 Oral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements 40% 4.1 Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based) 58% 4.0 Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership 35% 3.9 Other life experience 27% 3.8 Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter) 35% 3.5 Second interview/visit 27% 4.2 Awards or special honors in medical school 31% 3.5 Visa status* 29% 4.1 Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP 29% 4.8 Graduate of highly‐regarded medical school 31% 3.9 Electives at your fellowship site 17% 3.3 Awarded grant money for research 23% 3.7 Volunteer/extracurricular experiences 29% 3.8 Medical school class ranking/quartile 31% 3.6 Lack of gaps in medical education 17% 3.9 Grades in medical school 27% 3.5 Residency class ranking/quartile 25% 3.8 Fluency in language spoken by your patient population 15% 4.1 Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membership 21% 3.9 Residency program size 17% 4.0 In‐Training Examination (ITE) 6% 4.7 Second interview/visit 6% 4.7 Having finished another fellowship 4% 3.5 100% 50% 0% 12345 ¹ Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). * International Medical Graduates only

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 150 Infectious Disease Figure-3 Programs That Use USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) Scores When Considering Which Applicants to Interview Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 1 Score Scores required? Would your program consider applicants who fail the 100% N=50 exam on the first attempt? 90% 100% N=50 80% 90% 80% 80% 70% 70% 60% 60% 60% 50% 50% 40% 40% 30% 30% 30% 20% 16% 20% 10% 10% 4% 10% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Never Seldom Often

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 (CK) Score Scores required? Would your program consider applicants who fail N=50 the exam on the first attempt? N=50 100% 100% 90% 90% 80% 80% 80% 70% 70% 60% 60% 58% 50% 50% 40% 40% 30% 30% 30% 20% 16% 20% 12% 10% 4% 10% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Never Seldom often

IQR* of Average USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 CK Scores Programs Consider When Granting Interviews Scores Below Which Programs Scores Above Which Programs Generally Do Not Grant Interviews Almost Always Grant Interviews 260 260

250 250

240 240

230 230

220 220

210 210

200 200

190 190

180 180

170 170 USMLE Step 1 USMLE Step 2 CK USMLE Step 1 USMLE Step 2 CK N=6 N=6 N=6 N=6

*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.

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 151 Infectious Disease Figure-4 Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 Clinical Skill (CS), Step 3, and COMLEX-USA Scores* When Considering Which Applicants to Interview Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 CS and Step 3 Scores USMLE Step 2 CS USMLE Step 3 100% 96% N=49 100% N=48 90% 90% 80% 80% 75% 70% 70% 60% 60% 50% 50% 40% 40% 30% 30% 20% 20% 13% 13% 10% 4% 10% 0% 0% Yes No Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

Percentage of Programs That Use COMLEX-USA Level 1 and Level 2-CE Scores COMLEX-USA Level 1* COMLEX-USA Level 2-CE* 100% 100% N=39 N=38 90% 90%

80% 74% 80% 74% 70% 70% 60% 60% 50% 50% 40% 40% 30% 30% 21% 21% 20% 20% 10% 5% 10% 5% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

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

COMLEX-USA Level 2-PE* COMLEX-USA Level 3* 100% N=39 100% N=36 90% 90% 80% 74% 80% 69% 70% 70% 60% 60% 50% 50% 40% 40% 30% 30% 25% 21% 20% 20% 10% 5% 10% 6% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

* Osteopathic applicants only

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 152 Infectious Disease Figure-5 Programs That Use Core Specialty Certifying Examination When Considering Applicants for Interview Scores required? Would your program consider applicants who fail the 100% N=22 exam on the first attempt? 90% N=15 80% 77% 100% 70% 90% 80% 60% 70% 67% 50% 60% 40% 50% 30% 40% 23% 30% 27% 20% 20% 10% 10% 7% 0% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No, not required Never Seldom Often

Infectious Disease Figure-6 Programs Positions

Average Number of Accredited Positions and Funded Positions Average Percentage of Accredited Positions Offered Outside of 4.5 the Match 4.2 4.0 4.0 100% 90% 3.5 80% 3.0 70% 59% 60% 2.5 52% 50% 46% 2.0 40% 1.5 30% 1.0 20% 10% 0.5 0% 0.0 Positions Filled Before Positions Offered Outside Positions Filled Outside Accredited Positions Funded Positions Match Day the Match the Match

N=58 N=55 N=20 N=20 N=18

Infectious Disease Figure-7 Dedicated Time for Research

Program Requirement on Dedicated Time for Average Number of Months if Research Time is Research Required N=58 12 11

10 9 8 Optional 8 17.2% 7 6

4

Required 2 82.8% 0 Accredited Locally Funded Integrated Other N=28 N=11 N=4 N=7

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 153 Infectious Disease Figure-8 Program's Interview Activities

Interview Invitations Sent and Interviews Conducted

100% N=48 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 36% 38% 35% 40% 31% 30% 19% 20% 15% 9% 10% 4% 2% 0% 0% 1% 1%2% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Interview invitations Interviews conducted

Average Number of Positions, Applications Received, Interview Average Percentage of Applicants Rejected and Reviewed Invitations Sent, and Applicants Interviewed and Ranked 45 42 100% 90% 40 80% 80% 35 70% 30 60% 25 24 50% 20 40% 15 30% 15 22% 20% 10 10% 5 0% Rejected based on a In-depth review 0 standardized screening Number of applications Number of interview Number of applicants process received invitations sent interviewed N=55 N=54 N=55 N=54 N=55

Percentage of Programs that Typically Interview and Rank Each Applicant Type 36% of Infectious Disease programs consider all applicant groups

100% 98% N=50 90% 92% 90% 80% 80% 70% 66% 60% 50% 40% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% U.S. Graduate Osteopathic Canadian Fifth Pathway U.S. IMG Non-U.S. IMG Physician Frequency of Programs Interviewing and Ranking Candidates Interview Ranking 100% 4% 100% 4% 90% 90% 23% 30% 80% 80% 38% 45% 70% 59% 70% 66% 60% 64% 62% 61% 60% 60% 92% 46% 50% 50% 96% 38% 40% 40% 30% 30% 51% 57% 31% 20% 38% 26% 20% 34% 37% 30% 31% 32% 10% 10% 6% 10% 10% 0% 2% 4% 2% 0% 2% 4% 2% Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-US Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-US IMG IMG Often Seldom Never Often Seldom Never n=50 n=49

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 154 Infectious Disease

Figure-9 Potential Challenges in Recruiting Applicants to Your Specialty

Average rating on a scale of 5 (1=least challenging; 5=most challenging) n=46

Not enough applicants in the specialty 4.9

Undesirable income potential as a practicing physician 4.7

Undesirable work/life balance as a practicing physician 3.3

Long or irregular work hours required by specialty 3.0

Fellowship Match scheduled at inconvenient time of year 1.9

012345

Infectious Disease

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

n=46

We consider those applicants on an individual basis 76%

We give those applicants serious consideration if they have 20% shown improvement

We do not usually consider those applicants 24%

We favor those applicants 0%

Other 2%

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

Infectious Disease

Figure-11 Years as Program Director

At Any Fellowship Program At Current Fellowship Program

More than 15 More than Less than 3 13.7% Less than 3 19.6% 19.6% 15 23.5%

11 to 15 15.7% 11 to 15 13.7% 3 to 5 21.6% 3 to 5 21.6% 6 to 10 6 to 10 25.5% 25.5%

n=51 n=51

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 155 Interventional Radiology

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 156 Interventional Radiology Table 1 General Information

2016 Survey Number of responses 30 Response rate 37.0%

Match Information* Appointment Years 2016 2015 2014 Number of programs in the Match 81 82 81 Number of positions in the Match 238 234 227 Number of applicants ranking specialty 240 270 275 * Source: NRMP Data Warehouse

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 157 Interventional Radiology Figure-1 Percentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Selecting Applicants to Interview (N=24) Percent Citing Factor Average Rating Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialty 92% 4.8 Residency performance evaluation (Program Director letter) 88% 4.5 Reputation of residency program 92% 4.0 Demonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research 100% 3.6 Perceived commitment to specialty 79% 4.5 Personal statement 79% 3.9 Perceived interest in program 88% 4.3 Evidence of professionalism and ethics 63% 4.4 USMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score 79% 3.6 Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chapters 83% 3.8 USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE score 71% 3.6 Leadership qualities 79% 4.3 Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicant 71% 4.4 Oral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements 75% 3.7 Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institution 67% 4.4 Pass USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PE 63% 3.4 Any failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX 67% 3.9 USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 score 50% 3.4 Interest in academic career 46% 3.8 Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based) 54% 3.5 Clinical/laboratory research experience 63% 3.5 Awards or special honors in medical school 63% 2.9 Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership 63% 3.1 Other life experience 58% 3.9 Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter) 67% 2.7 Graduate of highly‐regarded medical school 46% 3.1 Visa status* 50% 4.0 Volunteer/extracurricular experiences 46% 3.6 Awarded grant money for research 46% 3.6 Grades in medical school 42% 3.2 Lack of gaps in medical education 29% 3.0 Medical school class ranking/quartile 42% 3.4 Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP 38% 4.8 Electives at your fellowship site 46% 3.6 Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membership 17% 3.8 Residency class ranking/quartile 25% 4.2 Fluency in language spoken by your patient population 13% 3.7 In‐Training Examination (ITE) 4% 5.0 Residency program size 8% 4.0 Having finished another fellowship 17% 3.0 100% 50% 0% 1 2 345

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

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 158 Interventional Radiology Figure-2 Percentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Ranking Applicants (N=24) Percent Citing Factor Average Rating Interactions with faculty during interview and visit 96% 4.9 Interpersonal skills 96% 4.8 Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialty 92% 4.7 Interactions with house staff during interview and visit 92% 4.6 Perceived commitment to specialty 75% 4.8 Feedback from current residents and fellows 88% 4.6 Perceived interest in program 71% 4.8 Demonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research 54% 3.9 Reputation of residency program 71% 4.2 Residency performance evaluation (Program Director letter) 58% 4.3 Evidence of professionalism and ethics 67% 4.7 Personal statement 50% 4.2 Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicant 67% 4.6 Leadership qualities 79% 4.5 Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chapters 54% 4.2 Interest in academic career 46% 3.9 Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institution 50% 4.2 USMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score 46% 3.7 USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE score 42% 3.6 Any failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX 29% 4.3 Passing USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PE 42% 3.8 Clinical/laboratory research experience 25% 3.8 USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 score 42% 3.9 Oral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements 50% 4.2 Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based) 25% 3.7 Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership 29% 3.7 Other life experience 42% 4.1 Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter) 13% 3.0 Second interview/visit 33% 3.9 Awards or special honors in medical school 25% 3.6 Visa status* 13% 4.0 Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP 21% 4.4 Graduate of highly‐regarded medical school 17% 3.8 Electives at your fellowship site 42% 4.1 Awarded grant money for research 25% 4.3 Volunteer/extracurricular experiences 29% 4.0 Medical school class ranking/quartile 33% 3.9 Lack of gaps in medical education 8% 3.5 Grades in medical school 8% 3.0 Residency class ranking/quartile 33% 4.1 Fluency in language spoken by your patient population 21% 3.6 Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membership 4% 3.0 Residency program size 17% 3.5 In‐Training Examination (ITE) 4% 3.0 Second interview/visit 8% 4.0 Having finished another fellowship 13% 2.7 100% 50% 0% 12345 ¹ Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). * International Medical Graduates only

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 159 Interventional Radiology Figure-3 Programs That Use USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) Scores When Considering Which Applicants to Interview Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 1 Score Scores required? Would your program consider applicants who fail the 100% N=25 exam on the first attempt? 90% 100% N=24 90% 80% 80% 70% 71% 70% 60% 56% 60% 50% 44% 50% 40% 40% 30% 30% 25% 20% 20% 10% 10% 4% 0% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Never Seldom Often

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 (CK) Score Scores required? Would your program consider applicants who fail N=25 the exam on the first attempt? N=24 100% 100% 90% 90% 80% 80% 71% 70% 70% 60% 60% 60% 50% 50% 40% 40% 40% 30% 30% 25% 20% 20% 10% 10% 4% 0% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Never Seldom often

IQR* of Average USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 CK Scores Programs Consider When Granting Interviews Scores Below Which Programs Scores Above Which Programs Generally Do Not Grant Interviews Almost Always Grant Interviews 260 260

250 250

240 240

230 USMLE Step 2 CK 230 USMLE Step 2 CK not reported not reported 220 220 because of low because of low 210 response rate 210 response rate 200 200

190 190

180 180

170 170 USMLE Step 1 USMLE Step 1 N=8 N=7

*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.

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 160 Interventional Radiology Figure-4 Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 Clinical Skill (CS), Step 3, and COMLEX-USA Scores* When Considering Which Applicants to Interview Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 CS and Step 3 Scores USMLE Step 2 CS USMLE Step 3 100% N=25 100% N=25 100% 90% 90% 80% 80% 70% 70% 64% 60% 60% 50% 50% 40% 40% 30% 30% 24% 20% 20% 12% 10% 10% 0% 0% 0% Yes No Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

Percentage of Programs That Use COMLEX-USA Level 1 and Level 2-CE Scores COMLEX-USA Level 1* COMLEX-USA Level 2-CE* 100% 100% N=22 N=22 90% 90% 80% 80% 70% 70% 60% 60% 50% 50% 50% 50% 40% 36% 40% 36% 30% 30%

20% 14% 20% 14% 10% 10% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

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

COMLEX-USA Level 2-PE* COMLEX-USA Level 3* 100% N=22 100% N=21 90% 90% 80% 80% 70% 70% 60% 60% 50% 50% 50% 48% 43% 40% 36% 40% 30% 30%

20% 14% 20% 10% 10% 10% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

* Osteopathic applicants only

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 161 Interventional Radiology Figure-5 Programs That Use Core Specialty Certifying Examination When Considering Applicants for Interview Scores required? Would your program consider applicants who fail the 100% N=17 exam on the first attempt? 90% N=11 80% 100% 70% 65% 90% 80% 60% 70% 64% 50% 60% 40% 50% 29% 36% 30% 40% 30% 20% 20% 10% 6% 10% 0% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No, not required Never Seldom Often

Interventional Radiology Figure-6 Programs Positions

Average Number of Accredited Positions and Funded Positions Average Percentage of Accredited Positions Offered Outside of 4.0 3.8 the Match 3.6 3.5 100% 90% 3.0 80% 77% 2.5 70% 60% 2.0 50% 44% 40% 1.5 40% 30% 1.0 20% 0.5 10% 0% 0.0 Positions Filled Before Positions Offered Outside Positions Filled Outside Accredited Positions Funded Positions Match Day the Match the Match

N=29 N=27 N=5 N=4 N=3

Interventional Radiology Figure-7 Dedicated Time for Research

Program Requirement on Dedicated Time for Average Number of Months if Research Time is Research Required N=30 1.0

1 0.8

Required 10.0% 0.6

0.4

0 0.2 Optional 90.0% 0.0 Accredited Locally Funded Integrated Other N=3 N=0 N=1 N=0

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 162 Interventional Radiology Figure-8 Program's Interview Activities

Interview Invitations Sent and Interviews Conducted

100% N=25 90% 80% 70% 60% 49% 50% 40% 38% 30% 30% 30% 17% 20% 13% 10% 8% 5% 0% 0%3% 0%0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%3% 0% 0% 0% Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Interview invitations Interviews conducted

Average Number of Positions, Applications Received, Interview Average Percentage of Applicants Rejected and Reviewed Invitations Sent, and Applicants Interviewed and Ranked 120 100% 105 90% 100 80% 73% 70% 80 60% 50% 60 40% 30% 40 36 21% 32 20% 10% 20 0% Rejected based on a In-depth review 0 standardized screening Number of applications Number of interview Number of applicants process received invitations sent interviewed N=27 N=27 N=28 N=28 N=28

Percentage of Programs that Typically Interview and Rank Each Applicant Type 37% of Interventional Radiology programs consider all applicant groups

100% 96% N=27 89% 89% 90% 80% 78% 70% 60% 50% 41% 41% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% U.S. Graduate Osteopathic Canadian Fifth Pathway U.S. IMG Non-U.S. IMG Physician Frequency of Programs Interviewing and Ranking Candidates Interview Ranking 100% 100% 8% 15% 11% 16% 90% 22% 90% 23% 27% 80% 80% 70% 59% 70% 58% 69% 52% 60% 52% 60% 48% 89% 92% 50% 50% 81% 40% 70% 40% 69% 62% 30% 30% 20% 41% 20% 42% 40% 31% 37% 36% 10% 10% 7% 7% 8% 8% 12% 0% 4% 4% 0% Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-US Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-US IMG IMG Often Seldom Never Often Seldom Never n=27 n=26

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 163 Interventional Radiology

Figure-9 Potential Challenges in Recruiting Applicants to Your Specialty

Average rating on a scale of 5 (1=least challenging; 5=most challenging) n=23

Not enough applicants in the specialty 1.8

Undesirable income potential as a practicing physician 1.5

Undesirable work/life balance as a practicing physician 3.1

Long or irregular work hours required by specialty 3.2

Fellowship Match scheduled at inconvenient time of year 2.5

012345

Interventional Radiology

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

n=24

We consider those applicants on an individual basis 88%

We give those applicants serious consideration if they have 13% shown improvement

We do not usually consider those applicants 21%

We favor those applicants 0%

Other 0%

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

Interventional Radiology

Figure-11 Years as Program Director

At Any Fellowship Program At Current Fellowship Program

More than 15 More than Less than 3 13.6%15 16.0% 20.0% Less than 3 11 to 15 27.3% 4.5% 11 to 15 12.0% 6 to 10 18.2% 3 to 5 28.0% 6 to 10 24.0% 3 to 5 36.4%

n=25 n=22

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 164 Maternal-Fetal Medicine

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 165 Maternal-Fetal Medicine Table 1 General Information

2016 Survey Number of responses 26 Response rate 35.6%

Match Information* Appointment Years 2016 2015 2014 Number of programs in the Match 75 70 73 Number of positions in the Match 104 97 101 Number of applicants ranking specialty 140 144 142 * Source: NRMP Data Warehouse

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 166 Maternal-Fetal Medicine Figure-1 Percentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Selecting Applicants to Interview (N=15) Percent Citing Factor Average Rating Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialty 93% 4.0 Residency performance evaluation (Program Director letter) 87% 4.2 Reputation of residency program 80% 3.8 Demonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research 100% 4.3 Perceived commitment to specialty 73% 4.1 Personal statement 87% 3.4 Perceived interest in program 60% 3.9 Evidence of professionalism and ethics 87% 4.2 USMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score 80% 3.6 Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chapters 93% 4.1 USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE score 80% 3.7 Leadership qualities 53% 3.9 Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicant 67% 3.6 Oral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements 73% 4.1 Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institution 53% 3.6 Pass USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PE 80% 3.6 Any failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX 87% 4.4 USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 score 73% 3.7 Interest in academic career 87% 4.0 Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based) 87% 3.6 Clinical/laboratory research experience 73% 3.9 Awards or special honors in medical school 53% 3.4 Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership 53% 3.4 Other life experience 53% 3.3 Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter) 47% 3.0 Graduate of highly‐regarded medical school 60% 3.1 Visa status* 67% 4.3 Volunteer/extracurricular experiences 27% 2.8 Awarded grant money for research 27% 3.5 Grades in medical school 53% 3.4 Lack of gaps in medical education 40% 3.8 Medical school class ranking/quartile 40% 3.0 Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP 20% 5.0 Electives at your fellowship site 7% 4.0 Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membership 33% 4.0 Residency class ranking/quartile 7% 4.0 Fluency in language spoken by your patient population 20% 4.3 In‐Training Examination (ITE) 20% 4.3 Residency program size 7% 2.0 Having finished another fellowship 7% 2.0 100% 50% 0% 1 2 345

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

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 167 Maternal-Fetal Medicine Figure-2 Percentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Ranking Applicants (N=15) Percent Citing Factor Average Rating Interactions with faculty during interview and visit 100% 5.0 Interpersonal skills 100% 4.9 Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialty 85% 3.8 Interactions with house staff during interview and visit 85% 4.5 Perceived commitment to specialty 77% 4.3 Feedback from current residents and fellows 85% 4.5 Perceived interest in program 54% 4.4 Demonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research 92% 4.2 Reputation of residency program 62% 3.5 Residency performance evaluation (Program Director letter) 54% 4.1 Evidence of professionalism and ethics 69% 4.3 Personal statement 46% 3.3 Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicant 54% 3.6 Leadership qualities 62% 3.5 Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chapters 62% 4.0 Interest in academic career 77% 4.1 Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institution 15% 3.0 USMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score 46% 3.5 USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE score 46% 3.7 Any failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX 46% 4.2 Passing USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PE 46% 3.7 Clinical/laboratory research experience 46% 3.5 USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 score 38% 3.4 Oral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements 54% 4.0 Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based) 38% 3.2 Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership 38% 2.8 Other life experience 38% 3.2 Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter) 8% 4.0 Second interview/visit 38% 4.2 Awards or special honors in medical school 8% 3.0 Visa status* 31% 5.0 Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP 23% 5.0 Graduate of highly‐regarded medical school 8% 2.0 Electives at your fellowship site 8% 5.0 Awarded grant money for research 23% 2.5 Volunteer/extracurricular experiences 8% 2.0 Medical school class ranking/quartile 8% 5.0 Lack of gaps in medical education 23% 5.0 Grades in medical school 31% 3.3 Residency class ranking/quartile 15% 3.5 Fluency in language spoken by your patient population 15% 4.0 Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membership 23% 3.3 Residency program size 0% In‐Training Examination (ITE) 8% 5.0 Second interview/visit 8% 4.0 Having finished another fellowship 8% 2.0 100% 50% 0% 12345 ¹ Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). * International Medical Graduates only

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 168 Maternal-Fetal Medicine Figure-3 Programs That Use USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) Scores When Considering Which Applicants to Interview Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 1 Score Scores required? Would your program consider applicants who fail the 100% N=15 exam on the first attempt? 90% 100% N=15 90% 80% 73% 80% 70% 73% 70% 60% 60% 50% 50% 40% 40% 30% 30% 20% 20% 20% 13% 13% 10% 7% 10% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Never Seldom Often

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 (CK) Score Scores required? Would your program consider applicants who fail N=15 the exam on the first attempt? N=15 100% 100% 90% 90% 80% 80% 70% 67% 70% 67% 60% 60% 50% 50% 40% 40% 30% 27% 30% 20% 20% 20% 13% 10% 7% 10% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Never Seldom often

IQR* of Average USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 CK Scores Programs Consider When Granting Interviews Scores Below Which Programs Scores Above Which Programs Generally Do Not Grant Interviews Almost Always Grant Interviews

USMLE Step 2 CK USMLE Step 1 not USMLE Step 2 CK USMLE Step 1 not not reported reported because not reported reported because because of low of low response because of low of low response response rate rate response rate rate

*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.

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 169 Maternal-Fetal Medicine Figure-4 Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 Clinical Skill (CS), Step 3, and COMLEX-USA Scores* When Considering Which Applicants to Interview Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 CS and Step 3 Scores USMLE Step 2 CS USMLE Step 3 N=15 N=15 100% 93% 100% 90% 90% 80% 80% 70% 70% 67% 60% 60% 50% 50% 40% 40% 30% 30% 20% 20% 20% 13% 10% 7% 10% 0% 0% Yes No Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

Percentage of Programs That Use COMLEX-USA Level 1 and Level 2-CE Scores COMLEX-USA Level 1* COMLEX-USA Level 2-CE* 100% 100% N=9 N=9 90% 90% 80% 80% 70% 70% 60% 56% 60% 56% 50% 50% 40% 40% 30% 30% 22% 22% 22% 22% 20% 20% 10% 10% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

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

COMLEX-USA Level 2-PE* COMLEX-USA Level 3* 100% N=9 100% N=9 90% 90% 80% 80% 70% 70% 60% 56% 60% 56% 50% 50%

40% 40% 33% 30% 30% 22% 22% 20% 20% 11% 10% 10% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

* Osteopathic applicants only

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 170 Maternal-Fetal Medicine Figure-5 Programs That Use Core Specialty Certifying Examination When Considering Applicants for Interview Scores required? Would your program consider applicants who fail the 100% N=5 exam on the first attempt? 90% N=2 80% 80% 100% 70% 90% 80% 60% 70% 50% 60% 50% 50% 40% 50% 30% 40% 20% 30% 20% 20% 10% 10% 0% 0% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No, not required Never Seldom Often

Maternal-Fetal Medicine Figure-6 Programs Positions

Average Number of Accredited Positions and Funded Positions Average Percentage of Accredited Positions Offered Outside of 2.8 the Match 100% 2.5 100% 2.4 2.1 90% 2.0 80% 70% 1.6 60% 50% 1.2 40% 30% 0.8 20% 0.4 10% 0% 0.0 Positions Filled Before Positions Offered Outside Positions Filled Outside Accredited Positions Funded Positions Match Day the Match the Match

N=26 N=20 N=2 N=0 N=0

Maternal-Fetal Medicine Figure-7 Dedicated Time for Research

Program Requirement on Dedicated Time for Average Number of Months if Research Time is Research Required N=26 14 13 12 12 12 10 Optional 10 3.8% 8

6

4

2 Required 96.2% 0 Accredited Locally Funded Integrated Other N=18 N=6 N=1 N=2

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 171 Maternal-Fetal Medicine Figure-8 Program's Interview Activities

Interview Invitations Sent and Interviews Conducted

100% N=19 90% 80% 70% 60% 56% 50% 41% 40% 34% 30% 22% 20% 12% 10% 5% 8% 8% 0%0% 0% 0% 0% 0%2% 0% 1% 2% 0%0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Interview invitations Interviews conducted

Average Number of Positions, Applications Received, Interview Average Percentage of Applicants Rejected and Reviewed Invitations Sent, and Applicants Interviewed and Ranked 60 55 100% 90% 50 80% 72% 70% 40 60% 50% 42% 30 40% 20 30% 20 17 20% 10% 10 0% Rejected based on a In-depth review 0 standardized screening Number of applications Number of interview Number of applicants process received invitations sent interviewed N=20 N=19 N=21 N=20 N=19

Percentage of Programs that Typically Interview and Rank Each Applicant Type 26% of Maternal-Fetal Medicine programs consider all applicant groups 100% 100% N=19 90% 84% 79% 80% 74% 70% 63% 60% 50% 40% 32% 30% 20% 10% 0% U.S. Graduate Osteopathic Canadian Fifth Pathway U.S. IMG Non-U.S. IMG Physician Frequency of Programs Interviewing and Ranking Candidates Interview Ranking 100% 100% 11% 11% 6% 11% 90% 90% 22% 28% 80% 39% 33% 80% 33% 70% 39% 70% 61% 60% 78% 60% 56% 67% 89% 89% 50% 56% 39% 50% 40% 40% 67% 30% 56% 30% 50% 56% 20% 20% 39% 28% 33% 28% 10% 22% 22% 10% 11% 11% 0% 6% 0% 6% Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-US Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-US IMG IMG Often Seldom Never Often Seldom Never n=18 n=18

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 172 Maternal-Fetal Medicine

Figure-9 Potential Challenges in Recruiting Applicants to Your Specialty

Average rating on a scale of 5 (1=least challenging; 5=most challenging) n=13

Not enough applicants in the specialty 1.7

Undesirable income potential as a practicing physician 1.8

Undesirable work/life balance as a practicing physician 3.1

Long or irregular work hours required by specialty 3.2

Fellowship Match scheduled at inconvenient time of year 2.3

012345

Maternal-Fetal Medicine

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

n=13

We consider those applicants on an individual basis 92%

We give those applicants serious consideration if they have 15% shown improvement

We do not usually consider those applicants 0%

We favor those applicants 0%

Other 0%

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

Maternal-Fetal Medicine

Figure-11 Years as Program Director

At Any Fellowship Program At Current Fellowship Program

More than 15 More than 13.0% 13.6%15 Less than 3 Less than 3 11 to 15 27.3% 30.4% 4.5% 11 to 15 17.4%

6 to 10 27.3% 3 to 5 6 to 10 3 to 5 17.4% 21.7% 27.3%

n=23 n=22

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 173 Neonatal-Perinatal Medicine

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 174 Neonatal-Perinatal Medicine Table 1 General Information

2016 Survey Number of responses 48 Response rate 52.7%

Match Information* Appointment Years 2016 2015 2014 Number of programs in the Match 91 92 90 Number of positions in the Match 252 242 241 Number of applicants ranking specialty 249 295 248 * Source: NRMP Data Warehouse

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 175 Neonatal-Perinatal Medicine Figure-1 Percentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Selecting Applicants to Interview (N=38) Percent Citing Factor Average Rating Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialty 95% 4.5 Residency performance evaluation (Program Director letter) 86% 4.7 Reputation of residency program 89% 4.2 Demonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research 95% 4.3 Perceived commitment to specialty 82% 4.4 Personal statement 84% 4.0 Perceived interest in program 82% 4.3 Evidence of professionalism and ethics 74% 4.7 USMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score 79% 4.0 Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chapters 82% 3.9 USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE score 82% 4.1 Leadership qualities 84% 4.3 Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicant 76% 4.4 Oral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements 68% 3.9 Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institution 84% 4.0 Pass USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PE 71% 4.1 Any failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX 95% 4.4 USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 score 71% 4.1 Interest in academic career 79% 4.6 Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based) 79% 3.9 Clinical/laboratory research experience 79% 4.0 Awards or special honors in medical school 59% 3.6 Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership 65% 3.8 Other life experience 47% 3.5 Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter) 53% 3.7 Graduate of highly‐regarded medical school 61% 3.5 Visa status* 57% 3.7 Volunteer/extracurricular experiences 41% 3.2 Awarded grant money for research 61% 4.0 Grades in medical school 54% 3.5 Lack of gaps in medical education 51% 3.5 Medical school class ranking/quartile 32% 3.5 Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP 47% 4.8 Electives at your fellowship site 32% 3.6 Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membership 46% 3.5 Residency class ranking/quartile 27% 4.4 Fluency in language spoken by your patient population 14% 3.2 In‐Training Examination (ITE) 19% 4.0 Residency program size 29% 3.5 Having finished another fellowship 11% 3.5 100% 50% 0% 1 2 345

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

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 176 Neonatal-Perinatal Medicine Figure-2 Percentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Ranking Applicants (N=38) Percent Citing Factor Average Rating Interactions with faculty during interview and visit 94% 4.9 Interpersonal skills 94% 4.9 Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialty 81% 4.4 Interactions with house staff during interview and visit 78% 4.9 Perceived commitment to specialty 78% 4.5 Feedback from current residents and fellows 83% 4.8 Perceived interest in program 69% 4.5 Demonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research 86% 4.4 Reputation of residency program 72% 4.1 Residency performance evaluation (Program Director letter) 69% 4.4 Evidence of professionalism and ethics 61% 4.9 Personal statement 58% 4.1 Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicant 64% 4.2 Leadership qualities 67% 4.7 Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chapters 58% 4.4 Interest in academic career 69% 4.4 Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institution 61% 4.0 USMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score 67% 4.5 USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE score 67% 4.5 Any failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX 75% 4.6 Passing USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PE 61% 4.5 Clinical/laboratory research experience 61% 4.5 USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 score 58% 4.5 Oral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements 50% 4.2 Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based) 47% 4.2 Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership 43% 4.0 Other life experience 23% 4.1 Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter) 39% 3.7 Second interview/visit 31% 4.3 Awards or special honors in medical school 37% 3.6 Visa status* 43% 3.8 Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP 31% 5.0 Graduate of highly‐regarded medical school 36% 4.2 Electives at your fellowship site 31% 4.0 Awarded grant money for research 39% 4.4 Volunteer/extracurricular experiences 20% 4.1 Medical school class ranking/quartile 22% 3.6 Lack of gaps in medical education 23% 4.3 Grades in medical school 23% 4.1 Residency class ranking/quartile 17% 4.2 Fluency in language spoken by your patient population 11% 3.3 Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membership 23% 4.0 Residency program size 22% 3.5 In‐Training Examination (ITE) 14% 4.6 Second interview/visit 17% 4.3 Having finished another fellowship 9% 4.0 100% 50% 0% 12345 ¹ Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). * International Medical Graduates only

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 177 Neonatal-Perinatal Medicine Figure-3 Programs That Use USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) Scores When Considering Which Applicants to Interview Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 1 Score Scores required? Would your program consider applicants who fail the 100% N=37 exam on the first attempt? 90% 100% N=38 90% 80% 82% 80% 70% 70% 60% 54% 60% 50% 43% 50% 40% 40% 30% 30% 20% 20% 16% 10% 3% 10% 3% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Never Seldom Often

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 (CK) Score Scores required? Would your program consider applicants who fail N=37 the exam on the first attempt? N=38 100% 100% 90% 90% 82% 80% 80% 70% 70% 60% 54% 60% 50% 43% 50% 40% 40% 30% 30% 20% 20% 18% 10% 10% 3% 0% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Never Seldom often

IQR* of Average USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 CK Scores Programs Consider When Granting Interviews Scores Below Which Programs Scores Above Which Programs Generally Do Not Grant Interviews Almost Always Grant Interviews 260 260

250 250

240 240

230 230

220 220

210 210

200 200

190 190

180 180

170 170 USMLE Step 1 USMLE Step 2 CK USMLE Step 1 USMLE Step 2 CK N=9 N=9 N=11 N=10

*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.

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 178 Neonatal-Perinatal Medicine Figure-4 Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 Clinical Skill (CS), Step 3, and COMLEX-USA Scores* When Considering Which Applicants to Interview Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 CS and Step 3 Scores USMLE Step 2 CS USMLE Step 3 100% 97% N=37 100% N=36 90% 90% 80% 80% 70% 70% 60% 60% 50% 50% 50% 40% 40% 36% 30% 30% 20% 20% 14% 10% 10% 3% 0% 0% Yes No Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

Percentage of Programs That Use COMLEX-USA Level 1 and Level 2-CE Scores COMLEX-USA Level 1* COMLEX-USA Level 2-CE* 100% 100% N=33 N=34 90% 90% 80% 80% 70% 70% 61% 60% 60% 59% 50% 50% 40% 40% 29% 30% 27% 30% 20% 20% 12% 12% 10% 10% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

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

COMLEX-USA Level 2-PE* COMLEX-USA Level 3* 100% N=34 100% N=33 90% 90% 80% 80% 70% 65% 70% 60% 60% 55% 50% 50% 40% 40% 27% 30% 24% 30% 20% 20% 18% 12% 10% 10% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

* Osteopathic applicants only

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 179 Neonatal-Perinatal Medicine Figure-5 Programs That Use Core Specialty Certifying Examination When Considering Applicants for Interview Scores required? Would your program consider applicants who fail the 100% N=19 exam on the first attempt? 90% N=15 80% 100% 90% 70% 63% 80% 60% 70% 60% 50% 60% 50% 40% 40% 30% 40% 21% 30% 20% 16% 20% 10% 10% 0% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No, not required Never Seldom Often

Neonatal-Perinatal Medicine Figure-6 Programs Positions

Average Number of Accredited Positions and Funded Positions Average Percentage of Accredited Positions Offered Outside of 7 6.8 6.8 the Match 100% 6 90% 5 80% 76% 70% 4 60% 50% 3 39% 39% 40% 30% 2 20% 1 10% 0% 0 Positions Filled Before Positions Offered Outside Positions Filled Outside Accredited Positions Funded Positions Match Day the Match the Match

N=48 N=43 N=11 N=2 N=2

Neonatal-Perinatal Medicine Figure-7 Dedicated Time for Research

Program Requirement on Dedicated Time for Average Number of Months if Research Time is Research Required 20 N=48 20 18 18 18

16 Optional 8.3% 12

8

4 Required 91.7% 0 Accredited Locally Funded Integrated Other N=29 N=12 N=4 N=4

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 180 Neonatal-Perinatal Medicine Figure-8 Program's Interview Activities

Interview Invitations Sent and Interviews Conducted

100% N=37 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 40% 40% 34% 30% 22% 23% 20% 11% 11% 10% 6% 2%0% 2% 1%1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 1% 2% 0% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Interview invitations Interviews conducted

Average Number of Positions, Applications Received, Interview Average Percentage of Applicants Rejected and Reviewed Invitations Sent, and Applicants Interviewed and Ranked 80 73 100% 70 90% 80% 69% 60 70% 50 60% 50% 40 40% 34% 30 26 30% 21 20% 20 10% 10 0% Rejected based on a In-depth review 0 standardized screening Number of applications Number of interview Number of applicants process received invitations sent interviewed N=44 N=44 N=44 N=44 N=44

Percentage of Programs that Typically Interview and Rank Each Applicant Type 21% of Neonatal-Perinatal Medicine programs consider all applicant groups

100% 95% 95% N=38 90% 87% 79% 80% 70% 68% 60% 50% 40% 30% 24% 20% 10% 0% U.S. Graduate Osteopathic Canadian Fifth Pathway U.S. IMG Non-U.S. IMG Physician Frequency of Programs Interviewing and Ranking Candidates Interview Ranking 100% 3% 100% 17% 90% 19% 90% 30% 80% 33% 41% 33% 80% 37% 39% 70% 70% 61% 68% 60% 60% 86% 86% 50% 61% 50% 59% 40% 53% 40% 57% 30% 64% 57% 30% 63% 58% 20% 20% 37% 32% 22% 22% 10% 8% 14% 10% 8% 14% 0% 5% 3% 0% 5% 3% 3% Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-US Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-US IMG IMG Often Seldom Never Often Seldom Never n=37 n=37

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 181 Neonatal-Perinatal Medicine

Figure-9 Potential Challenges in Recruiting Applicants to Your Specialty

Average rating on a scale of 5 (1=least challenging; 5=most challenging) n=35

Not enough applicants in the specialty 2.2

Undesirable income potential as a practicing physician 2.0

Undesirable work/life balance as a practicing physician 3.7

Long or irregular work hours required by specialty 3.7

Fellowship Match scheduled at inconvenient time of year 1.8

012345

Neonatal-Perinatal Medicine

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

n=36

We consider those applicants on an individual basis 72%

We give those applicants serious consideration if they have 8% shown improvement

We do not usually consider those applicants 25%

We favor those applicants 0%

Other 0%

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

Neonatal-Perinatal Medicine

Figure-11 Years as Program Director

At Any Fellowship Program At Current Fellowship Program

Less than 3 22.0% More than 15 Less than 3 26.8% 26.8% More than 15 39.0%

3 to 5 12.2% 11 to 15 3 to 5 12.2% 12.2% 11 to 15 4.9% 6 to 10 6 to 10 22.0% 22.0%

n=41 n=41

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 182 Nephrology

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 183 Nephrology Table 1 General Information

2016 Survey Number of responses 45 Response rate 33.3%

Match Information* Appointment Years 2016 2015 2014 Number of programs in the Match 158 134 145 Number of positions in the Match 466 374 403 Number of applicants ranking specialty 298 276 323 * Source: NRMP Data Warehouse

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 184 Nephrology Figure-1 Percentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Selecting Applicants to Interview (N=39) Percent Citing Factor Average Rating Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialty 90% 4.3 Residency performance evaluation (Program Director letter) 95% 4.4 Reputation of residency program 85% 4.1 Demonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research 72% 3.9 Perceived commitment to specialty 82% 4.2 Personal statement 74% 3.5 Perceived interest in program 72% 4.2 Evidence of professionalism and ethics 72% 4.6 USMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score 79% 3.8 Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chapters 74% 3.7 USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE score 74% 3.8 Leadership qualities 67% 4.0 Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicant 67% 4.6 Oral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements 67% 3.5 Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institution 79% 4.7 Pass USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PE 82% 4.0 Any failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX 79% 4.3 USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 score 67% 3.8 Interest in academic career 46% 3.9 Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based) 67% 3.8 Clinical/laboratory research experience 54% 4.0 Awards or special honors in medical school 51% 3.4 Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership 56% 4.0 Other life experience 41% 3.6 Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter) 64% 3.2 Graduate of highly‐regarded medical school 62% 3.8 Visa status* 54% 3.9 Volunteer/extracurricular experiences 38% 3.3 Awarded grant money for research 44% 3.6 Grades in medical school 54% 3.2 Lack of gaps in medical education 44% 3.5 Medical school class ranking/quartile 41% 3.3 Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP 67% 4.8 Electives at your fellowship site 49% 3.7 Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membership 38% 3.7 Residency class ranking/quartile 36% 3.4 Fluency in language spoken by your patient population 33% 3.7 In‐Training Examination (ITE) 0% Residency program size 33% 3.8 Having finished another fellowship 13% 2.6 100% 50% 0% 1 2 345

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

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 185 Nephrology Figure-2 Percentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Ranking Applicants (N=39) Percent Citing Factor Average Rating Interactions with faculty during interview and visit 95% 4.7 Interpersonal skills 92% 4.7 Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialty 68% 4.2 Interactions with house staff during interview and visit 76% 4.7 Perceived commitment to specialty 68% 4.3 Feedback from current residents and fellows 74% 4.7 Perceived interest in program 61% 4.3 Demonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research 58% 3.8 Reputation of residency program 74% 4.0 Residency performance evaluation (Program Director letter) 61% 4.3 Evidence of professionalism and ethics 55% 4.5 Personal statement 45% 3.8 Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicant 58% 4.5 Leadership qualities 50% 4.0 Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chapters 47% 4.1 Interest in academic career 42% 4.0 Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institution 61% 4.8 USMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score 45% 3.8 USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE score 45% 3.7 Any failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX 45% 4.4 Passing USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PE 45% 3.9 Clinical/laboratory research experience 37% 4.1 USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 score 45% 3.8 Oral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements 32% 3.4 Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based) 58% 3.9 Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership 42% 3.7 Other life experience 21% 3.6 Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter) 26% 3.3 Second interview/visit 34% 4.2 Awards or special honors in medical school 21% 3.3 Visa status* 29% 4.0 Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP 24% 4.6 Graduate of highly‐regarded medical school 32% 3.7 Electives at your fellowship site 34% 4.3 Awarded grant money for research 29% 3.5 Volunteer/extracurricular experiences 16% 3.2 Medical school class ranking/quartile 21% 3.0 Lack of gaps in medical education 13% 3.4 Grades in medical school 24% 3.3 Residency class ranking/quartile 26% 4.0 Fluency in language spoken by your patient population 21% 3.5 Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membership 8% 4.0 Residency program size 34% 3.9 In‐Training Examination (ITE) 3% Second interview/visit 5% 3.0 Having finished another fellowship 3% 4.0 100% 50% 0% 12345 ¹ Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). * International Medical Graduates only

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 186 Nephrology Figure-3 Programs That Use USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) Scores When Considering Which Applicants to Interview Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 1 Score Scores required? Would your program consider applicants who fail the 100% N=38 exam on the first attempt? 90% 100% N=38 90% 80% 76% 80% 70% 70% 60% 63% 60% 50% 50% 40% 40% 30% 24% 30% 24% 20% 20% 13% 10% 10% 0% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Never Seldom Often

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 (CK) Score Scores required? Would your program consider applicants who fail N=38 the exam on the first attempt? N=38 100% 100% 90% 90% 80% 76% 80% 70% 70% 61% 60% 60% 50% 50% 40% 40% 30% 24% 30% 24% 20% 20% 16% 10% 10% 0% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Never Seldom often

IQR* of Average USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 CK Scores Programs Consider When Granting Interviews Scores Below Which Programs Scores Above Which Programs Generally Do Not Grant Interviews Almost Always Grant Interviews 260 260

250 250

240 240

230 230

220 220

210 210

200 200

190 190

180 180

170 170 USMLE Step 1 USMLE Step 2 CK USMLE Step 1 USMLE Step 2 CK N=8 N=8 N=7 N=7

*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.

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 187 Nephrology Figure-4 Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 Clinical Skill (CS), Step 3, and COMLEX-USA Scores* When Considering Which Applicants to Interview Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 CS and Step 3 Scores USMLE Step 2 CS USMLE Step 3 100% N=38 100% N=37 100% 90% 90% 80% 76% 80% 70% 70% 60% 60% 50% 50% 40% 40% 30% 30% 20% 20% 16% 10% 10% 8% 0% 0% 0% Yes No Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

Percentage of Programs That Use COMLEX-USA Level 1 and Level 2-CE Scores COMLEX-USA Level 1* COMLEX-USA Level 2-CE* 100% 100% N=29 N=29 90% 90% 80% 80% 72% 72% 70% 70% 60% 60% 50% 50% 40% 40% 30% 24% 30% 24% 20% 20%

10% 3% 10% 3% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

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

COMLEX-USA Level 2-PE* COMLEX-USA Level 3* 100% N=29 100% N=29 90% 90% 80% 76% 80% 72% 70% 70% 60% 60% 50% 50% 40% 40% 28% 30% 24% 30% 20% 20% 10% 10% 0% 0% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

* Osteopathic applicants only

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 188 Nephrology Figure-5 Programs That Use Core Specialty Certifying Examination When Considering Applicants for Interview Scores required? Would your program consider applicants who fail the 100% N=15 exam on the first attempt? 90% 87% N=8 80% 100% 70% 90% 80% 60% 70% 50% 60% 50% 40% 50% 30% 40% 30% 25% 25% 20% 13% 20% 10% 10% 0% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No, not required Never Seldom Often

Nephrology Figure-6 Programs Positions

Average Number of Accredited Positions and Funded Positions Average Percentage of Accredited Positions Offered Outside of 6 the Match 5.6 5.2 100% 5 90% 81% 80% 71% 71% 4 70% 60% 3 50% 40% 2 30% 20% 1 10% 0% 0 Positions Filled Before Positions Offered Outside Positions Filled Outside Accredited Positions Funded Positions Match Day the Match the Match

N=44 N=43 N=8 N=2 N=2

Nephrology Figure-7 Dedicated Time for Research

Program Requirement on Dedicated Time for Average Number of Months if Research Time is Research Required N=45 7 7 7

6 6 6

5

Optional 4 33.3% 3

Required 2 66.7% 1

0 Accredited Locally Funded Integrated Other N=16 N=9 N=3 N=6

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 189 Nephrology Figure-8 Program's Interview Activities

Interview Invitations Sent and Interviews Conducted

100% N=36 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 50% 42% 40% 30% 30% 28% 19% 20% 13% 10% 0% 0%3% 0%0% 0% 0%1% 0% 1% 2% 0% 1% 4% 3% 4% 0% 0% 0% Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Interview invitations Interviews conducted

Average Number of Positions, Applications Received, Interview Average Percentage of Applicants Rejected and Reviewed Invitations Sent, and Applicants Interviewed and Ranked 80 100% 71 70 90% 80% 76% 60 70% 50 60% 50% 40 35 40% 30 30% 27% 21 20% 20 10% 10 0% Rejected based on a In-depth review 0 standardized screening Number of applications Number of interview Number of applicants process received invitations sent interviewed N=39 N=39 N=40 N=40 N=40

Percentage of Programs that Typically Interview and Rank Each Applicant Type 45% of Nephrology programs consider all applicant groups

100% 95% N=38 89% 92% 92% 90% 80% 74% 70% 60% 50% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% U.S. Graduate Osteopathic Canadian Fifth Pathway U.S. IMG Non-U.S. IMG Physician Frequency of Programs Interviewing and Ranking Candidates Interview Ranking 100% 100% 6% 13% 90% 21% 90% 21% 80% 80% 31% 25% 70% 57% 64% 70% 59% 63% 75% 60% 81% 78% 60% 91% 50% 61% 50% 59% 40% 40% 30% 63% 30% 63% 20% 43% 20% 38% 34% 36% 19% 10% 16% 19% 10% 21% 18% 6% 0% 3% 3% 0% 3% 3% 3% 6% Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-US Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-US IMG IMG Often Seldom Never Often Seldom Never n=37 n=35

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 190 Nephrology

Figure-9 Potential Challenges in Recruiting Applicants to Your Specialty

Average rating on a scale of 5 (1=least challenging; 5=most challenging) n=38

Not enough applicants in the specialty 4.8

Undesirable income potential as a practicing physician 4.1

Undesirable work/life balance as a practicing physician 4.2

Long or irregular work hours required by specialty 3.7

Fellowship Match scheduled at inconvenient time of year 2.6

012345

Nephrology

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

n=37

We consider those applicants on an individual basis 76%

We give those applicants serious consideration if they have 11% shown improvement

We do not usually consider those applicants 19%

We favor those applicants 3%

Other 0%

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

Nephrology

Figure-11 Years as Program Director

At Any Fellowship Program At Current Fellowship Program

More than 15 More than 15 5.7% 7.9% Less than 3 23.7% 11 to 15 Less than 3 11 to 15 17.1% 28.6% 21.1%

3 to 5 15.8% 6 to 10 3 to 17.1%5 6 to 31.4% 31.6%10

n=38 n=35

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 191 Neuroradiology

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 192 Neuroradiology Table 1 General Information

2016 Survey Number of responses 25 Response rate 34.2%

Match Information* Appointment Years 2016 2015 2014 Number of programs in the Match 75 77 72 Number of positions in the Match 226 222 219 Number of applicants ranking specialty 189 175 193 * Source: NRMP Data Warehouse

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 193 Neuroradiology Figure-1 Percentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Selecting Applicants to Interview (N=17) Percent Citing Factor Average Rating Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialty 82% 4.5 Residency performance evaluation (Program Director letter) 88% 4.1 Reputation of residency program 88% 3.9 Demonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research 94% 3.5 Perceived commitment to specialty 76% 3.8 Personal statement 82% 3.5 Perceived interest in program 94% 4.1 Evidence of professionalism and ethics 82% 4.6 USMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score 94% 3.7 Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chapters 71% 3.5 USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE score 94% 3.6 Leadership qualities 82% 3.7 Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicant 65% 4.8 Oral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements 76% 3.4 Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institution 71% 4.5 Pass USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PE 76% 3.4 Any failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX 47% 4.0 USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 score 71% 3.5 Interest in academic career 71% 3.3 Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based) 59% 3.8 Clinical/laboratory research experience 47% 2.9 Awards or special honors in medical school 71% 3.3 Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership 65% 3.7 Other life experience 41% 2.7 Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter) 53% 3.4 Graduate of highly‐regarded medical school 65% 3.3 Visa status* 53% 4.7 Volunteer/extracurricular experiences 47% 3.1 Awarded grant money for research 59% 3.2 Grades in medical school 53% 3.6 Lack of gaps in medical education 41% 3.5 Medical school class ranking/quartile 53% 3.3 Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP 47% 4.9 Electives at your fellowship site 6% 4.0 Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membership 12% 2.5 Residency class ranking/quartile 35% 3.5 Fluency in language spoken by your patient population 18% 3.0 In‐Training Examination (ITE) 18% 2.7 Residency program size 35% 2.8 Having finished another fellowship 6% 2.0 100% 50% 0% 1 2 345

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

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 194 Neuroradiology Figure-2 Percentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Ranking Applicants (N=17) Percent Citing Factor Average Rating Interactions with faculty during interview and visit 94% 5.0 Interpersonal skills 88% 4.8 Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialty 63% 4.7 Interactions with house staff during interview and visit 88% 4.9 Perceived commitment to specialty 63% 4.1 Feedback from current residents and fellows 69% 5.0 Perceived interest in program 75% 4.3 Demonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research 63% 3.6 Reputation of residency program 75% 4.1 Residency performance evaluation (Program Director letter) 69% 4.2 Evidence of professionalism and ethics 56% 4.6 Personal statement 63% 3.7 Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicant 50% 4.9 Leadership qualities 56% 3.8 Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chapters 44% 3.5 Interest in academic career 25% 3.5 Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institution 69% 4.5 USMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score 56% 3.7 USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE score 56% 3.4 Any failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX 38% 4.3 Passing USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PE 38% 3.2 Clinical/laboratory research experience 19% 3.0 USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 score 38% 3.5 Oral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements 31% 3.8 Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based) 63% 3.8 Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership 44% 3.1 Other life experience 19% 3.3 Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter) 31% 3.0 Second interview/visit 44% 3.2 Awards or special honors in medical school 31% 3.2 Visa status* 38% 4.5 Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP 25% 5.0 Graduate of highly‐regarded medical school 44% 3.3 Electives at your fellowship site 13% 2.5 Awarded grant money for research 19% 3.0 Volunteer/extracurricular experiences 19% 3.7 Medical school class ranking/quartile 25% 3.3 Lack of gaps in medical education 19% 5.0 Grades in medical school 25% 3.0 Residency class ranking/quartile 25% 2.7 Fluency in language spoken by your patient population 13% 3.5 Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membership 13% 2.5 Residency program size 31% 2.4 In‐Training Examination (ITE) 6% 3.0 Second interview/visit 6% 1.0 Having finished another fellowship 6% 2.0 100% 50% 0% 12345 ¹ Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). * International Medical Graduates only

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 195 Neuroradiology Figure-3 Programs That Use USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) Scores When Considering Which Applicants to Interview Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 1 Score Scores required? Would your program consider applicants who fail the 100% N=17 exam on the first attempt? 90% 100% N=16 90% 80% 80% 70% 65% 70% 60% 60% 50% 50% 50% 40% 35% 40% 31% 30% 30% 20% 20% 19% 10% 10% 0% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Never Seldom Often

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 (CK) Score Scores required? Would your program consider applicants who fail N=17 the exam on the first attempt? N=16 100% 100% 90% 90% 80% 71% 80% 70% 70% 60% 60% 56% 50% 50% 40% 40% 29% 30% 30% 25% 19% 20% 20% 10% 10% 0% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Never Seldom often

IQR* of Average USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 CK Scores Programs Consider When Granting Interviews Scores Below Which Programs Scores Above Which Programs Generally Do Not Grant Interviews Almost Always Grant Interviews 260 260

250 250

240 240

230 USMLE Step 2 CK 230 USMLE Step 2 CK not reported not reported 220 220 because of low because of low 210 response rate 210 response rate 200 200

190 190

180 180

170 170 USMLE Step 1 USMLE Step 1 N=5 N=5

*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.

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 196 Neuroradiology Figure-4 Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 Clinical Skill (CS), Step 3, and COMLEX-USA Scores* When Considering Which Applicants to Interview Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 CS and Step 3 Scores USMLE Step 2 CS USMLE Step 3 100% N=17 100% N=17 100% 90% 88% 90% 80% 80% 70% 70% 60% 60% 50% 50% 40% 40% 30% 30% 20% 20% 12% 10% 10% 0% 0% 0% 0% Yes No Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

Percentage of Programs That Use COMLEX-USA Level 1 and Level 2-CE Scores COMLEX-USA Level 1* COMLEX-USA Level 2-CE* 100% 100% N=15 N=15 90% 90% 80% 80% 70% 70% 60% 60% 53% 60% 50% 50% 40% 40% 30% 27% 30% 27% 20% 20% 20% 13% 10% 10% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

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

COMLEX-USA Level 2-PE* COMLEX-USA Level 3* 100% N=15 100% N=15 90% 90% 80% 80% 70% 70% 67% 60% 60% 60% 50% 50% 40% 40% 30% 27% 30% 27%

20% 13% 20% 10% 10% 7% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

* Osteopathic applicants only

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 197 Neuroradiology Figure-5 Programs That Use Core Specialty Certifying Examination When Considering Applicants for Interview Scores required? Would your program consider applicants who fail the 100% N=10 exam on the first attempt? 90% N=8 80% 100% 70% 70% 90% 80% 60% 70% 63% 50% 60% 40% 50% 30% 40% 20% 30% 25% 20% 20% 10% 13% 10% 10% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No, not required Never Seldom Often

Neuroradiology Figure-6 Programs Positions

Average Number of Accredited Positions and Funded Positions Average Percentage of Accredited Positions Offered Outside of 3.5 the Match 3.5 3.4 100% 3.0 90% 80% 2.5 70% 2.0 60% 50% 44% 47% 41% 1.5 40% 30% 1.0 20% 0.5 10% 0% 0.0 Positions Filled Before Positions Offered Outside Positions Filled Outside Accredited Positions Funded Positions Match Day the Match the Match

N=24 N=21 N=8 N=8 N=7

Neuroradiology Figure-7 Dedicated Time for Research

Program Requirement on Dedicated Time for Average Number of Months if Research Time is Research Required N=24 1 1.0

1 1 0.8

Required 25.0% 0.6

0.4

Optional 0.2 75.0%

0.0 Accredited Locally Funded Integrated Other N=3 N=1 N=3 N=0

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 198 Neuroradiology Figure-8 Program's Interview Activities

Interview Invitations Sent and Interviews Conducted

100% N=17 90% 80% 70% 60% 59% 50% 40% 31% 30% 17% 17% 20% 15% 11% 10% 5% 7% 6% 7% 9% 5% 0%1% 0%0% 0%1% 0%0% 0% 0% 0% 4% 0% Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Interview invitations Interviews conducted

Average Number of Positions, Applications Received, Interview Average Percentage of Applicants Rejected and Reviewed Invitations Sent, and Applicants Interviewed and Ranked 32 29 100% 28 90% 80% 70% 24 70% 60% 20 17 16 50% 16 40% 12 30% 21% 20% 8 10% 4 0% Rejected based on a In-depth review 0 standardized screening Number of applications Number of interview Number of applicants process received invitations sent interviewed N=23 N=23 N=23 N=23 N=23

Percentage of Programs that Typically Interview and Rank Each Applicant Type 22% of Neuroradiology programs consider all applicant groups

100% N=18 89% 90% 83% 80% 70% 67% 60% 50% 50% 39% 40% 30% 28% 20% 10% 0% U.S. Graduate Osteopathic Canadian Fifth Pathway U.S. IMG Non-U.S. IMG Physician Frequency of Programs Interviewing and Ranking Candidates Interview Ranking 100% 100% 7% 7% 6% 6% 90% 90% 27% 25% 80% 80% 47% 50% 70% 70% 63% 71% 60% 82% 60% 81% 80% 50% 81% 88% 50% 53% 87% 56% 40% 40% 30% 30% 53% 50% 20% 38% 20% 29% 12% 10% 13% 10% 20% 13% 19% 13% 0% 6% 7% 0% 6% 6% Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-US Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-US IMG IMG Often Seldom Never Often Seldom Never n=17 n=16

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 199 Neuroradiology

Figure-9 Potential Challenges in Recruiting Applicants to Your Specialty

Average rating on a scale of 5 (1=least challenging; 5=most challenging) n=15

Not enough applicants in the specialty 3.6

Undesirable income potential as a practicing physician 1.8

Undesirable work/life balance as a practicing physician 2.1

Long or irregular work hours required by specialty 1.9

Fellowship Match scheduled at inconvenient time of year 2.5

012345

Neuroradiology

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

n=14

We consider those applicants on an individual basis 71%

We give those applicants serious consideration if they have 7% shown improvement

We do not usually consider those applicants 21%

We favor those applicants 0%

Other 0%

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

Neuroradiology

Figure-11 Years as Program Director

At Any Fellowship Program At Current Fellowship Program

More than 15 More than 15 8.7% 9.5% Less than 3 11 to 15 Less than 11 to 30.4% 9.5% 17.4%15 33.3%3

6 to 10 6 to 10 3 to 5 33.3% 3 to 5 26.1% 17.4% 14.3%

n=23 n=21

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 200 Obstetric Anesthesiology

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 201 Obstetric Anesthesiology Table 1 General Information

2016 Survey Number of responses 10 Response rate 40.0%

Match Information* Appointment Years 2016 2015 2014 Number of programs in the Match 28 Number of positions in the Match 48 Number of applicants ranking specialty 25 * Source: NRMP Data Warehouse

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 202 Obstetric Anesthesiology Figure-1 Percentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Selecting Applicants to Interview (N=10) Percent Citing Factor Average Rating Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialty 90% 4.2 Residency performance evaluation (Program Director letter) 60% 4.7 Reputation of residency program 90% 3.9 Demonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research 90% 4.2 Perceived commitment to specialty 100% 4.3 Personal statement 70% 3.9 Perceived interest in program 80% 4.5 Evidence of professionalism and ethics 80% 4.9 USMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score 50% 4.4 Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chapters 50% 3.8 USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE score 40% 4.3 Leadership qualities 80% 4.5 Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicant 60% 3.3 Oral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements 60% 3.7 Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institution 40% 4.0 Pass USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PE 40% 4.3 Any failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX 20% 4.5 USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 score 40% 4.3 Interest in academic career 50% 4.6 Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based) 30% 4.3 Clinical/laboratory research experience 40% 3.8 Awards or special honors in medical school 40% 3.8 Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership 50% 2.8 Other life experience 20% 3.5 Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter) 60% 3.8 Graduate of highly‐regarded medical school 40% 2.8 Visa status* 10% 3.0 Volunteer/extracurricular experiences 30% 3.0 Awarded grant money for research 40% 3.5 Grades in medical school 30% 3.0 Lack of gaps in medical education 20% 3.0 Medical school class ranking/quartile 50% 2.6 Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP 30% 5.0 Electives at your fellowship site 10% 1.0 Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membership 40% 3.0 Residency class ranking/quartile 40% 4.0 Fluency in language spoken by your patient population 30% 3.3 In‐Training Examination (ITE) 10% 4.0 Residency program size 10% 2.0 Having finished another fellowship 0% 100% 50% 0% 1 2 345

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

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 203 Obstetric Anesthesiology Figure-2 Percentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Ranking Applicants (N=10) Percent Citing Factor Average Rating Interactions with faculty during interview and visit 90% 4.4 Interpersonal skills 90% 4.3 Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialty 80% 4.3 Interactions with house staff during interview and visit 80% 4.4 Perceived commitment to specialty 80% 4.4 Feedback from current residents and fellows 60% 4.8 Perceived interest in program 60% 4.2 Demonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research 80% 4.0 Reputation of residency program 80% 3.5 Residency performance evaluation (Program Director letter) 50% 4.6 Evidence of professionalism and ethics 70% 4.3 Personal statement 50% 4.0 Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicant 40% 3.5 Leadership qualities 50% 4.0 Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chapters 30% 4.7 Interest in academic career 40% 4.3 Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institution 20% 4.5 USMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score 40% 4.0 USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE score 30% 3.7 Any failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX 20% 4.0 Passing USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PE 30% 3.5 Clinical/laboratory research experience 30% 4.5 USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 score 20% 4.0 Oral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements 30% 4.0 Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based) 10% 3.0 Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership 0% Other life experience 20% 3.0 Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter) 50% 3.6 Second interview/visit 30% 4.3 Awards or special honors in medical school 30% 3.3 Visa status* 0% Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP 20% 4.5 Graduate of highly‐regarded medical school 30% 3.3 Electives at your fellowship site 10% 5.0 Awarded grant money for research 30% 3.7 Volunteer/extracurricular experiences 20% 3.5 Medical school class ranking/quartile 30% 2.7 Lack of gaps in medical education 20% 2.5 Grades in medical school 0% Residency class ranking/quartile 30% 4.0 Fluency in language spoken by your patient population 10% 3.0 Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membership 20% 3.5 Residency program size 0% In‐Training Examination (ITE) 20% 4.0 Second interview/visit 20% 5.0 Having finished another fellowship 0% 100% 50% 0% 12345 ¹ Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). * International Medical Graduates only

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 204 Obstetric Anesthesiology Figure-3 Programs That Use USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) Scores When Considering Which Applicants to Interview Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 1 Score Scores required? Would your program consider applicants who fail the 100% N=9 exam on the first attempt? 90% 100% N=8 90% 88% 80% 78% 80% 70% 70% 60% 60% 50% 50% 40% 40% 30% 22% 30% 20% 20% 13% 10% 10% 0% 0% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Never Seldom Often

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 (CK) Score Scores required? Would your program consider applicants who fail N=9 the exam on the first attempt? N=8 100% 100% 89% 90% 90% 88% 80% 80% 70% 70% 60% 60% 50% 50% 40% 40% 30% 30% 20% 20% 11% 13% 10% 10% 0% 0% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Never Seldom often

IQR* of Average USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 CK Scores Programs Consider When Granting Interviews Scores Below Which Programs Scores Above Which Programs Generally Do Not Grant Interviews Almost Always Grant Interviews

USMLE Step 2 CK USMLE Step 1 not USMLE Step 2 CK USMLE Step 1 not not reported reported because not reported reported because because of low of low response because of low of low response response rate rate response rate rate

*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.

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 205 Obstetric Anesthesiology Figure-4 Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 Clinical Skill (CS), Step 3, and COMLEX-USA Scores* When Considering Which Applicants to Interview Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 CS and Step 3 Scores USMLE Step 2 CS USMLE Step 3 100% N=9 100% N=10 89% 90% 90% 80% 80% 80% 70% 70% 60% 60% 50% 50% 40% 40% 30% 30% 20% 20% 20% 11% 10% 10% 0% 0% 0% Yes No Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

Percentage of Programs That Use COMLEX-USA Level 1 and Level 2-CE Scores COMLEX-USA Level 1* COMLEX-USA Level 2-CE* 100% 100% N=5 N=5 90% 90% 80% 80% 80% 80% 70% 70% 60% 60% 50% 50% 40% 40% 30% 30% 20% 20% 20% 20% 10% 10% 0% 0% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

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

COMLEX-USA Level 2-PE* COMLEX-USA Level 3* 100% N=5 100% N=5 90% 90% 80% 80% 80% 80% 70% 70% 60% 60% 50% 50% 40% 40% 30% 30% 20% 20% 20% 20% 10% 10% 0% 0% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

* Osteopathic applicants only

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 206 Obstetric Anesthesiology Figure-5 Programs That Use Core Specialty Certifying Examination When Considering Applicants for Interview Scores required? Would your program consider applicants who fail the 100% N=6 exam on the first attempt? N=5 90% 83% 80% 100% 70% 90% 80% 60% 70% 60% 50% 60% 40% 50% 30% 40% 30% 17% 20% 20% 20% 20% 10% 10% 0% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No, not required Never Seldom Often

Obstetric Anesthesiology Figure-6 Programs Positions

Average Number of Accredited Positions and Funded Positions Average Percentage of Accredited Positions Offered Outside of 2.0 1.9 1.9 the Match 100% 100% 100% 1.6 90% 80% 70% 1.2 60% 50% 50% 0.8 40% 30% 20% 0.4 10% 0% 0.0 Positions Filled Before Positions Offered Outside Positions Filled Outside Accredited Positions Funded Positions Match Day the Match the Match

N=10 N=9 N=1 N=1 N=1

Obstetric Anesthesiology Figure-7 Dedicated Time for Research

Program Requirement on Dedicated Time for Average Number of Months if Research Time is Research Required 3.2 N=10 33 2.8

2.4 2 2.0

1.6

1.2

0.8

Required 0.4 100.0% 0.0 Accredited Locally Funded Integrated Other N=8 N=1 N=0 N=2

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 207 Obstetric Anesthesiology Figure-8 Program's Interview Activities

Interview Invitations Sent and Interviews Conducted

100% N=7 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 45% 40% 40% 30% 28% 20% 15% 14% 14% 10% 10% 5% 8% 6% 6% 0%0% 0% 0%3% 0% 0% 0% 1%1% 1% 0% 3% 0% Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Interview invitations Interviews conducted

Average Number of Positions, Applications Received, Interview Average Percentage of Applicants Rejected and Reviewed Invitations Sent, and Applicants Interviewed and Ranked 8 8 100% 7 90% 80% 6 66% 5570% 5 60% 50% 4 40% 34% 3 30% 20% 2 10% 1 0% Rejected based on a In-depth review 0 standardized screening Number of applications Number of interview Number of applicants process received invitations sent interviewed N=8 N=8 N=8 N=8 N=8

Percentage of Programs that Typically Interview and Rank Each Applicant Type 10% of Obstetric Anesthesiology programs consider all applicant groups 100% 100% N=10 90% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 50% 40% 30% 30% 20% 10% 10% 10% 0% U.S. Graduate Osteopathic Canadian Fifth Pathway U.S. IMG Non-U.S. IMG Physician Frequency of Programs Interviewing and Ranking Candidates Interview Ranking 100% 100% 13% 11% 13% 11% 90% 22% 22% 90% 22% 22% 80% 13% 80% 13% 22% 50% 70% 33% 70% 60% 33% 60% 33% 60% 44% 50% 100% 56% 50% 100% 40% 40% 75% 75% 67% 30% 56% 30% 50% 44% 44% 20% 20% 40% 33% 10% 22% 10% 0% 0% Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-US Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-US IMG IMG Often Seldom Never Often Seldom Never n=10 n=10

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 208 Obstetric Anesthesiology

Figure-9 Potential Challenges in Recruiting Applicants to Your Specialty

Average rating on a scale of 5 (1=least challenging; 5=most challenging) n=10

Not enough applicants in the specialty 3.9

Undesirable income potential as a practicing physician 2.2

Undesirable work/life balance as a practicing physician 2.4

Long or irregular work hours required by specialty 2.2

Fellowship Match scheduled at inconvenient time of year 3.2

012345

Obstetric Anesthesiology

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

n=8

We consider those applicants on an individual basis 88%

We give those applicants serious consideration if they have 38% shown improvement

We do not usually consider those applicants 25%

We favor those applicants 0%

Other 0%

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

Obstetric Anesthesiology

Figure-11 Years as Program Director

At Any Fellowship Program At Current Fellowship Program

11 to 15 11.1% Less than 3 6 to 10 Less than 3 22.2% 22.2% 22.2%

6 to 10 22.2%

3 to 5 3 to 44.4% 55.6%5

n=9 n=9

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 209 Pain Medicine

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 210 Pain Medicine Table 1 General Information

2016 Survey Number of responses 21 Response rate 25.0%

Match Information* Appointment Years 2016 2015 2014 Number of programs in the Match 90 84 82 Number of positions in the Match 305 286 261 Number of applicants ranking specialty 416 397 398 * Source: NRMP Data Warehouse

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 211 Pain Medicine Figure-1 Percentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Selecting Applicants to Interview (N=17) Percent Citing Factor Average Rating Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialty 76% 4.6 Residency performance evaluation (Program Director letter) 59% 4.4 Reputation of residency program 53% 3.4 Demonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research 76% 3.5 Perceived commitment to specialty 82% 4.5 Personal statement 71% 4.3 Perceived interest in program 82% 4.6 Evidence of professionalism and ethics 53% 4.8 USMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score 76% 4.2 Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chapters 71% 3.8 USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE score 71% 4.0 Leadership qualities 65% 4.2 Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicant 59% 4.4 Oral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements 47% 3.6 Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institution 59% 4.0 Pass USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PE 47% 4.7 Any failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX 53% 4.7 USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 score 65% 4.1 Interest in academic career 35% 4.0 Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based) 24% 4.5 Clinical/laboratory research experience 29% 3.4 Awards or special honors in medical school 24% 3.5 Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership 29% 3.6 Other life experience 41% 3.9 Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter) 29% 4.4 Graduate of highly‐regarded medical school 24% 4.3 Visa status* 24% 3.0 Volunteer/extracurricular experiences 29% 3.5 Awarded grant money for research 29% 3.8 Grades in medical school 29% 3.4 Lack of gaps in medical education 35% 4.3 Medical school class ranking/quartile 18% 3.7 Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP 35% 4.3 Electives at your fellowship site 41% 4.1 Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membership 12% 4.0 Residency class ranking/quartile 29% 4.3 Fluency in language spoken by your patient population 12% 3.5 In‐Training Examination (ITE) 59% 4.3 Residency program size 0% Having finished another fellowship 6% 3.0 100% 50% 0% 1 2 345

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

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 212 Pain Medicine Figure-2 Percentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Ranking Applicants (N=17) Percent Citing Factor Average Rating Interactions with faculty during interview and visit 81% 5.0 Interpersonal skills 88% 5.0 Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialty 81% 4.7 Interactions with house staff during interview and visit 69% 4.7 Perceived commitment to specialty 63% 4.8 Feedback from current residents and fellows 75% 4.8 Perceived interest in program 69% 5.0 Demonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research 50% 4.1 Reputation of residency program 38% 3.8 Residency performance evaluation (Program Director letter) 38% 4.7 Evidence of professionalism and ethics 44% 5.0 Personal statement 44% 4.4 Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicant 50% 4.6 Leadership qualities 63% 4.4 Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chapters 50% 4.0 Interest in academic career 31% 4.6 Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institution 56% 4.1 USMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score 38% 4.8 USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE score 38% 5.0 Any failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX 44% 4.7 Passing USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PE 38% 5.0 Clinical/laboratory research experience 31% 3.8 USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 score 38% 4.7 Oral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements 25% 4.5 Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based) 31% 4.2 Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership 19% 4.0 Other life experience 25% 3.8 Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter) 25% 4.8 Second interview/visit 31% 4.4 Awards or special honors in medical school 13% 5.0 Visa status* 13% 4.5 Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP 13% 4.0 Graduate of highly‐regarded medical school 13% 5.0 Electives at your fellowship site 19% 4.0 Awarded grant money for research 31% 4.2 Volunteer/extracurricular experiences 19% 3.7 Medical school class ranking/quartile 13% 4.5 Lack of gaps in medical education 31% 4.8 Grades in medical school 6% 5.0 Residency class ranking/quartile 13% 4.0 Fluency in language spoken by your patient population 13% 3.5 Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membership 13% 4.0 Residency program size 6% 4.0 In‐Training Examination (ITE) 50% 4.6 Second interview/visit 19% 4.0 Having finished another fellowship 6% 3.0 100% 50% 0% 12345 ¹ Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). * International Medical Graduates only

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 213 Pain Medicine Figure-3 Programs That Use USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) Scores When Considering Which Applicants to Interview Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 1 Score Scores required? Would your program consider applicants who fail the 100% N=15 exam on the first attempt? 90% 100% N=14 90% 80% 80% 70% 67% 71% 70% 60% 60% 50% 50% 40% 33% 40% 30% 30% 29% 20% 20% 10% 10% 0% 0% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Never Seldom Often

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 (CK) Score Scores required? Would your program consider applicants who fail N=16 the exam on the first attempt? N=14 100% 100% 90% 81% 90% 80% 80% 71% 70% 70% 60% 60% 50% 50% 40% 40% 30% 30% 29% 19% 20% 20% 10% 10% 0% 0% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Never Seldom often

IQR* of Average USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 CK Scores Programs Consider When Granting Interviews Scores Below Which Programs Scores Above Which Programs Generally Do Not Grant Interviews Almost Always Grant Interviews 260

250

240

230 USMLE Step 2 CK USMLE Step 1 not USMLE Step 2 CK not reported 220 not reported reported because because of low of low response because of low 210 response rate rate response rate 200

190

180

170 USMLE Step 1 N=5

*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.

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 214 Pain Medicine Figure-4 Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 Clinical Skill (CS), Step 3, and COMLEX-USA Scores* When Considering Which Applicants to Interview Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 CS and Step 3 Scores USMLE Step 2 CS USMLE Step 3 100% N=15 100% N=16 100% 90% 90% 80% 80% 75% 70% 70% 60% 60% 50% 50% 40% 40% 30% 30% 19% 20% 20% 10% 10% 6% 0% 0% 0% Yes No Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

Percentage of Programs That Use COMLEX-USA Level 1 and Level 2-CE Scores COMLEX-USA Level 1* COMLEX-USA Level 2-CE* 100% 100% N=12 N=12 90% 90% 80% 80% 70% 67% 70% 67% 60% 60% 50% 50% 40% 40% 30% 25% 30% 25% 20% 20% 10% 8% 10% 8% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

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

COMLEX-USA Level 2-PE* COMLEX-USA Level 3* 100% N=12 100% N=12 90% 90% 80% 80% 70% 67% 70% 67% 60% 60% 50% 50% 40% 40% 30% 25% 30% 25% 20% 20% 10% 8% 10% 8% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

* Osteopathic applicants only

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 215 Pain Medicine Figure-5 Programs That Use Core Specialty Certifying Examination When Considering Applicants for Interview Scores required? Would your program consider applicants who fail the 100% N=7 exam on the first attempt? 90% N=8 100% 80% 100% 70% 90% 80% 60% 57% 70% 50% 60% 40% 50% 30% 29% 40% 30% 20% 14% 20% 10% 10% 0% 0% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No, not required Never Seldom Often

Pain Medicine Figure-6 Programs Positions

Average Number of Accredited Positions and Funded Positions Average Percentage of Accredited Positions Offered Outside of 4.0 the Match 3.6 100% 3.5 3.4 100% 90% 3.0 80% 67% 2.5 70% 60% 2.0 50% 1.5 40% 33% 30% 1.0 20% 0.5 10% 0% 0.0 Positions Filled Before Positions Offered Outside Positions Filled Outside Accredited Positions Funded Positions Match Day the Match the Match

N=21 N=19 N=4 N=2 N=1

Pain Medicine Figure-7 Dedicated Time for Research

Program Requirement on Dedicated Time for Average Number of Months if Research Time is Research Required N=21 11 1.0

0.8 Required 9.5% 0.6

0.4

0.2 Optional 90.5% 0.0 Accredited Locally Funded Integrated Other N=1 N=0 N=2 N=0

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 216 Pain Medicine Figure-8 Program's Interview Activities

Interview Invitations Sent and Interviews Conducted

100% N=18 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 45% 40% 29% 30% 27% 28% 19% 20% 10% 14% 10% 9% 0%0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 2% 0%0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Interview invitations Interviews conducted

Average Number of Positions, Applications Received, Interview Average Percentage of Applicants Rejected and Reviewed Invitations Sent, and Applicants Interviewed and Ranked 160 150 100% 140 90% 80% 120 70% 100 60% 48% 50% 43% 80 40% 60 30% 20% 40 33 29 10% 20 0% Rejected based on a In-depth review 0 standardized screening Number of applications Number of interview Number of applicants process received invitations sent interviewed N=19 N=19 N=19 N=20 N=19

Percentage of Programs that Typically Interview and Rank Each Applicant Type 42% of Pain Medicine programs consider all applicant groups

100% 95% N=19 89% 90% 84% 80% 70% 63% 60% 53% 50% 42% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% U.S. Graduate Osteopathic Canadian Fifth Pathway U.S. IMG Non-U.S. IMG Physician Frequency of Programs Interviewing and Ranking Candidates Interview Ranking 100% 100% 6% 6% 11% 11% 12% 90% 16% 90% 32% 28% 80% 80% 70% 70% 53% 50% 60% 78% 79% 60% 82% 78% 72% 71% 50% 74% 68% 50% 40% 40% 63% 67% 30% 30% 20% 39% 20% 41% 17% 10% 21% 16% 16% 10% 18% 22% 22% 18% 0% 6% 5% 0% 6% Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-US Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-US IMG IMG Often Seldom Never Often Seldom Never n=18 n=17

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 217 Pain Medicine

Figure-9 Potential Challenges in Recruiting Applicants to Your Specialty

Average rating on a scale of 5 (1=least challenging; 5=most challenging) n=15

Not enough applicants in the specialty 1.8

Undesirable income potential as a practicing physician 1.8

Undesirable work/life balance as a practicing physician 1.9

Long or irregular work hours required by specialty 1.9

Fellowship Match scheduled at inconvenient time of year 2.5

012345

Pain Medicine

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

n=16

We consider those applicants on an individual basis 69%

We give those applicants serious consideration if they have 19% shown improvement

We do not usually consider those applicants 19%

We favor those applicants 0%

Other 0%

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

Pain Medicine

Figure-11 Years as Program Director

At Any Fellowship Program At Current Fellowship Program

More than 15 More than 15 5.9% Less than 3 5.9% 11 to 15 17.6% 11.8% Less than 3 6 to 10 35.3% 29.4%

6 to 29.4%10 3 to 5 35.3% 3 to 29.4%5

n=17 n=17

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 218 Pediatric Anesthesiology

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 219 Pediatric Anesthesiology Table 1 General Information

2016 Survey Number of responses 24 Response rate 47.1%

Match Information* Appointment Years 2016 2015 2014 Number of programs in the Match 52 46 44 Number of positions in the Match 190 185 171 Number of applicants ranking specialty 209 207 182 * Source: NRMP Data Warehouse

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 220 Pediatric Anesthesiology Figure-1 Percentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Selecting Applicants to Interview (N=21) Percent Citing Factor Average Rating Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialty 71% 4.4 Residency performance evaluation (Program Director letter) 90% 4.3 Reputation of residency program 90% 3.7 Demonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research 81% 3.4 Perceived commitment to specialty 76% 4.5 Personal statement 81% 4.2 Perceived interest in program 67% 4.7 Evidence of professionalism and ethics 86% 4.7 USMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score 76% 3.9 Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chapters 48% 3.9 USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE score 81% 3.8 Leadership qualities 71% 4.1 Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicant 52% 4.2 Oral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements 67% 3.8 Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institution 71% 3.9 Pass USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PE 62% 3.7 Any failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX 48% 4.3 USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 score 52% 3.9 Interest in academic career 43% 4.1 Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based) 38% 3.9 Clinical/laboratory research experience 43% 3.6 Awards or special honors in medical school 48% 3.5 Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership 62% 3.8 Other life experience 43% 3.5 Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter) 38% 3.9 Graduate of highly‐regarded medical school 38% 3.7 Visa status* 33% 3.7 Volunteer/extracurricular experiences 38% 3.7 Awarded grant money for research 43% 3.5 Grades in medical school 24% 3.3 Lack of gaps in medical education 33% 4.4 Medical school class ranking/quartile 19% 3.0 Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP 24% 5.0 Electives at your fellowship site 10% 4.0 Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membership 29% 3.6 Residency class ranking/quartile 33% 3.8 Fluency in language spoken by your patient population 29% 3.6 In‐Training Examination (ITE) 95% 4.5 Residency program size 0% Having finished another fellowship 19% 4.0 100% 50% 0% 1 2 345

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

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 221 Pediatric Anesthesiology Figure-2 Percentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Ranking Applicants (N=21) Percent Citing Factor Average Rating Interactions with faculty during interview and visit 95% 4.9 Interpersonal skills 95% 4.8 Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialty 43% 4.4 Interactions with house staff during interview and visit 90% 4.8 Perceived commitment to specialty 52% 4.6 Feedback from current residents and fellows 48% 4.9 Perceived interest in program 71% 4.2 Demonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research 52% 3.6 Reputation of residency program 48% 3.9 Residency performance evaluation (Program Director letter) 38% 4.4 Evidence of professionalism and ethics 62% 4.6 Personal statement 38% 4.0 Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicant 29% 4.7 Leadership qualities 38% 3.8 Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chapters 29% 4.2 Interest in academic career 38% 4.0 Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institution 48% 3.8 USMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score 48% 4.3 USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE score 43% 4.1 Any failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX 19% 5.0 Passing USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PE 24% 4.4 Clinical/laboratory research experience 24% 3.8 USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 score 24% 4.2 Oral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements 14% 4.7 Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based) 19% 4.0 Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership 29% 3.8 Other life experience 38% 3.9 Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter) 24% 3.8 Second interview/visit 33% 4.2 Awards or special honors in medical school 19% 3.5 Visa status* 10% 4.5 Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP 19% 5.0 Graduate of highly‐regarded medical school 14% 4.0 Electives at your fellowship site 14% 4.0 Awarded grant money for research 19% 4.5 Volunteer/extracurricular experiences 29% 3.8 Medical school class ranking/quartile 10% 3.0 Lack of gaps in medical education 10% 4.0 Grades in medical school 14% 3.0 Residency class ranking/quartile 14% 3.7 Fluency in language spoken by your patient population 5% 4.0 Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membership 10% 3.0 Residency program size 0% In‐Training Examination (ITE) 62% 4.4 Second interview/visit 19% 4.5 Having finished another fellowship 14% 3.3 100% 50% 0% 12345 ¹ Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). * International Medical Graduates only

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 222 Pediatric Anesthesiology Figure-3 Programs That Use USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) Scores When Considering Which Applicants to Interview Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 1 Score Scores required? Would your program consider applicants who fail the 100% N=20 exam on the first attempt? 90% 100% N=20 90% 80% 80% 70% 70% 60% 55% 60% 55% 50% 45% 50% 40% 40% 30% 30% 25% 20% 20% 20% 10% 10% 0% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Never Seldom Often

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 (CK) Score Scores required? Would your program consider applicants who fail N=20 the exam on the first attempt? N=19 100% 100% 90% 90% 80% 80% 70% 70% 70% 60% 60% 50% 50% 42% 40% 40% 37% 30% 30% 30% 21% 20% 20% 10% 10% 0% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Never Seldom often

IQR* of Average USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 CK Scores Programs Consider When Granting Interviews Scores Below Which Programs Scores Above Which Programs Generally Do Not Grant Interviews Almost Always Grant Interviews 260 260

250 250

240 240

230 230 USMLE Step 2 CK not reported 220 220 because of low 210 210 response rate

200 200

190 190

180 180

170 170 USMLE Step 1 USMLE Step 2 CK USMLE Step 1 N=9 N=6 N=7

*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.

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 223 Pediatric Anesthesiology Figure-4 Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 Clinical Skill (CS), Step 3, and COMLEX-USA Scores* When Considering Which Applicants to Interview Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 CS and Step 3 Scores USMLE Step 2 CS USMLE Step 3 100% N=20 100% N=20 100% 90% 90% 80% 80% 70% 70% 60% 60% 60% 50% 50% 40% 40% 35% 30% 30% 20% 20% 10% 10% 5% 0% 0% 0% Yes No Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

Percentage of Programs That Use COMLEX-USA Level 1 and Level 2-CE Scores COMLEX-USA Level 1* COMLEX-USA Level 2-CE* 100% 100% N=16 N=17 90% 90% 80% 80% 70% 70% 60% 56% 60% 59% 50% 50% 40% 40%

30% 25% 30% 24% 20% 19% 20% 18% 10% 10% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

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

COMLEX-USA Level 2-PE* COMLEX-USA Level 3* 100% N=16 100% N=16 90% 90% 80% 80% 70% 69% 70% 60% 60% 56% 50% 50% 40% 40% 30% 30% 25% 20% 19% 20% 19% 13% 10% 10% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

* Osteopathic applicants only

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 224 Pediatric Anesthesiology Figure-5 Programs That Use Core Specialty Certifying Examination When Considering Applicants for Interview Scores required? Would your program consider applicants who fail the 100% N=15 exam on the first attempt? 90% N=15 80% 100% 70% 90% 80% 60% 70% 60% 50% 47% 60% 50% 40% 33% 30% 40% 20% 30% 27% 20% 20% 13% 10% 10% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No, not required Never Seldom Often

Pediatric Anesthesiology Figure-6 Programs Positions

Average Number of Accredited Positions and Funded Positions Average Percentage of Accredited Positions Offered Outside of 4.5 the Match 4.2 4.2 4.0 100% 90% 3.5 80% 71% 3.0 70% 2.5 60% 50% 2.0 40% 35% 31% 1.5 30% 1.0 20% 10% 0.5 0% 0.0 Positions Filled Before Positions Offered Outside Positions Filled Outside Accredited Positions Funded Positions Match Day the Match the Match

N=23 N=22 N=8 N=4 N=3

Pediatric Anesthesiology Figure-7 Dedicated Time for Research

Program Requirement on Dedicated Time for Average Number of Months if Research Time is Research Required N=24 11 1.0

0.8

Required 16.7% 0.6

0.4

0.2 Optional 83.3% 0.0 Accredited Locally Funded Integrated Other N=2 N=0 N=0 N=2

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 225 Pediatric Anesthesiology Figure-8 Program's Interview Activities

Interview Invitations Sent and Interviews Conducted

100% N=20 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 37% 29% 29% 30% 21% 18% 20% 12% 11% 14% 11% 10% 5% 6% 3% 0% 1% 2% 1% 0% 3% 0%0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Interview invitations Interviews conducted

Average Number of Positions, Applications Received, Interview Average Percentage of Applicants Rejected and Reviewed Invitations Sent, and Applicants Interviewed and Ranked 60 54 100% 90% 50 80% 74% 70% 40 60% 50% 30 27 26 40% 30% 28% 20 20% 10% 10 0% Rejected based on a In-depth review 0 standardized screening Number of applications Number of interview Number of applicants process received invitations sent interviewed N=21 N=21 N=21 N=21 N=20

Percentage of Programs that Typically Interview and Rank Each Applicant Type 14% of Pediatric Anesthesiology programs consider all applicant groups

100% 95% N=22 90% 80% 77% 70% 64% 60% 55% 50% 40% 36% 30% 20% 14% 10% 0% U.S. Graduate Osteopathic Canadian Fifth Pathway U.S. IMG Non-U.S. IMG Physician Frequency of Programs Interviewing and Ranking Candidates Interview Ranking 100% 100% 14% 18% 14% 14% 90% 23% 18% 90% 80% 41% 80% 41% 70% 70% 64% 68% 60% 60% 55% 50% 55% 64% 50% 95% 50% 95% 40% 82% 40% 77% 45% 41% 30% 30% 20% 32% 20% 23% 36% 27% 32% 10% 23% 10% 18% 14% 9% 0% 5% 5% 0% 5% Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-US Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-US IMG IMG Often Seldom Never Often Seldom Never n=22 n=21

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 226 Pediatric Anesthesiology

Figure-9 Potential Challenges in Recruiting Applicants to Your Specialty

Average rating on a scale of 5 (1=least challenging; 5=most challenging) n=17

Not enough applicants in the specialty 2.1

Undesirable income potential as a practicing physician 1.9

Undesirable work/life balance as a practicing physician 2.6

Long or irregular work hours required by specialty 2.8

Fellowship Match scheduled at inconvenient time of year 2.5

012345

Pediatric Anesthesiology

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

n=20

We consider those applicants on an individual basis 85%

We give those applicants serious consideration if they have 20% shown improvement

We do not usually consider those applicants 5%

We favor those applicants 0%

Other 0%

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

Pediatric Anesthesiology

Figure-11 Years as Program Director

At Any Fellowship Program At Current Fellowship Program

More than 15 More than 15 10.0% 11 to 155.9% 11 to 15 Less than 3 5.9% Less than 3 5.0% 25.0% 23.5%

6 to 10 20.0% 6 to 10 29.4%

3 to 5 3 to 5 35.3% 40.0%

n=20 n=17

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 227 Pediatric Cardiology

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 228 Pediatric Cardiology Table 1 General Information

2016 Survey Number of responses 28 Response rate 50.9%

Match Information* Appointment Years 2016 2015 2014 Number of programs in the Match 56 57 57 Number of positions in the Match 139 141 141 Number of applicants ranking specialty 162 181 167 * Source: NRMP Data Warehouse

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 229 Pediatric Cardiology Figure-1 Percentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Selecting Applicants to Interview (N=23) Percent Citing Factor Average Rating Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialty 96% 4.4 Residency performance evaluation (Program Director letter) 96% 4.5 Reputation of residency program 100% 4.3 Demonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research 100% 4.0 Perceived commitment to specialty 70% 4.1 Personal statement 78% 3.4 Perceived interest in program 43% 4.0 Evidence of professionalism and ethics 78% 4.5 USMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score 78% 3.9 Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chapters 96% 3.9 USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE score 78% 3.7 Leadership qualities 87% 4.0 Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicant 78% 4.3 Oral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements 78% 3.7 Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institution 70% 4.0 Pass USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PE 65% 4.0 Any failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX 74% 4.4 USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 score 65% 3.8 Interest in academic career 78% 4.2 Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based) 74% 4.3 Clinical/laboratory research experience 78% 3.9 Awards or special honors in medical school 61% 3.2 Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership 74% 3.5 Other life experience 57% 3.8 Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter) 48% 3.3 Graduate of highly‐regarded medical school 65% 3.8 Visa status* 43% 3.7 Volunteer/extracurricular experiences 57% 3.3 Awarded grant money for research 83% 3.4 Grades in medical school 30% 3.4 Lack of gaps in medical education 39% 4.0 Medical school class ranking/quartile 43% 3.3 Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP 52% 5.0 Electives at your fellowship site 35% 3.8 Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membership 35% 3.7 Residency class ranking/quartile 22% 4.3 Fluency in language spoken by your patient population 26% 4.3 In‐Training Examination (ITE) 13% 5.0 Residency program size 52% 4.3 Having finished another fellowship 43% 2.9 100% 50% 0% 1 2 345

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

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 230 Pediatric Cardiology Figure-2 Percentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Ranking Applicants (N=23) Percent Citing Factor Average Rating Interactions with faculty during interview and visit 95% 4.9 Interpersonal skills 95% 4.8 Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialty 95% 4.4 Interactions with house staff during interview and visit 95% 4.8 Perceived commitment to specialty 81% 4.2 Feedback from current residents and fellows 76% 4.8 Perceived interest in program 67% 3.8 Demonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research 95% 4.1 Reputation of residency program 86% 4.3 Residency performance evaluation (Program Director letter) 81% 4.4 Evidence of professionalism and ethics 76% 4.5 Personal statement 67% 3.5 Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicant 76% 4.2 Leadership qualities 67% 4.2 Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chapters 67% 4.0 Interest in academic career 81% 4.1 Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institution 67% 3.9 USMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score 67% 3.8 USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE score 57% 3.9 Any failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX 57% 4.6 Passing USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PE 57% 3.8 Clinical/laboratory research experience 67% 3.9 USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 score 43% 3.9 Oral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements 52% 3.7 Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based) 62% 4.5 Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership 57% 3.5 Other life experience 52% 3.7 Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter) 33% 3.8 Second interview/visit 38% 3.5 Awards or special honors in medical school 43% 3.6 Visa status* 19% 4.0 Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP 43% 5.0 Graduate of highly‐regarded medical school 48% 3.6 Electives at your fellowship site 33% 3.3 Awarded grant money for research 48% 3.2 Volunteer/extracurricular experiences 38% 3.6 Medical school class ranking/quartile 29% 4.0 Lack of gaps in medical education 33% 4.2 Grades in medical school 24% 3.7 Residency class ranking/quartile 19% 3.7 Fluency in language spoken by your patient population 24% 4.3 Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membership 33% 3.6 Residency program size 38% 4.1 In‐Training Examination (ITE) 0% Second interview/visit 5% 5.0 Having finished another fellowship 29% 3.4 100% 50% 0% 12345 ¹ Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). * International Medical Graduates only

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 231 Pediatric Cardiology Figure-3 Programs That Use USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) Scores When Considering Which Applicants to Interview Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 1 Score Scores required? Would your program consider applicants who fail the 100% N=23 exam on the first attempt? 90% 100% N=21 90% 86% 80% 80% 70% 70% 60% 52% 60% 50% 50% 40% 35% 40% 30% 30% 20% 13% 20% 14% 10% 10% 0% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Never Seldom Often

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 (CK) Score Scores required? Would your program consider applicants who fail N=23 the exam on the first attempt? N=20 100% 100% 90% 90% 80% 80% 80% 70% 70% 60% 57% 60% 50% 50% 40% 40% 30% 30% 30% 20% 20% 13% 20% 10% 10% 0% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Never Seldom often

IQR* of Average USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 CK Scores Programs Consider When Granting Interviews Scores Below Which Programs Scores Above Which Programs Generally Do Not Grant Interviews Almost Always Grant Interviews 260 260

250 250

240 240

230 230

220 220

210 210

200 200

190 190

180 180

170 170 USMLE Step 1 USMLE Step 2 CK USMLE Step 1 USMLE Step 2 CK N=8 N=6 N=8 N=6

*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.

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 232 Pediatric Cardiology Figure-4 Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 Clinical Skill (CS), Step 3, and COMLEX-USA Scores* When Considering Which Applicants to Interview Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 CS and Step 3 Scores USMLE Step 2 CS USMLE Step 3 100% N=23 100% N=23 90% 87% 90% 80% 80% 70% 70% 60% 60% 50% 50% 48% 40% 40% 30% 30% 30% 22% 20% 20% 13% 10% 10% 0% 0% Yes No Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

Percentage of Programs That Use COMLEX-USA Level 1 and Level 2-CE Scores COMLEX-USA Level 1* COMLEX-USA Level 2-CE* 100% 100% N=15 N=15 90% 90% 80% 80% 70% 70% 60% 60% 50% 47% 50% 47%

40% 33% 40% 33% 30% 30% 20% 20% 20% 20% 10% 10% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

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

COMLEX-USA Level 2-PE* COMLEX-USA Level 3* 100% N=15 100% N=14 90% 90% 80% 80% 70% 70%

60% 53% 60% 50% 50% 40% 40% 36% 36% 30% 27% 30% 29% 20% 20% 20% 10% 10% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

* Osteopathic applicants only

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 233 Pediatric Cardiology Figure-5 Programs That Use Core Specialty Certifying Examination When Considering Applicants for Interview Scores required? Would your program consider applicants who fail the N=9 100% exam on the first attempt? 100% N=1 90% 100% 80% 100% 90% 70% 80% 60% 70% 50% 60% 40% 50% 40% 30% 30% 20% 20% 10% 10% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No, not required Never Seldom Often

Pediatric Cardiology Figure-6 Programs Positions

Average Number of Accredited Positions and Funded Positions Average Percentage of Accredited Positions Offered Outside of 4.5 4.4 the Match 4.0 4.0 100% 90% 3.5 80% 3.0 70% 67% 2.5 60% 50% 2.0 40% 33% 33% 1.5 30% 1.0 20% 10% 0.5 0% 0.0 Positions Filled Before Positions Offered Outside Positions Filled Outside Accredited Positions Funded Positions Match Day the Match the Match

N=28 N=26 N=4 N=3 N=3

Pediatric Cardiology Figure-7 Dedicated Time for Research

Program Requirement on Dedicated Time for Average Number of Months if Research Time is Research Required N=28 14 12 12 12 11 10 10

8

6

4

2 Required 100.0% 0 Accredited Locally Funded Integrated Other N=18 N=3 N=5 N=3

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 234 Pediatric Cardiology Figure-8 Program's Interview Activities

Interview Invitations Sent and Interviews Conducted

100% N=22 90% 83% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 37% 30% 26% 19% 20% 12% 10% 8% 4% 5% 0% 0% 0%1% 0%0% 0% 0% 0% 0%0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 4% 0% Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Interview invitations Interviews conducted

Average Number of Positions, Applications Received, Interview Average Percentage of Applicants Rejected and Reviewed Invitations Sent, and Applicants Interviewed and Ranked 100 100% 88 90% 83% 80 80% 70% 60% 60 50% 40% 40 30% 26% 29 25 20% 20 10% 0% Rejected based on a In-depth review 0 standardized screening Number of applications Number of interview Number of applicants process received invitations sent interviewed N=24 N=24 N=26 N=25 N=25

Percentage of Programs that Typically Interview and Rank Each Applicant Type 30% of Pediatric Cardiology programs consider all applicant groups 100% 100% N=23 90% 83% 80% 74% 74% 70% 65% 60% 50% 40% 30% 30% 20% 10% 0% U.S. Graduate Osteopathic Canadian Fifth Pathway U.S. IMG Non-U.S. IMG Physician Frequency of Programs Interviewing and Ranking Candidates Interview Ranking 100% 100% 10% 10% 90% 90% 30% 30% 30% 27% 27% 80% 35% 80% 36% 43% 29% 25% 70% 70% 60% 60% 87% 90% 50% 50% 59% 40% 57% 40% 60% 68% 70% 57% 55% 30% 52% 62% 30% 65% 20% 20% 10% 9% 10% 13% 9% 10% 10% 14% 9% 0% 4% 4% 0% 5% Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-US Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-US IMG IMG Often Seldom Never Often Seldom Never n=23 n=21

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 235 Pediatric Cardiology

Figure-9 Potential Challenges in Recruiting Applicants to Your Specialty

Average rating on a scale of 5 (1=least challenging; 5=most challenging) n=21

Not enough applicants in the specialty 1.6

Undesirable income potential as a practicing physician 1.8

Undesirable work/life balance as a practicing physician 3.3

Long or irregular work hours required by specialty 3.1

Fellowship Match scheduled at inconvenient time of year 2.4

012345

Pediatric Cardiology

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

n=21

We consider those applicants on an individual basis 67%

We give those applicants serious consideration if they have 24% shown improvement

We do not usually consider those applicants 24%

We favor those applicants 0%

Other 0%

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

Pediatric Cardiology

Figure-11 Years as Program Director

At Any Fellowship Program At Current Fellowship Program

More than 15 More than 15 4.0% 4.3% 11 to 15 11 to 16.0% Less than 3 17.4%15 32.0% Less than 3 39.1%

6 to 10 6 to 10 32.0% 3 to 5 26.1% 16.0% 3 to 5 13.0%

n=25 n=23

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 Medicine Table 1 General Information

2016 Survey Number of responses 35 Response rate 55.6%

Match Information* Appointment Years 2016 2015 2014 Number of programs in the Match 65 62 63 Number of positions in the Match 175 168 169 Number of applicants ranking specialty 186 206 168 * Source: NRMP Data Warehouse

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 238 Pediatric Critical Care Medicine Figure-1 Percentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Selecting Applicants to Interview (N=24) Percent Citing Factor Average Rating Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialty 92% 4.3 Residency performance evaluation (Program Director letter) 88% 4.3 Reputation of residency program 96% 4.1 Demonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research 92% 4.0 Perceived commitment to specialty 75% 4.2 Personal statement 71% 3.7 Perceived interest in program 71% 4.2 Evidence of professionalism and ethics 67% 4.8 USMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score 67% 3.6 Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chapters 75% 3.6 USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE score 67% 3.7 Leadership qualities 63% 4.1 Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicant 75% 4.3 Oral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements 67% 3.7 Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institution 71% 3.9 Pass USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PE 58% 3.6 Any failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX 79% 4.0 USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 score 63% 3.6 Interest in academic career 58% 4.1 Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based) 71% 3.9 Clinical/laboratory research experience 63% 3.5 Awards or special honors in medical school 58% 3.1 Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership 54% 3.7 Other life experience 42% 3.7 Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter) 54% 2.8 Graduate of highly‐regarded medical school 58% 3.4 Visa status* 46% 4.5 Volunteer/extracurricular experiences 38% 3.2 Awarded grant money for research 50% 3.8 Grades in medical school 25% 3.4 Lack of gaps in medical education 38% 3.7 Medical school class ranking/quartile 33% 2.8 Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP 38% 4.9 Electives at your fellowship site 33% 3.1 Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membership 29% 4.0 Residency class ranking/quartile 25% 3.0 Fluency in language spoken by your patient population 17% 3.3 In‐Training Examination (ITE) 4% 4.0 Residency program size 50% 4.0 Having finished another fellowship 29% 3.3 100% 50% 0% 1 2 345

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

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 239 Pediatric Critical Care Medicine Figure-2 Percentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Ranking Applicants (N=24) Percent Citing Factor Average Rating Interactions with faculty during interview and visit 96% 4.8 Interpersonal skills 91% 4.9 Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialty 87% 4.1 Interactions with house staff during interview and visit 78% 4.7 Perceived commitment to specialty 70% 4.4 Feedback from current residents and fellows 78% 4.6 Perceived interest in program 74% 4.4 Demonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research 74% 4.3 Reputation of residency program 78% 4.2 Residency performance evaluation (Program Director letter) 74% 4.3 Evidence of professionalism and ethics 74% 4.6 Personal statement 39% 3.4 Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicant 83% 4.5 Leadership qualities 70% 4.3 Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chapters 65% 3.7 Interest in academic career 52% 4.3 Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institution 61% 4.1 USMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score 48% 3.8 USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE score 48% 3.8 Any failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX 48% 4.4 Passing USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PE 39% 3.8 Clinical/laboratory research experience 52% 4.1 USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 score 43% 4.0 Oral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements 43% 3.9 Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based) 43% 4.1 Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership 35% 3.9 Other life experience 22% 4.0 Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter) 30% 3.3 Second interview/visit 48% 4.0 Awards or special honors in medical school 26% 3.8 Visa status* 26% 4.2 Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP 39% 4.6 Graduate of highly‐regarded medical school 30% 3.7 Electives at your fellowship site 35% 4.3 Awarded grant money for research 39% 3.6 Volunteer/extracurricular experiences 17% 3.8 Medical school class ranking/quartile 13% 3.3 Lack of gaps in medical education 30% 3.7 Grades in medical school 13% 3.7 Residency class ranking/quartile 17% 3.8 Fluency in language spoken by your patient population 17% 3.0 Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membership 26% 3.7 Residency program size 39% 4.1 In‐Training Examination (ITE) 4% 5.0 Second interview/visit 17% 3.8 Having finished another fellowship 30% 4.0 100% 50% 0% 12345 ¹ Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). * International Medical Graduates only

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 240 Pediatric Critical Care Medicine Figure-3 Programs That Use USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) Scores When Considering Which Applicants to Interview Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 1 Score Scores required? Would your program consider applicants who fail the 100% N=25 exam on the first attempt? 90% 100% N=25 90% 80% 76% 80% 70% 70% 64% 60% 60% 50% 50% 40% 40% 30% 24% 30% 20% 20% 20% 16% 10% 10% 0% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Never Seldom Often

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 (CK) Score Scores required? Would your program consider applicants who fail N=25 the exam on the first attempt? N=25 100% 100% 90% 90% 80% 80% 80% 70% 70% 68% 60% 60% 50% 50% 40% 40% 30% 30% 20% 20% 20% 16% 16% 10% 10% 0% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Never Seldom often

IQR* of Average USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 CK Scores Programs Consider When Granting Interviews Scores Below Which Programs Scores Above Which Programs Generally Do Not Grant Interviews Almost Always Grant Interviews 260 260

250 250

240 240

230 USMLE Step 2 CK 230 USMLE Step 2 CK not reported not reported 220 220 because of low because of low 210 response rate 210 response rate 200 200

190 190

180 180

170 170 USMLE Step 1 USMLE Step 1 N=6 N=5

*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.

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 241 Pediatric Critical Care Medicine Figure-4 Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 Clinical Skill (CS), Step 3, and COMLEX-USA Scores* When Considering Which Applicants to Interview Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 CS and Step 3 Scores USMLE Step 2 CS USMLE Step 3 100% N=25 100% N=25 100% 90% 90% 80% 80% 72% 70% 70% 60% 60% 50% 50% 40% 40% 30% 30% 20% 20% 20% 10% 10% 8% 0% 0% 0% Yes No Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

Percentage of Programs That Use COMLEX-USA Level 1 and Level 2-CE Scores COMLEX-USA Level 1* COMLEX-USA Level 2-CE* 100% 100% N=20 N=20 90% 90% 80% 80% 70% 65% 70% 65% 60% 60% 50% 50% 40% 40% 30% 30% 20% 20% 20% 15% 20% 15% 10% 10% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

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

COMLEX-USA Level 2-PE* COMLEX-USA Level 3* 100% N=20 100% N=18 90% 90% 80% 80% 70% 70% 70% 67% 60% 60% 50% 50% 40% 40% 30% 30% 20% 22% 20% 20% 10% 11% 10% 10% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

* Osteopathic applicants only

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 242 Pediatric Critical Care Medicine Figure-5 Programs That Use Core Specialty Certifying Examination When Considering Applicants for Interview Scores required? Would your program consider applicants who fail the 100% N=11 exam on the first attempt? 90% N=4 80% 73% 100% 70% 90% 80% 75% 60% 70% 50% 60% 40% 50% 30% 27% 40% 30% 25% 20% 20% 10% 10% 0% 0% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No, not required Never Seldom Often

Pediatric Critical Care Medicine Figure-6 Programs Positions

Average Number of Accredited Positions and Funded Positions Average Percentage of Accredited Positions Offered Outside of 7 the Match 6.3 100% 98% 6 5.8 90% 5 80% 70% 63% 4 60% 50% 43% 3 40% 30% 2 20% 1 10% 0% 0 Positions Filled Before Positions Offered Outside Positions Filled Outside Accredited Positions Funded Positions Match Day the Match the Match

N=32 N=26 N=5 N=3 N=2

Pediatric Critical Care Medicine Figure-7 Dedicated Time for Research

Program Requirement on Dedicated Time for Average Number of Months if Research Time is Research Required N=35 20 19 17 16 16 16

Optional 8.6% 12

8

4 Required 91.4% 0 Accredited Locally Funded Integrated Other N=17 N=4 N=2 N=5

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 243 Pediatric Critical Care Medicine Figure-8 Program's Interview Activities

Interview Invitations Sent and Interviews Conducted

100% N=25 90% 80% 70% 60% 51% 50% 40% 35% 37% 30% 21% 20% 16% 12% 9% 10% 8% 0%0% 0% 0% 4% 4% 0%0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Interview invitations Interviews conducted

Average Number of Positions, Applications Received, Interview Average Percentage of Applicants Rejected and Reviewed Invitations Sent, and Applicants Interviewed and Ranked 70 100% 62 90% 60 80% 50 70% 65% 60% 40 50% 40% 30 27 29% 24 30% 20 20% 10% 10 0% Rejected based on a In-depth review 0 standardized screening Number of applications Number of interview Number of applicants process received invitations sent interviewed N=29 N=29 N=29 N=29 N=29

Percentage of Programs that Typically Interview and Rank Each Applicant Type 26% of Pediatric Critical Care Medicine programs consider all applicant groups 100% 100% 93% N=27 90% 80% 78% 70% 63% 60% 56% 50% 40% 33% 30% 20% 10% 0% U.S. Graduate Osteopathic Canadian Fifth Pathway U.S. IMG Non-U.S. IMG Physician Frequency of Programs Interviewing and Ranking Candidates Interview Ranking 100% 100% 8% 8% 90% 22% 90% 22% 28% 17% 28% 80% 25% 37% 80% 41% 70% 70% 67% 60% 74% 60% 48% 50% 96% 56% 50% 96% 60% 56% 40% 40% 75% 52% 30% 67% 63% 30% 20% 20% 33% 26% 30% 10% 22% 10% 16% 12% 7% 0% 4% 0% 4% Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-US Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-US IMG IMG Often Seldom Never Often Seldom Never n=27 n=27

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 244 Pediatric Critical Care Medicine

Figure-9 Potential Challenges in Recruiting Applicants to Your Specialty

Average rating on a scale of 5 (1=least challenging; 5=most challenging) n=22

Not enough applicants in the specialty 2.2

Undesirable income potential as a practicing physician 1.9

Undesirable work/life balance as a practicing physician 4.0

Long or irregular work hours required by specialty 3.7

Fellowship Match scheduled at inconvenient time of year 2.0

012345

Pediatric Critical Care Medicine

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

n=21

We consider those applicants on an individual basis 71%

We give those applicants serious consideration if they have 10% shown improvement

We do not usually consider those applicants 24%

We favor those applicants 0%

Other 0%

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

Pediatric Critical Care Medicine

Figure-11 Years as Program Director

At Any Fellowship Program At Current Fellowship Program

More than More than 7.7%15 11 to 157.7%15 Less than 3 3.8% 11 to 15 26.9% 19.2% 6 to 10 Less than 3 15.4% 38.5%

6 to 10 11.5%

3 to 5 3 to 5 34.6% 34.6%

n=26 n=26

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 245 Pediatric Emergency Medicine

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 246 Pediatric Emergency Medicine Table 1 General Information

2016 Survey Number of responses 32 Response rate 45.1%

Match Information* Appointment Years 2016 2015 2014 Number of programs in the Match 73 73 74 Number of positions in the Match 177 162 163 Number of applicants ranking specialty 208 201 215 * Source: NRMP Data Warehouse

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 247 Pediatric Emergency Medicine Figure-1 Percentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Selecting Applicants to Interview (N=27) Percent Citing Factor Average Rating Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialty 96% 4.5 Residency performance evaluation (Program Director letter) 96% 4.4 Reputation of residency program 89% 4.1 Demonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research 93% 3.8 Perceived commitment to specialty 93% 4.4 Personal statement 89% 3.5 Perceived interest in program 85% 4.3 Evidence of professionalism and ethics 78% 4.6 USMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score 78% 3.8 Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chapters 70% 3.5 USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE score 81% 3.7 Leadership qualities 78% 4.0 Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicant 81% 4.0 Oral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements 74% 3.5 Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institution 78% 4.0 Pass USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PE 67% 3.6 Any failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX 89% 4.4 USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 score 67% 3.7 Interest in academic career 74% 4.0 Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based) 59% 3.7 Clinical/laboratory research experience 48% 3.7 Awards or special honors in medical school 56% 3.1 Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership 63% 3.0 Other life experience 78% 3.4 Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter) 48% 2.8 Graduate of highly‐regarded medical school 56% 3.1 Visa status* 70% 4.2 Volunteer/extracurricular experiences 52% 3.7 Awarded grant money for research 44% 2.9 Grades in medical school 37% 2.9 Lack of gaps in medical education 48% 3.1 Medical school class ranking/quartile 41% 3.2 Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP 37% 4.3 Electives at your fellowship site 30% 3.4 Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membership 33% 2.7 Residency class ranking/quartile 19% 3.6 Fluency in language spoken by your patient population 15% 3.3 In‐Training Examination (ITE) 7% 4.0 Residency program size 33% 3.6 Having finished another fellowship 19% 2.0 100% 50% 0% 1 2 345

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

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 248 Pediatric Emergency Medicine Figure-2 Percentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Ranking Applicants (N=27) Percent Citing Factor Average Rating Interactions with faculty during interview and visit 96% 5.0 Interpersonal skills 92% 5.0 Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialty 88% 4.3 Interactions with house staff during interview and visit 85% 4.9 Perceived commitment to specialty 77% 4.8 Feedback from current residents and fellows 73% 4.8 Perceived interest in program 81% 4.6 Demonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research 73% 4.0 Reputation of residency program 73% 4.0 Residency performance evaluation (Program Director letter) 50% 4.5 Evidence of professionalism and ethics 50% 4.7 Personal statement 54% 3.7 Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicant 62% 4.3 Leadership qualities 65% 4.3 Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chapters 46% 3.4 Interest in academic career 69% 4.1 Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institution 58% 3.8 USMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score 62% 3.6 USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE score 58% 3.5 Any failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX 62% 3.8 Passing USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PE 46% 3.6 Clinical/laboratory research experience 35% 3.8 USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 score 50% 3.5 Oral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements 38% 3.4 Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based) 31% 3.8 Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership 27% 2.7 Other life experience 50% 3.8 Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter) 23% 3.2 Second interview/visit 42% 4.0 Awards or special honors in medical school 31% 3.5 Visa status* 38% 4.5 Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP 23% 4.3 Graduate of highly‐regarded medical school 23% 3.7 Electives at your fellowship site 23% 3.7 Awarded grant money for research 19% 3.2 Volunteer/extracurricular experiences 42% 3.9 Medical school class ranking/quartile 19% 3.2 Lack of gaps in medical education 19% 3.4 Grades in medical school 12% 3.0 Residency class ranking/quartile 19% 4.0 Fluency in language spoken by your patient population 8% 2.0 Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membership 15% 2.8 Residency program size 23% 4.0 In‐Training Examination (ITE) 8% 3.0 Second interview/visit 12% 4.3 Having finished another fellowship 8% 2.0 100% 50% 0% 12345 ¹ Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). * International Medical Graduates only

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 249 Pediatric Emergency Medicine Figure-3 Programs That Use USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) Scores When Considering Which Applicants to Interview Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 1 Score Scores required? Would your program consider applicants who fail the 100% N=26 exam on the first attempt? 90% 100% N=27 90% 80% 73% 80% 78% 70% 70% 60% 60% 50% 50% 40% 40% 30% 23% 30% 20% 20% 19% 10% 4% 10% 4% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Never Seldom Often

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 (CK) Score Scores required? Would your program consider applicants who fail N=26 the exam on the first attempt? N=27 100% 100% 93% 90% 90% 80% 73% 80% 70% 70% 60% 60% 50% 50% 40% 40% 30% 23% 30% 20% 20% 10% 4% 10% 4% 4% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Never Seldom often

IQR* of Average USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 CK Scores Programs Consider When Granting Interviews Scores Below Which Programs Scores Above Which Programs Generally Do Not Grant Interviews Almost Always Grant Interviews 260

250

240

230 USMLE Step 1 not USMLE Step 2 CK not reported 220 reported because of low response because of low 210 rate response rate 200

190

180

170 USMLE Step 1 USMLE Step 2 CK N=6 N=6

*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.

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 250 Pediatric Emergency Medicine Figure-4 Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 Clinical Skill (CS), Step 3, and COMLEX-USA Scores* When Considering Which Applicants to Interview Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 CS and Step 3 Scores USMLE Step 2 CS USMLE Step 3 100% 96% N=26 100% N=26 90% 90% 80% 80% 70% 70% 65% 60% 60% 50% 50% 40% 40% 30% 30% 19% 20% 20% 15% 10% 4% 10% 0% 0% Yes No Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

Percentage of Programs That Use COMLEX-USA Level 1 and Level 2-CE Scores COMLEX-USA Level 1* COMLEX-USA Level 2-CE* 100% 100% N=23 N=23 90% 90% 80% 80% 70% 70% 70% 70% 60% 60% 50% 50% 40% 40% 30% 30% 22% 22% 20% 20% 10% 9% 10% 9% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

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

COMLEX-USA Level 2-PE* COMLEX-USA Level 3* 100% N=23 100% N=22 90% 90% 80% 80% 70% 70% 70% 59% 60% 60% 50% 50% 40% 40% 30% 30% 22% 23% 20% 20% 18% 10% 9% 10% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

* Osteopathic applicants only

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 251 Pediatric Emergency Medicine Figure-5 Programs That Use Core Specialty Certifying Examination When Considering Applicants for Interview Scores required? Would your program consider applicants who fail the 100% N=18 exam on the first attempt? 90% N=10 80% 100% 70% 67% 90% 80% 60% 70% 70% 50% 60% 50% 40% 33% 40% 30% 30% 30% 20% 20% 10% 10% 0% 0% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No, not required Never Seldom Often

Pediatric Emergency Medicine Figure-6 Programs Positions

Average Number of Accredited Positions and Funded Positions Average Percentage of Accredited Positions Offered Outside of 5 4.8 the Match 4.5 100% 4 90% 80% 70% 3 60% 54% 50% 2 40% 30% 20% 18% 18% 1 10% 0% 0 Positions Filled Before Positions Offered Outside Positions Filled Outside Accredited Positions Funded Positions Match Day the Match the Match

N=31 N=27 N=4 N=4 N=4

Pediatric Emergency Medicine Figure-7 Dedicated Time for Research

Program Requirement on Dedicated Time for Average Number of Months if Research Time is Research Required 12 N=32 12 12 11

10

Optional 8 21.9% 6 5 4

Required 2 78.1%

0 Accredited Locally Funded Integrated Other N=16 N=3 N=2 N=5

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 252 Pediatric Emergency Medicine Figure-8 Program's Interview Activities

Interview Invitations Sent and Interviews Conducted

100% N=26 90% 80% 70% 60% 46% 50% 41% 45% 40% 33% 30% 20% 14% 10% 6% 6% 0%0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3% 1% 0% 1% 0% Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Interview invitations Interviews conducted

Average Number of Positions, Applications Received, Interview Average Percentage of Applicants Rejected and Reviewed Invitations Sent, and Applicants Interviewed and Ranked 70 100% 61 90% 60 80% 69% 50 70% 60% 40 50% 40% 30 34% 24 30% 21 20 20% 10% 10 0% Rejected based on a In-depth review 0 standardized screening Number of applications Number of interview Number of applicants process received invitations sent interviewed N=27 N=28 N=28 N=28 N=29

Percentage of Programs that Typically Interview and Rank Each Applicant Type 15% of Pediatric Emergency Medicine programs consider all applicant groups

100% 96% 96% N=27 90% 85% 80% 70% 60% 56% 50% 41% 40% 30% 20% 15% 10% 0% U.S. Graduate Osteopathic Canadian Fifth Pathway U.S. IMG Non-U.S. IMG Physician Frequency of Programs Interviewing and Ranking Candidates Interview Ranking 100% 100% 15% 15% 90% 22% 90% 27% 22% 28% 80% 42% 80% 46% 70% 70% 44% 60% 46% 60% 85% 93% 85% 92% 50% 50% 67% 67% 40% 40% 73% 72% 30% 58% 30% 50% 20% 38% 20% 41% 10% 10% 4% 15% 11% 4% 15% 11% 0% 4% 0% 4% 4% Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-US Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-US IMG IMG Often Seldom Never Often Seldom Never n=27 n=26

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 253 Pediatric Emergency Medicine

Figure-9 Potential Challenges in Recruiting Applicants to Your Specialty

Average rating on a scale of 5 (1=least challenging; 5=most challenging) n=25

Not enough applicants in the specialty 1.7

Undesirable income potential as a practicing physician 1.6

Undesirable work/life balance as a practicing physician 2.0

Long or irregular work hours required by specialty 2.0

Fellowship Match scheduled at inconvenient time of year 1.5

012345

Pediatric Emergency Medicine

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

n=24

We consider those applicants on an individual basis 88%

We give those applicants serious consideration if they have 33% shown improvement

We do not usually consider those applicants 8%

We favor those applicants 0%

Other 0%

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

Pediatric Emergency Medicine

Figure-11 Years as Program Director

At Any Fellowship Program At Current Fellowship Program

More than Less than 3 More than 15 Less than 3 14.3%15 17.9% 16.0% 20.0%

11 to 15 11 to 15 14.3% 12.0%

3 to 5 3 to 5 32.1% 28.0% 6 to 10 6 to 10 21.4% 24.0%

n=28 n=25

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 254 Pediatric Endocrinology

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 255 Pediatric Endocrinology Table 1 General Information

2016 Survey Number of responses 23 Response rate 41.8%

Match Information* Appointment Years 2016 2015 2014 Number of programs in the Match 55 57 60 Number of positions in the Match 83 85 84 Number of applicants ranking specialty 56 75 71 * Source: NRMP Data Warehouse

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 256 Pediatric Endocrinology Figure-1 Percentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Selecting Applicants to Interview (N=19) Percent Citing Factor Average Rating Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialty 95% 4.4 Residency performance evaluation (Program Director letter) 89% 4.7 Reputation of residency program 95% 3.8 Demonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research 95% 4.0 Perceived commitment to specialty 95% 4.4 Personal statement 89% 3.8 Perceived interest in program 95% 4.2 Evidence of professionalism and ethics 74% 4.4 USMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score 74% 3.5 Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chapters 63% 3.5 USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE score 68% 3.8 Leadership qualities 68% 4.0 Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicant 68% 4.2 Oral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements 63% 3.7 Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institution 68% 4.1 Pass USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PE 63% 3.6 Any failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX 53% 4.6 USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 score 63% 3.4 Interest in academic career 79% 4.1 Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based) 63% 3.6 Clinical/laboratory research experience 58% 3.6 Awards or special honors in medical school 53% 3.6 Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership 32% 3.8 Other life experience 53% 3.2 Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter) 47% 3.9 Graduate of highly‐regarded medical school 42% 3.7 Visa status* 68% 4.0 Volunteer/extracurricular experiences 58% 3.4 Awarded grant money for research 32% 3.7 Grades in medical school 42% 3.4 Lack of gaps in medical education 32% 3.5 Medical school class ranking/quartile 53% 3.2 Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP 37% 4.4 Electives at your fellowship site 37% 3.8 Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membership 16% 3.3 Residency class ranking/quartile 16% 3.7 Fluency in language spoken by your patient population 32% 4.0 In‐Training Examination (ITE) 11% 4.0 Residency program size 11% 3.5 Having finished another fellowship 0% 100% 50% 0% 1 2 345

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

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 257 Pediatric Endocrinology Figure-2 Percentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Ranking Applicants (N=19) Percent Citing Factor Average Rating Interactions with faculty during interview and visit 88% 4.7 Interpersonal skills 88% 4.7 Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialty 76% 4.4 Interactions with house staff during interview and visit 71% 4.9 Perceived commitment to specialty 94% 4.4 Feedback from current residents and fellows 53% 4.4 Perceived interest in program 76% 4.4 Demonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research 88% 4.0 Reputation of residency program 65% 3.7 Residency performance evaluation (Program Director letter) 59% 4.6 Evidence of professionalism and ethics 47% 4.6 Personal statement 65% 3.6 Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicant 59% 4.1 Leadership qualities 47% 4.7 Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chapters 24% 4.5 Interest in academic career 65% 4.3 Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institution 65% 4.1 USMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score 35% 4.0 USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE score 41% 4.0 Any failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX 35% 4.5 Passing USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PE 35% 4.2 Clinical/laboratory research experience 53% 4.2 USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 score 29% 4.0 Oral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements 24% 4.0 Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based) 35% 3.8 Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership 29% 3.6 Other life experience 18% 3.3 Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter) 41% 3.1 Second interview/visit 35% 4.5 Awards or special honors in medical school 24% 3.8 Visa status* 35% 4.3 Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP 29% 4.4 Graduate of highly‐regarded medical school 29% 3.6 Electives at your fellowship site 35% 4.2 Awarded grant money for research 24% 4.5 Volunteer/extracurricular experiences 18% 3.7 Medical school class ranking/quartile 24% 3.3 Lack of gaps in medical education 0% Grades in medical school 24% 3.5 Residency class ranking/quartile 6% 3.0 Fluency in language spoken by your patient population 12% 4.5 Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membership 12% 4.0 Residency program size 12% 4.0 In‐Training Examination (ITE) 0% Second interview/visit 12% 4.0 Having finished another fellowship 6% 2.0 100% 50% 0% 12345 ¹ Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). * International Medical Graduates only

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 258 Pediatric Endocrinology Figure-3 Programs That Use USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) Scores When Considering Which Applicants to Interview Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 1 Score Scores required? Would your program consider applicants who fail the 100% N=20 exam on the first attempt? 100% N=19 90% 85% 90% 80% 84% 80% 70% 70% 60% 60% 50% 50% 40% 40% 30% 30% 20% 15% 20% 11% 10% 10% 5% 0% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Never Seldom Often

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 (CK) Score Scores required? Would your program consider applicants who fail N=20 the exam on the first attempt? N=19 100% 100% 90% 90% 80% 80% 80% 74% 70% 70% 60% 60% 50% 50% 40% 40% 30% 30% 21% 20% 15% 20% 10% 5% 10% 5% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Never Seldom often

IQR* of Average USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 CK Scores Programs Consider When Granting Interviews Scores Below Which Programs Scores Above Which Programs Generally Do Not Grant Interviews Almost Always Grant Interviews

USMLE Step 2 CK USMLE Step 1 not USMLE Step 2 CK USMLE Step 1 not not reported reported because not reported reported because because of low of low response because of low of low response response rate rate response rate rate

*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.

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 259 Pediatric Endocrinology Figure-4 Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 Clinical Skill (CS), Step 3, and COMLEX-USA Scores* When Considering Which Applicants to Interview Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 CS and Step 3 Scores USMLE Step 2 CS USMLE Step 3 100% 95% N=20 100% N=20 90% 90% 80% 80% 75% 70% 70% 60% 60% 50% 50% 40% 40% 30% 30% 20% 20% 15% 10% 10% 5% 10% 0% 0% Yes No Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

Percentage of Programs That Use COMLEX-USA Level 1 and Level 2-CE Scores COMLEX-USA Level 1* COMLEX-USA Level 2-CE* 100% 100% N=14 N=13 90% 90% 80% 80% 70% 70% 60% 60% 50% 50% 46% 43% 50% 40% 40% 38% 30% 30% 20% 20% 15% 10% 7% 10% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

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

COMLEX-USA Level 2-PE* COMLEX-USA Level 3* 100% N=13 100% N=13 90% 90% 80% 80% 70% 70%

60% 54% 60% 50% 50% 46% 46% 40% 38% 40% 30% 30% 20% 20% 10% 8% 10% 8% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

* Osteopathic applicants only

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 260 Pediatric Endocrinology Figure-5 Programs That Use Core Specialty Certifying Examination When Considering Applicants for Interview Scores required? Would your program consider applicants who fail the 100% N=8 exam on the first attempt? 90% 88% N=7 80% 100% 70% 90% 86% 80% 60% 70% 50% 60% 40% 50% 30% 40% 30% 20% 13% 20% 14% 10% 10% 0% 0% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No, not required Never Seldom Often

Pediatric Endocrinology Figure-6 Programs Positions

Average Number of Accredited Positions and Funded Positions Average Percentage of Accredited Positions Offered Outside of 3.5 the Match 3.1 100% 3.0 2.6 90% 2.5 80% 70% 62% 2.0 60% 51% 51% 50% 1.5 40% 30% 1.0 20% 0.5 10% 0% 0.0 Positions Filled Before Positions Offered Outside Positions Filled Outside Accredited Positions Funded Positions Match Day the Match the Match

N=21 N=20 N=9 N=8 N=7

Pediatric Endocrinology Figure-7 Dedicated Time for Research

Program Requirement on Dedicated Time for Average Number of Months if Research Time is Research Required N=23 24 23 21 20 18 Optional 16 4.3% 15

12

8

4 Required 95.7% 0 Accredited Locally Funded Integrated Other N=10 N=6 N=3 N=2

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 261 Pediatric Endocrinology Figure-8 Program's Interview Activities

Interview Invitations Sent and Interviews Conducted

100% N=18 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 29% 26% 27% 30% 21% 23% 20% 11% 13% 10% 5% 5% 5% 6% 0% 4% 0%2% 0%0% 0% 0%1% 0% 4% 1% 3% 0% Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Interview invitations Interviews conducted

Average Number of Positions, Applications Received, Interview Average Percentage of Applicants Rejected and Reviewed Invitations Sent, and Applicants Interviewed and Ranked 24 22 100% 90% 20 80% 70% 62% 16 60% 50% 12 10 40% 38% 8 30% 8 20% 10% 4 0% Rejected based on a In-depth review 0 standardized screening Number of applications Number of interview Number of applicants process received invitations sent interviewed N=18 N=17 N=18 N=18 N=18

Percentage of Programs that Typically Interview and Rank Each Applicant Type 35% of Pediatric Endocrinology programs consider all applicant groups 100% 100% 100% N=20 95% 90% 80% 70% 60% 60% 55% 50% 40% 35% 30% 20% 10% 0% U.S. Graduate Osteopathic Canadian Fifth Pathway U.S. IMG Non-U.S. IMG Physician Frequency of Programs Interviewing and Ranking Candidates Interview Ranking 100% 100% 90% 90% 22% 21% 25% 25% 35% 30% 80% 35% 80% 50% 50% 45% 70% 70% 60% 80% 60% 80% 42% 40% 50% 50% 15% 40% 15% 40% 78% 75% 60% 65% 30% 30% 65% 50% 20% 35% 35% 20% 37% 40% 10% 15% 10% 15% 0% 5% 5% 0% 5% 5% Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-US Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-US IMG IMG Often Seldom Never Often Seldom Never n=20 n=20

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 262 Pediatric Endocrinology

Figure-9 Potential Challenges in Recruiting Applicants to Your Specialty

Average rating on a scale of 5 (1=least challenging; 5=most challenging) n=16

Not enough applicants in the specialty 4.9

Undesirable income potential as a practicing physician 4.2

Undesirable work/life balance as a practicing physician 2.6

Long or irregular work hours required by specialty 2.4

Fellowship Match scheduled at inconvenient time of year 2.5

012345

Pediatric Endocrinology

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

n=18

We consider those applicants on an individual basis 78%

We give those applicants serious consideration if they have 22% shown improvement

We do not usually consider those applicants 6%

We favor those applicants 0%

Other 0%

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

Pediatric Endocrinology

Figure-11 Years as Program Director

At Any Fellowship Program At Current Fellowship Program

More than 15 More than 15 5.0% 5.3% Less than 3 11 to 15 11 to 15 25.0% 15.8% Less than 3 20.0% 31.6%

6 to 10 6 to 3 to 5 26.3% 25.0%10 25.0% 3 to 5 21.1%

n=20 n=19

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 263 Pediatric Gastroenterology

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 264 Pediatric Gastroenterology Table 1 General Information

2016 Survey Number of responses 23 Response rate 42.6%

Match Information* Appointment Years 2016 2015 2014 Number of programs in the Match 55 51 52 Number of positions in the Match 93 85 84 Number of applicants ranking specialty 107 117 97 * Source: NRMP Data Warehouse

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 265 Pediatric Gastroenterology Figure-1 Percentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Selecting Applicants to Interview (N=18) Percent Citing Factor Average Rating Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialty 100% 4.8 Residency performance evaluation (Program Director letter) 100% 4.6 Reputation of residency program 94% 4.0 Demonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research 100% 4.4 Perceived commitment to specialty 94% 4.5 Personal statement 83% 3.9 Perceived interest in program 72% 4.7 Evidence of professionalism and ethics 83% 4.8 USMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score 94% 3.9 Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chapters 72% 4.0 USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE score 94% 4.1 Leadership qualities 61% 4.5 Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicant 78% 4.4 Oral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements 78% 3.9 Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institution 72% 4.5 Pass USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PE 83% 4.1 Any failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX 67% 4.5 USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 score 83% 4.1 Interest in academic career 89% 4.6 Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based) 83% 3.9 Clinical/laboratory research experience 72% 4.2 Awards or special honors in medical school 72% 3.8 Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership 56% 4.1 Other life experience 39% 3.7 Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter) 78% 3.8 Graduate of highly‐regarded medical school 61% 4.1 Visa status* 39% 4.6 Volunteer/extracurricular experiences 33% 3.8 Awarded grant money for research 67% 4.0 Grades in medical school 39% 4.0 Lack of gaps in medical education 44% 3.9 Medical school class ranking/quartile 56% 4.0 Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP 39% 4.9 Electives at your fellowship site 67% 3.5 Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membership 39% 4.0 Residency class ranking/quartile 44% 3.8 Fluency in language spoken by your patient population 33% 4.3 In‐Training Examination (ITE) 17% 3.0 Residency program size 67% 4.3 Having finished another fellowship 17% 3.0 100% 50% 0% 1 2 345

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

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 266 Pediatric Gastroenterology Figure-2 Percentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Ranking Applicants (N=18) Percent Citing Factor Average Rating Interactions with faculty during interview and visit 94% 4.9 Interpersonal skills 94% 4.8 Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialty 94% 4.7 Interactions with house staff during interview and visit 81% 4.8 Perceived commitment to specialty 75% 4.8 Feedback from current residents and fellows 69% 4.8 Perceived interest in program 88% 4.8 Demonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research 88% 4.5 Reputation of residency program 88% 4.4 Residency performance evaluation (Program Director letter) 81% 4.7 Evidence of professionalism and ethics 81% 4.8 Personal statement 63% 4.1 Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicant 56% 4.6 Leadership qualities 56% 4.9 Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chapters 50% 4.4 Interest in academic career 81% 4.7 Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institution 69% 4.6 USMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score 69% 4.2 USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE score 63% 4.3 Any failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX 56% 4.7 Passing USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PE 63% 4.2 Clinical/laboratory research experience 69% 4.4 USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 score 50% 4.1 Oral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements 44% 4.3 Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based) 63% 4.5 Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership 38% 4.3 Other life experience 19% 4.0 Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter) 44% 4.3 Second interview/visit 13% 4.5 Awards or special honors in medical school 56% 4.1 Visa status* 44% 4.6 Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP 38% 4.8 Graduate of highly‐regarded medical school 50% 4.0 Electives at your fellowship site 69% 4.1 Awarded grant money for research 50% 4.3 Volunteer/extracurricular experiences 13% 4.0 Medical school class ranking/quartile 31% 4.4 Lack of gaps in medical education 13% 4.5 Grades in medical school 38% 4.2 Residency class ranking/quartile 38% 3.8 Fluency in language spoken by your patient population 19% 4.7 Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membership 19% 4.0 Residency program size 44% 4.1 In‐Training Examination (ITE) 6% 4.0 Second interview/visit 6% 5.0 Having finished another fellowship 6% 4.0 100% 50% 0% 12345 ¹ Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). * International Medical Graduates only

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 267 Pediatric Gastroenterology Figure-3 Programs That Use USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) Scores When Considering Which Applicants to Interview Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 1 Score Scores required? Would your program consider applicants who fail the 100% N=18 exam on the first attempt? 90% 100% N=18 90% 80% 80% 70% 70% 67% 60% 56% 60% 50% 44% 50% 40% 40% 30% 30% 22% 20% 20% 11% 10% 10% 0% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Never Seldom Often

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 (CK) Score Scores required? Would your program consider applicants who fail N=18 the exam on the first attempt? N=18 100% 100% 90% 90% 80% 80% 70% 70% 61% 60% 60% 50% 50% 50% 50% 40% 40% 30% 30% 22% 20% 20% 17% 10% 10% 0% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Never Seldom often

IQR* of Average USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 CK Scores Programs Consider When Granting Interviews Scores Below Which Programs Scores Above Which Programs Generally Do Not Grant Interviews Almost Always Grant Interviews 260 260

250 250

240 240

230 230

220 220

210 210

200 200

190 190

180 180

170 170 USMLE Step 1 USMLE Step 2 CK USMLE Step 1 USMLE Step 2 CK N=5 N=5 N=5 N=5

*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.

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 268 Pediatric Gastroenterology Figure-4 Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 Clinical Skill (CS), Step 3, and COMLEX-USA Scores* When Considering Which Applicants to Interview Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 CS and Step 3 Scores USMLE Step 2 CS USMLE Step 3 100% N=18 100% N=18 100% 90% 90% 80% 80% 70% 70% 60% 60% 50% 50% 44% 39% 40% 40% 30% 30% 20% 20% 17% 10% 10% 0% 0% 0% Yes No Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

Percentage of Programs That Use COMLEX-USA Level 1 and Level 2-CE Scores COMLEX-USA Level 1* COMLEX-USA Level 2-CE* 100% 100% N=16 N=16 90% 90% 80% 80% 70% 70% 60% 56% 60% 50% 50% 50% 40% 40% 38% 31% 30% 30% 20% 20% 13% 13% 10% 10% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

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

COMLEX-USA Level 2-PE* COMLEX-USA Level 3* 100% N=15 100% N=16 90% 90% 80% 80% 70% 70% 60% 60%

50% 47% 50% 44% 40% 40% 40% 31% 30% 30% 25% 20% 13% 20% 10% 10% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

* Osteopathic applicants only

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 269 Pediatric Gastroenterology Figure-5 Programs That Use Core Specialty Certifying Examination When Considering Applicants for Interview Scores required? Would your program consider applicants who fail the 100% N=7 exam on the first attempt? 90% N=6 80% 100% 71% 70% 90% 83% 80% 60% 70% 50% 60% 40% 50% 30% 29% 40% 30% 20% 20% 17% 10% 10% 0% 0% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No, not required Never Seldom Often

Pediatric Gastroenterology Figure-6 Programs Positions

Average Number of Accredited Positions and Funded Positions Average Percentage of Accredited Positions Offered Outside of 3.5 3.3 the Match 100% 3.0 2.8 90% 2.5 80% 75% 70% 2.0 60% 50% 1.5 40% 37% 37% 30% 1.0 20% 0.5 10% 0% 0.0 Positions Filled Before Positions Offered Outside Positions Filled Outside Accredited Positions Funded Positions Match Day the Match the Match

N=23 N=23 N=4 N=3 N=3

Pediatric Gastroenterology Figure-7 Dedicated Time for Research

Program Requirement on Dedicated Time for Average Number of Months if Research Time is Research Required N=23 24 23 22 20

16 Optional 16 17.4%

12

8

Required 4 82.6% 0 Accredited Locally Funded Integrated Other N=11 N=5 N=0 N=2

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 270 Pediatric Gastroenterology Figure-8 Program's Interview Activities

Interview Invitations Sent and Interviews Conducted

100% N=13 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 50% 40% 30% 30% 20% 20% 16% 14% 12% 9% 10% 8% 6% 0% 0%0% 0% 0% 0% 4%3% 4% 3% 0%2% 0%0% 0% 0% Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Interview invitations Interviews conducted

Average Number of Positions, Applications Received, Interview Average Percentage of Applicants Rejected and Reviewed Invitations Sent, and Applicants Interviewed and Ranked 60 56 100% 90% 50 80% 70% 60% 40 60% 50% 30 40% 34% 30% 20 19 16 20% 10% 10 0% Rejected based on a In-depth review 0 standardized screening Number of applications Number of interview Number of applicants process received invitations sent interviewed N=22 N=22 N=22 N=22 N=22

Percentage of Programs that Typically Interview and Rank Each Applicant Type 41% of Pediatric Gastroenterology programs consider all applicant groups 100% 100% 100% 94% N=17 90% 82% 82% 80% 70% 60% 50% 41% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% U.S. Graduate Osteopathic Canadian Fifth Pathway U.S. IMG Non-U.S. IMG Physician Frequency of Programs Interviewing and Ranking Candidates Interview Ranking 100% 100% 6% 19% 90% 24% 90% 27% 35% 31% 80% 31% 80% 70% 70% 56% 56% 71% 65% 60% 60% 88% 88% 56% 50% 53% 50% 56% 40% 53% 40% 73% 30% 63% 30% 20% 20% 44% 44% 29% 35% 10% 24% 10% 25% 6% 12% 6% 13% 0% 6% 0% 6% Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-US Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-US IMG IMG Often Seldom Never Often Seldom Never n=17 n=16

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 271 Pediatric Gastroenterology

Figure-9 Potential Challenges in Recruiting Applicants to Your Specialty

Average rating on a scale of 5 (1=least challenging; 5=most challenging) n=17

Not enough applicants in the specialty 2.0

Undesirable income potential as a practicing physician 2.4

Undesirable work/life balance as a practicing physician 2.6

Long or irregular work hours required by specialty 2.8

Fellowship Match scheduled at inconvenient time of year 2.3

012345

Pediatric Gastroenterology

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

n=17

We consider those applicants on an individual basis 82%

We give those applicants serious consideration if they have 29% shown improvement

We do not usually consider those applicants 12%

We favor those applicants 6%

Other 0%

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

Pediatric Gastroenterology

Figure-11 Years as Program Director

At Any Fellowship Program At Current Fellowship Program

More than More than 15 Less than 10.5%15 Less than 3 21.1% 21.1%3 21.1%

11 to 21.1%15 3 to 5 11 to 10.5% 3 to 15.8%15 15.8%5

6 to 10 6 to 10 31.6% 31.6%

n=19 n=19

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 272 Pediatric Hematology/Oncology

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 273 Pediatric Hematology/Oncology Table 1 General Information

2016 Survey Number of responses 42 Response rate 62.7%

Match Information* Appointment Years 2016 2015 2014 Number of programs in the Match 67 65 62 Number of positions in the Match 164 162 157 Number of applicants ranking specialty 201 181 178 * Source: NRMP Data Warehouse

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 274 Pediatric Hematology/Oncology Figure-1 Percentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Selecting Applicants to Interview (N=39) Percent Citing Factor Average Rating Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialty 95% 4.4 Residency performance evaluation (Program Director letter) 82% 4.3 Reputation of residency program 85% 4.3 Demonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research 95% 4.4 Perceived commitment to specialty 87% 4.8 Personal statement 77% 4.2 Perceived interest in program 67% 4.3 Evidence of professionalism and ethics 67% 4.6 USMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score 74% 3.7 Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chapters 79% 4.2 USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE score 72% 3.7 Leadership qualities 72% 4.3 Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicant 77% 4.1 Oral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements 87% 3.9 Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institution 77% 3.9 Pass USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PE 67% 3.9 Any failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX 82% 4.6 USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 score 59% 3.7 Interest in academic career 82% 4.6 Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based) 67% 4.2 Clinical/laboratory research experience 79% 4.3 Awards or special honors in medical school 54% 3.7 Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership 62% 3.8 Other life experience 69% 3.4 Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter) 64% 3.7 Graduate of highly‐regarded medical school 62% 4.0 Visa status* 56% 4.1 Volunteer/extracurricular experiences 54% 3.6 Awarded grant money for research 59% 3.9 Grades in medical school 44% 3.4 Lack of gaps in medical education 38% 3.5 Medical school class ranking/quartile 41% 3.6 Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP 41% 4.8 Electives at your fellowship site 44% 3.7 Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membership 28% 3.5 Residency class ranking/quartile 33% 3.6 Fluency in language spoken by your patient population 26% 2.8 In‐Training Examination (ITE) 10% 4.3 Residency program size 62% 3.7 Having finished another fellowship 8% 3.0 100% 50% 0% 1 2 345

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

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 275 Pediatric Hematology/Oncology Figure-2 Percentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Ranking Applicants (N=39) Percent Citing Factor Average Rating Interactions with faculty during interview and visit 97% 4.9 Interpersonal skills 94% 4.9 Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialty 94% 4.6 Interactions with house staff during interview and visit 75% 4.7 Perceived commitment to specialty 92% 4.6 Feedback from current residents and fellows 86% 4.5 Perceived interest in program 86% 4.3 Demonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research 94% 4.6 Reputation of residency program 81% 4.3 Residency performance evaluation (Program Director letter) 69% 4.6 Evidence of professionalism and ethics 81% 4.9 Personal statement 69% 4.1 Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicant 69% 4.3 Leadership qualities 69% 4.5 Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chapters 75% 4.3 Interest in academic career 78% 4.8 Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institution 50% 3.9 USMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score 58% 4.1 USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE score 58% 4.1 Any failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX 64% 4.7 Passing USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PE 58% 4.2 Clinical/laboratory research experience 81% 4.3 USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 score 50% 4.1 Oral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements 75% 4.0 Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based) 58% 4.1 Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership 56% 4.0 Other life experience 42% 4.0 Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter) 47% 4.1 Second interview/visit 47% 4.1 Awards or special honors in medical school 50% 3.9 Visa status* 44% 4.3 Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP 42% 4.9 Graduate of highly‐regarded medical school 44% 4.2 Electives at your fellowship site 33% 4.3 Awarded grant money for research 53% 4.2 Volunteer/extracurricular experiences 39% 3.6 Medical school class ranking/quartile 42% 3.9 Lack of gaps in medical education 28% 4.1 Grades in medical school 19% 4.1 Residency class ranking/quartile 25% 3.9 Fluency in language spoken by your patient population 17% 3.2 Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membership 19% 4.1 Residency program size 53% 4.0 In‐Training Examination (ITE) 6% 4.5 Second interview/visit 22% 4.1 Having finished another fellowship 6% 2.5 100% 50% 0% 12345 ¹ Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). * International Medical Graduates only

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 276 Pediatric Hematology/Oncology Figure-3 Programs That Use USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) Scores When Considering Which Applicants to Interview Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 1 Score Scores required? Would your program consider applicants who fail the 100% N=39 exam on the first attempt? 90% 100% N=38 90% 80% 79% 80% 70% 64% 70% 60% 60% 50% 50% 40% 40% 28% 30% 30% 20% 20% 16% 8% 10% 10% 5% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Never Seldom Often

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 (CK) Score Scores required? Would your program consider applicants who fail N=39 the exam on the first attempt? N=38 100% 100% 90% 90% 80% 80% 71% 70% 64% 70% 60% 60% 50% 50% 40% 40% 28% 30% 30% 24% 20% 20% 10% 8% 10% 5% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Never Seldom often

IQR* of Average USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 CK Scores Programs Consider When Granting Interviews Scores Below Which Programs Scores Above Which Programs Generally Do Not Grant Interviews Almost Always Grant Interviews 260 260

250 250

240 240

230 230

220 220

210 210

200 200

190 190

180 180

170 170 USMLE Step 1 USMLE Step 2 CK USMLE Step 1 USMLE Step 2 CK N=9 N=8 N=9 N=9

*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.

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 277 Pediatric Hematology/Oncology Figure-4 Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 Clinical Skill (CS), Step 3, and COMLEX-USA Scores* When Considering Which Applicants to Interview Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 CS and Step 3 Scores USMLE Step 2 CS USMLE Step 3 100% N=38 100% N=37 92% 90% 90% 80% 80% 70% 70% 62% 60% 60% 50% 50% 40% 40% 30% 30% 22% 20% 20% 16% 10% 8% 10% 0% 0% Yes No Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

Percentage of Programs That Use COMLEX-USA Level 1 and Level 2-CE Scores COMLEX-USA Level 1* COMLEX-USA Level 2-CE* 100% 100% N=29 N=29 90% 90% 80% 80% 70% 70% 60% 60% 52% 52% 50% 50% 40% 40% 31% 31% 30% 30% 20% 17% 20% 17% 10% 10% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

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

COMLEX-USA Level 2-PE* COMLEX-USA Level 3* 100% N=28 100% N=28 90% 90% 80% 80% 70% 70% 60% 57% 60% 57% 50% 50% 40% 40% 30% 25% 30% 21% 21% 20% 18% 20% 10% 10% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

* Osteopathic applicants only

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 278 Pediatric Hematology/Oncology Figure-5 Programs That Use Core Specialty Certifying Examination When Considering Applicants for Interview Scores required? Would your program consider applicants who fail the 100% N=14 exam on the first attempt? 93% 90% N=8 80% 100% 70% 90% 80% 60% 70% 63% 50% 60% 40% 50% 38% 30% 40% 30% 20% 20% 10% 7% 10% 0% 0% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No, not required Never Seldom Often

Pediatric Hematology/Oncology Figure-6 Programs Positions

Average Number of Accredited Positions and Funded Positions Average Percentage of Accredited Positions Offered Outside of 5 4.7 the Match 4.5 100% 4 90% 80% 75% 75% 70% 70% 3 60% 50% 2 40% 30% 20% 1 10% 0% 0 Positions Filled Before Positions Offered Outside Positions Filled Outside Accredited Positions Funded Positions Match Day the Match the Match

N=42 N=40 N=3 N=2 N=2

Pediatric Hematology/Oncology Figure-7 Dedicated Time for Research

Program Requirement on Dedicated Time for Average Number of Months if Research Time is Research Required N=42 24 22 21 20 17 Optional 16 15 14.3%

12

8

4 Required 85.7% 0 Accredited Locally Funded Integrated Other N=23 N=4 N=7 N=5

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 279 Pediatric Hematology/Oncology Figure-8 Program's Interview Activities

Interview Invitations Sent and Interviews Conducted

100% N=39 90% 80% 78% 70% 60% 50% 40% 33% 30% 30% 22% 20% 11% 10% 8% 8% 2% 1% 0%1% 0%0% 0% 0%0% 0% 0%0% 0%0% 0% 0% 3% 0% Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Interview invitations Interviews conducted

Average Number of Positions, Applications Received, Interview Average Percentage of Applicants Rejected and Reviewed Invitations Sent, and Applicants Interviewed and Ranked 70 100% 62 90% 60 80% 76% 50 70% 60% 40 50% 40% 36% 30 23 30% 20 20 20% 10% 10 0% Rejected based on a In-depth review 0 standardized screening Number of applications Number of interview Number of applicants process received invitations sent interviewed N=41 N=41 N=41 N=41 N=41

Percentage of Programs that Typically Interview and Rank Each Applicant Type 33% of Pediatric Hematology/Oncology programs consider all applicant groups

100% 95% 95% N=40 90% 83% 80% 73% 70% 68% 60% 50% 40% 33% 30% 20% 10% 0% U.S. Graduate Osteopathic Canadian Fifth Pathway U.S. IMG Non-U.S. IMG Physician Frequency of Programs Interviewing and Ranking Candidates Interview Ranking 100% 100% 8% 6% 90% 90% 34% 25% 32% 34% 30% 80% 24% 44% 42% 80% 70% 70% 71% 60% 77% 60% 50% 95% 50% 95% 46% 54% 40% 45% 40% 68% 42% 69% 58% 30% 51% 30% 20% 20% 24% 21% 10% 21% 16% 10% 22% 16% 3% 3% 8% 0% 3% 3% 5% 0% 3% 5% Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-US Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-US IMG IMG Often Seldom Never Often Seldom Never n=39 n=38

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 280 Pediatric Hematology/Oncology

Figure-9 Potential Challenges in Recruiting Applicants to Your Specialty

Average rating on a scale of 5 (1=least challenging; 5=most challenging) n=35

Not enough applicants in the specialty 1.5

Undesirable income potential as a practicing physician 2.8

Undesirable work/life balance as a practicing physician 3.6

Long or irregular work hours required by specialty 3.1

Fellowship Match scheduled at inconvenient time of year 2.6

012345

Pediatric Hematology/Oncology

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

n=34

We consider those applicants on an individual basis 59%

We give those applicants serious consideration if they have 18% shown improvement

We do not usually consider those applicants 29%

We favor those applicants 0%

Other 3%

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

Pediatric Hematology/Oncology

Figure-11 Years as Program Director

At Any Fellowship Program At Current Fellowship Program

More than 15 More than 15 11 to 158.8% Less than 3 11 to 158.8% Less than 3 5.9% 20.6% 5.9% 23.5%

6 to 10 6 to 10 26.5% 32.4% 3 to 5 32.4% 3 to 5 35.3%

n=34 n=34

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 281 Pediatric Hospital Medicine

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 282 Pediatric Hospital Medicine Table 1 General Information

2016 Survey Number of responses 12 Response rate 41.4%

Match Information* Appointment Years 2016 2015 2014 Number of programs in the Match 30 24 Number of positions in the Match 38 30 Number of applicants ranking specialty 38 37 * Source: NRMP Data Warehouse

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 283 Pediatric Hospital Medicine Figure-1 Percentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Selecting Applicants to Interview (N=12) Percent Citing Factor Average Rating Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialty 92% 4.5 Residency performance evaluation (Program Director letter) 92% 4.4 Reputation of residency program 83% 3.7 Demonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research 75% 3.6 Perceived commitment to specialty 92% 4.8 Personal statement 92% 4.3 Perceived interest in program 100% 4.3 Evidence of professionalism and ethics 92% 4.8 USMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score 50% 3.0 Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chapters 42% 4.0 USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE score 58% 3.2 Leadership qualities 75% 4.4 Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicant 100% 3.8 Oral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements 50% 3.8 Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institution 58% 3.8 Pass USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PE 58% 3.5 Any failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX 42% 3.0 USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 score 50% 3.2 Interest in academic career 92% 4.1 Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based) 58% 3.5 Clinical/laboratory research experience 33% 2.7 Awards or special honors in medical school 42% 3.5 Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership 67% 3.0 Other life experience 42% 3.3 Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter) 8% Graduate of highly‐regarded medical school 50% 3.4 Visa status* 75% 3.8 Volunteer/extracurricular experiences 42% 3.5 Awarded grant money for research 17% 3.0 Grades in medical school 33% 3.7 Lack of gaps in medical education 17% 3.5 Medical school class ranking/quartile 17% 4.0 Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP 58% 4.2 Electives at your fellowship site 0% Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membership 42% 3.3 Residency class ranking/quartile 8% 3.0 Fluency in language spoken by your patient population 25% 2.7 In‐Training Examination (ITE) 8% 4.0 Residency program size 33% 3.7 Having finished another fellowship 0% 100% 50% 0% 1 2 345

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

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 284 Pediatric Hospital Medicine Figure-2 Percentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Ranking Applicants (N=12) Percent Citing Factor Average Rating Interactions with faculty during interview and visit 82% 4.9 Interpersonal skills 82% 4.9 Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialty 82% 4.3 Interactions with house staff during interview and visit 45% 4.6 Perceived commitment to specialty 91% 4.8 Feedback from current residents and fellows 73% 4.6 Perceived interest in program 64% 5.0 Demonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research 73% 3.6 Reputation of residency program 55% 3.6 Residency performance evaluation (Program Director letter) 82% 4.8 Evidence of professionalism and ethics 73% 4.6 Personal statement 73% 4.3 Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicant 36% 4.8 Leadership qualities 64% 4.6 Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chapters 9% 4.0 Interest in academic career 73% 4.3 Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institution 27% 4.0 USMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score 9% 5.0 USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE score 9% 5.0 Any failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX 18% 3.0 Passing USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PE 18% 4.0 Clinical/laboratory research experience 9% 2.0 USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 score 9% 5.0 Oral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements 9% 3.0 Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based) 36% 3.3 Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership 9% 4.0 Other life experience 27% 3.7 Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter) 9% 4.0 Second interview/visit 45% 4.2 Awards or special honors in medical school 9% 4.0 Visa status* 36% 4.0 Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP 27% 4.7 Graduate of highly‐regarded medical school 9% 3.0 Electives at your fellowship site 9% 4.0 Awarded grant money for research 0% Volunteer/extracurricular experiences 27% 3.7 Medical school class ranking/quartile 9% 4.0 Lack of gaps in medical education 9% 4.0 Grades in medical school 0% Residency class ranking/quartile 0% Fluency in language spoken by your patient population 9% 2.0 Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membership 18% 4.5 Residency program size 36% 3.7 In‐Training Examination (ITE) 18% 3.5 Second interview/visit 18% 4.5 Having finished another fellowship 0% 100% 50% 0% 12345 ¹ Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). * International Medical Graduates only

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 285 Pediatric Hospital Medicine Figure-3 Programs That Use USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) Scores When Considering Which Applicants to Interview Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 1 Score Scores required? Would your program consider applicants who fail the 100% N=12 exam on the first attempt? 100% N=12 90% 83% 90% 80% 80% 70% 70% 67% 60% 60% 50% 50% 40% 40% 30% 30% 25% 20% 20% 8% 8% 10% 10% 8% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Never Seldom Often

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 (CK) Score Scores required? Would your program consider applicants who fail N=12 the exam on the first attempt? N=12 100% 100% 90% 83% 90% 80% 80% 75% 70% 70% 60% 60% 50% 50% 40% 40% 30% 30% 20% 20% 17% 10% 8% 8% 10% 8% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Never Seldom often

IQR* of Average USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 CK Scores Programs Consider When Granting Interviews Scores Below Which Programs Scores Above Which Programs Generally Do Not Grant Interviews Almost Always Grant Interviews

USMLE Step 2 CK USMLE Step 1 not USMLE Step 2 CK USMLE Step 1 not not reported reported because not reported reported because because of low of low response because of low of low response response rate rate response rate rate

*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.

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 286 Pediatric Hospital Medicine Figure-4 Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 Clinical Skill (CS), Step 3, and COMLEX-USA Scores* When Considering Which Applicants to Interview Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 CS and Step 3 Scores USMLE Step 2 CS USMLE Step 3 100% N=12 100% N=12 92% 92% 90% 90% 80% 80% 70% 70% 60% 60% 50% 50% 40% 40% 30% 30% 20% 20% 10% 8% 10% 8% 0% 0% 0% Yes No Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

Percentage of Programs That Use COMLEX-USA Level 1 and Level 2-CE Scores COMLEX-USA Level 1* COMLEX-USA Level 2-CE* 100% 100% N=11 N=11 90% 90% 82% 80% 80% 73% 70% 70% 60% 60% 50% 50% 40% 40% 30% 30% 20% 18% 20% 18% 9% 10% 10% 0% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

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

COMLEX-USA Level 2-PE* COMLEX-USA Level 3* 100% N=11 100% N=11 90% 90% 82% 82% 80% 80% 70% 70% 60% 60% 50% 50% 40% 40% 30% 30% 20% 18% 20% 18% 10% 10% 0% 0% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

* Osteopathic applicants only

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 287 Pediatric Hospital Medicine Figure-5 Programs That Use Core Specialty Certifying Examination When Considering Applicants for Interview Scores required? Would your program consider applicants who fail the N=6 100% exam on the first attempt? 100% N=3 90% 80% 100% 90% 70% 80% 60% 70% 50% 60% 40% 50% 40% 33% 33% 33% 30% 30% 20% 20% 10% 10% 0% 0% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No, not required Never Seldom Often

Pediatric Hospital Medicine Figure-6 Programs Positions

Average Number of Accredited Positions and Funded Positions Average Percentage of Accredited Positions Offered Outside of 1.4 1.3 1.4 the Match 100% 100% 1.2 90% 1.0 80% 70% 0.8 60% 50% 0.6 40% 30% 0.4 20% 0.2 10% 0% 0.0 Positions Filled Before Positions Offered Outside Positions Filled Outside Accredited Positions Funded Positions Match Day the Match the Match

N=12 N=11 N=2 N=0 N=0

Pediatric Hospital Medicine Figure-7 Dedicated Time for Research

Program Requirement on Dedicated Time for Average Number of Months if Research Time is Research Required N=12 12 11

10

8 Optional 8 7 16.7% 6 6

4

Required 2 83.3% 0 Accredited Locally Funded Integrated Other N=1 N=3 N=3 N=3

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 288 Pediatric Hospital Medicine Figure-8 Program's Interview Activities

Interview Invitations Sent and Interviews Conducted

100% N=12 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 43% 40% 33% 35% 32% 30% 21% 20% 15% 10% 8% 0% 0% 0%0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% 1% 0% 0% 0% Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Interview invitations Interviews conducted

Average Number of Positions, Applications Received, Interview Average Percentage of Applicants Rejected and Reviewed Invitations Sent, and Applicants Interviewed and Ranked 10 100% 96% 9 90% 8 80% 7 70% 6 60% 6 50% 40% 4 30% 20% 8% 2 10% 0% Rejected based on a In-depth review 0 standardized screening Number of applications Number of interview Number of applicants process received invitations sent interviewed N=11 N=11 N=11 N=11 N=11

Percentage of Programs that Typically Interview and Rank Each Applicant Type 42% of Pediatric Hospital Medicine programs consider all applicant groups 100% 100% 100% N=12 90% 80% 75% 70% 60% 50% 50% 50% 42% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% U.S. Graduate Osteopathic Canadian Fifth Pathway U.S. IMG Non-U.S. IMG Physician Frequency of Programs Interviewing and Ranking Candidates Interview Ranking 100% 100% 8% 9% 90% 17% 90% 17% 25% 27% 33% 80% 33% 80% 33% 36% 70% 25% 70% 25% 60% 60% 92% 92% 50% 100% 50% 100% 40% 75% 40% 67% 73% 67% 30% 58% 58% 30% 55% 58% 20% 20% 10% 10% 8% 8% 0% 0% Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-US Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-US IMG IMG Often Seldom Never Often Seldom Never n=12 n=12

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 289 Pediatric Hospital Medicine

Figure-9 Potential Challenges in Recruiting Applicants to Your Specialty

Average rating on a scale of 5 (1=least challenging; 5=most challenging) n=10

Not enough applicants in the specialty 2.8

Undesirable income potential as a practicing physician 2.6

Undesirable work/life balance as a practicing physician 2.2

Long or irregular work hours required by specialty 2.4

Fellowship Match scheduled at inconvenient time of year 1.6

012345

Pediatric Hospital Medicine

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

n=9

We consider those applicants on an individual basis 100%

We give those applicants serious consideration if they have 22% shown improvement

We do not usually consider those applicants 0%

We favor those applicants 0%

Other 0%

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

Pediatric Hospital Medicine

Figure-11 Years as Program Director

At Any Fellowship Program At Current Fellowship Program

6 to 10 6 to 10 8.3% 8.3%

3 to 5 3 to 33.3% 33.3%5 Less than 3 Less than 3 58.3% 58.3%

n=12 n=12

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 290 Pediatric Infectious Diseases

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 291 Pediatric Infectious Diseases Table 1 General Information

2016 Survey Number of responses 29 Response rate 56.9%

Match Information* Appointment Years 2016 2015 2014 Number of programs in the Match 53 51 48 Number of positions in the Match 70 66 64 Number of applicants ranking specialty 49 34 48 * Source: NRMP Data Warehouse

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 292 Pediatric Infectious Diseases Figure-1 Percentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Selecting Applicants to Interview (N=24) Percent Citing Factor Average Rating Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialty 100% 4.3 Residency performance evaluation (Program Director letter) 100% 4.5 Reputation of residency program 92% 4.0 Demonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research 92% 4.0 Perceived commitment to specialty 100% 4.6 Personal statement 100% 3.8 Perceived interest in program 83% 4.3 Evidence of professionalism and ethics 83% 4.6 USMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score 71% 3.6 Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chapters 92% 3.6 USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE score 75% 3.6 Leadership qualities 71% 4.1 Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicant 54% 3.8 Oral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements 83% 3.5 Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institution 54% 3.7 Pass USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PE 67% 3.8 Any failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX 58% 4.2 USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 score 50% 3.6 Interest in academic career 96% 4.5 Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based) 63% 4.0 Clinical/laboratory research experience 88% 3.6 Awards or special honors in medical school 63% 3.5 Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership 54% 3.6 Other life experience 46% 3.4 Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter) 50% 3.5 Graduate of highly‐regarded medical school 63% 3.6 Visa status* 67% 3.8 Volunteer/extracurricular experiences 29% 3.0 Awarded grant money for research 63% 3.3 Grades in medical school 38% 3.3 Lack of gaps in medical education 42% 3.3 Medical school class ranking/quartile 38% 3.4 Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP 38% 4.7 Electives at your fellowship site 29% 3.6 Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membership 17% 3.3 Residency class ranking/quartile 21% 3.4 Fluency in language spoken by your patient population 25% 3.5 In‐Training Examination (ITE) 8% 3.0 Residency program size 33% 3.6 Having finished another fellowship 8% 3.0 100% 50% 0% 1 2 345

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

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 293 Pediatric Infectious Diseases Figure-2 Percentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Ranking Applicants (N=24) Percent Citing Factor Average Rating Interactions with faculty during interview and visit 88% 4.9 Interpersonal skills 92% 4.7 Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialty 100% 4.3 Interactions with house staff during interview and visit 71% 4.7 Perceived commitment to specialty 88% 4.7 Feedback from current residents and fellows 75% 4.6 Perceived interest in program 79% 4.5 Demonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research 83% 4.0 Reputation of residency program 79% 3.9 Residency performance evaluation (Program Director letter) 83% 4.4 Evidence of professionalism and ethics 63% 4.7 Personal statement 71% 4.2 Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicant 50% 4.2 Leadership qualities 58% 4.1 Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chapters 58% 3.6 Interest in academic career 88% 4.6 Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institution 29% 4.1 USMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score 63% 3.7 USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE score 67% 3.8 Any failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX 46% 4.5 Passing USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PE 54% 4.0 Clinical/laboratory research experience 63% 4.0 USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 score 46% 3.9 Oral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements 42% 3.7 Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based) 42% 4.0 Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership 42% 3.6 Other life experience 29% 3.0 Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter) 46% 3.7 Second interview/visit 33% 4.1 Awards or special honors in medical school 38% 3.7 Visa status* 33% 4.0 Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP 21% 4.6 Graduate of highly‐regarded medical school 50% 3.6 Electives at your fellowship site 25% 3.0 Awarded grant money for research 42% 3.6 Volunteer/extracurricular experiences 29% 3.3 Medical school class ranking/quartile 29% 3.3 Lack of gaps in medical education 17% 4.0 Grades in medical school 33% 3.3 Residency class ranking/quartile 13% 3.7 Fluency in language spoken by your patient population 21% 4.0 Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membership 25% 3.8 Residency program size 25% 3.8 In‐Training Examination (ITE) 13% 3.0 Second interview/visit 13% 4.0 Having finished another fellowship 8% 3.0 100% 50% 0% 12345 ¹ Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). * International Medical Graduates only

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 294 Pediatric Infectious Diseases Figure-3 Programs That Use USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) Scores When Considering Which Applicants to Interview Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 1 Score Scores required? Would your program consider applicants who fail the 100% N=23 exam on the first attempt? 90% 100% N=23 90% 87% 80% 74% 80% 70% 70% 60% 60% 50% 50% 40% 40% 30% 22% 30% 20% 20% 9% 10% 4% 10% 4% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Never Seldom Often

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 (CK) Score Scores required? Would your program consider applicants who fail N=24 the exam on the first attempt? N=23 100% 100% 90% 90% 80% 75% 80% 70% 70% 65% 60% 60% 50% 50% 40% 40% 30% 30% 26% 21% 20% 20% 9% 10% 4% 10% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Never Seldom often

IQR* of Average USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 CK Scores Programs Consider When Granting Interviews Scores Below Which Programs Scores Above Which Programs Generally Do Not Grant Interviews Almost Always Grant Interviews

USMLE Step 2 CK USMLE Step 1 not USMLE Step 2 CK USMLE Step 1 not not reported reported because not reported reported because because of low of low response because of low of low response response rate rate response rate rate

*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.

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 295 Pediatric Infectious Diseases Figure-4 Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 Clinical Skill (CS), Step 3, and COMLEX-USA Scores* When Considering Which Applicants to Interview Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 CS and Step 3 Scores USMLE Step 2 CS USMLE Step 3 100% 96% N=24 100% N=24 90% 90% 80% 80% 70% 70% 60% 60% 58% 50% 50% 40% 40% 29% 30% 30% 20% 20% 13% 10% 4% 10% 0% 0% Yes No Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

Percentage of Programs That Use COMLEX-USA Level 1 and Level 2-CE Scores COMLEX-USA Level 1* COMLEX-USA Level 2-CE* 100% 100% N=17 N=17 90% 90% 80% 80% 70% 70% 60% 59% 53% 60% 50% 50% 40% 35% 40% 35% 30% 30% 20% 20% 12% 10% 10% 6% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

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

COMLEX-USA Level 2-PE* COMLEX-USA Level 3* 100% N=17 100% N=17 90% 90% 80% 80% 70% 70%

60% 53% 60% 53% 50% 50% 41% 41% 40% 40% 30% 30% 20% 20% 10% 6% 10% 6% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

* Osteopathic applicants only

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 296 Pediatric Infectious Diseases Figure-5 Programs That Use Core Specialty Certifying Examination When Considering Applicants for Interview Scores required? Would your program consider applicants who fail the N=14 100% exam on the first attempt? 100% N=10 90% 80% 100% 90% 70% 80% 60% 70% 50% 60% 50% 50% 40% 50% 40% 30% 30% 20% 20% 10% 10% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No, not required Never Seldom Often

Pediatric Infectious Diseases Figure-6 Programs Positions

Average Number of Accredited Positions and Funded Positions Average Percentage of Accredited Positions Offered Outside of 3.2 the Match 2.9 100% 2.8 2.6 90% 2.4 80% 2.0 70% 60% 57% 1.6 50% 40% 1.2 32% 31% 30% 0.8 20% 0.4 10% 0% 0.0 Positions Filled Before Positions Offered Outside Positions Filled Outside Accredited Positions Funded Positions Match Day the Match the Match

N=28 N=27 N=10 N=5 N=4

Pediatric Infectious Diseases Figure-7 Dedicated Time for Research

Program Requirement on Dedicated Time for Average Number of Months if Research Time is Research Required N=29 24 22 21 20 19 18 Optional 16 3.4%

12

8

4 Required 96.6% 0 Accredited Locally Funded Integrated Other N=16 N=4 N=4 N=5

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 297 Pediatric Infectious Diseases Figure-8 Program's Interview Activities

Interview Invitations Sent and Interviews Conducted

100% N=23 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 38% 34% 29% 30% 27% 20% 15% 12% 11% 9% 10% 4% 6% 4% 0%0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 3% 0% 0% Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Interview invitations Interviews conducted

Average Number of Positions, Applications Received, Interview Average Percentage of Applicants Rejected and Reviewed Invitations Sent, and Applicants Interviewed and Ranked 16 15 100% 14 90% 80% 76% 12 70% 10 60% 8 50% 8 7 40% 6 30% 25% 20% 4 10% 2 0% Rejected based on a In-depth review 0 standardized screening Number of applications Number of interview Number of applicants process received invitations sent interviewed N=24 N=24 N=25 N=25 N=26

Percentage of Programs that Typically Interview and Rank Each Applicant Type 42% of Pediatric Infectious Diseases programs consider all applicant groups 100% 100% 96% N=26 90% 80% 73% 69% 70% 62% 60% 50% 42% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% U.S. Graduate Osteopathic Canadian Fifth Pathway U.S. IMG Non-U.S. IMG Physician Frequency of Programs Interviewing and Ranking Candidates Interview Ranking 100% 100% 90% 15% 19% 90% 23% 19% 32% 27% 32% 35% 80% 42% 80% 38% 70% 70% 60% 50% 60% 85% 88% 46% 50% 62% 50% 58% 40% 65% 40% 68% 54% 68% 58% 30% 58% 30% 20% 20% 35% 31% 10% 4% 19% 10% 8% 23% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 0% 0% Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-US Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-US IMG IMG Often Seldom Never Often Seldom Never n=26 n=26

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 298 Pediatric Infectious Diseases

Figure-9 Potential Challenges in Recruiting Applicants to Your Specialty

Average rating on a scale of 5 (1=least challenging; 5=most challenging) n=24

Not enough applicants in the specialty 4.8

Undesirable income potential as a practicing physician 4.7

Undesirable work/life balance as a practicing physician 2.7

Long or irregular work hours required by specialty 2.0

Fellowship Match scheduled at inconvenient time of year 1.6

012345

Pediatric Infectious Diseases

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

n=24

We consider those applicants on an individual basis 92%

We give those applicants serious consideration if they have 17% shown improvement

We do not usually consider those applicants 8%

We favor those applicants 0%

Other 0%

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

Pediatric Infectious Diseases

Figure-11 Years as Program Director

At Any Fellowship Program At Current Fellowship Program

More than 15 Less than 3 More than Less than 3 17.9% 17.9% 14.8%15 18.5% 11 to 15 11 to 3.7% 3.6%15

3 to 5 3 to 5 25.0% 25.9% 6 to 10 6 to 10 37.0% 35.7%

n=28 n=27

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 299 Pediatric Nephrology

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 300 Pediatric Nephrology Table 1 General Information

2016 Survey Number of responses 17 Response rate 41.5%

Match Information* Appointment Years 2016 2015 2014 Number of programs in the Match 41 39 42 Number of positions in the Match 62 58 61 Number of applicants ranking specialty 28 23 37 * Source: NRMP Data Warehouse

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 301 Pediatric Nephrology Figure-1 Percentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Selecting Applicants to Interview (N=15) Percent Citing Factor Average Rating Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialty 100% 4.5 Residency performance evaluation (Program Director letter) 87% 4.8 Reputation of residency program 73% 3.6 Demonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research 93% 3.9 Perceived commitment to specialty 87% 4.4 Personal statement 73% 3.9 Perceived interest in program 87% 4.2 Evidence of professionalism and ethics 73% 4.4 USMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score 87% 3.5 Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chapters 67% 3.5 USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE score 80% 3.5 Leadership qualities 33% 4.0 Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicant 53% 4.5 Oral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements 67% 3.2 Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institution 80% 4.4 Pass USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PE 87% 3.6 Any failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX 53% 4.1 USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 score 67% 3.4 Interest in academic career 73% 4.4 Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based) 53% 4.0 Clinical/laboratory research experience 87% 3.8 Awards or special honors in medical school 73% 3.6 Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership 40% 3.8 Other life experience 33% 3.6 Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter) 87% 3.3 Graduate of highly‐regarded medical school 33% 3.6 Visa status* 73% 4.4 Volunteer/extracurricular experiences 27% 3.3 Awarded grant money for research 67% 3.5 Grades in medical school 60% 3.3 Lack of gaps in medical education 33% 4.2 Medical school class ranking/quartile 47% 3.4 Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP 27% 5.0 Electives at your fellowship site 27% 3.3 Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membership 20% 3.0 Residency class ranking/quartile 20% 3.7 Fluency in language spoken by your patient population 40% 3.7 In‐Training Examination (ITE) 27% 4.3 Residency program size 20% 3.7 Having finished another fellowship 13% 2.5 100% 50% 0% 1 2 345

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

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 302 Pediatric Nephrology Figure-2 Percentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Ranking Applicants (N=15) Percent Citing Factor Average Rating Interactions with faculty during interview and visit 100% 4.8 Interpersonal skills 100% 4.7 Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialty 73% 4.5 Interactions with house staff during interview and visit 87% 4.8 Perceived commitment to specialty 93% 4.5 Feedback from current residents and fellows 73% 4.8 Perceived interest in program 73% 4.3 Demonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research 87% 3.7 Reputation of residency program 60% 3.8 Residency performance evaluation (Program Director letter) 67% 4.5 Evidence of professionalism and ethics 60% 4.4 Personal statement 47% 3.6 Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicant 40% 4.5 Leadership qualities 20% 4.3 Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chapters 53% 3.8 Interest in academic career 67% 4.3 Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institution 67% 4.4 USMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score 27% 3.3 USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE score 33% 3.4 Any failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX 33% 4.0 Passing USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PE 40% 3.5 Clinical/laboratory research experience 73% 3.6 USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 score 20% 3.7 Oral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements 33% 4.0 Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based) 27% 4.0 Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership 20% 3.0 Other life experience 20% 4.0 Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter) 33% 3.8 Second interview/visit 40% 3.8 Awards or special honors in medical school 40% 3.7 Visa status* 60% 4.1 Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP 20% 5.0 Graduate of highly‐regarded medical school 33% 3.8 Electives at your fellowship site 40% 3.8 Awarded grant money for research 53% 3.4 Volunteer/extracurricular experiences 20% 3.7 Medical school class ranking/quartile 20% 3.0 Lack of gaps in medical education 27% 3.5 Grades in medical school 20% 3.7 Residency class ranking/quartile 33% 3.6 Fluency in language spoken by your patient population 33% 3.6 Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membership 13% 3.5 Residency program size 13% 3.0 In‐Training Examination (ITE) 20% 4.0 Second interview/visit 13% 4.5 Having finished another fellowship 7% 2.0 100% 50% 0% 12345 ¹ Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). * International Medical Graduates only

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 303 Pediatric Nephrology Figure-3 Programs That Use USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) Scores When Considering Which Applicants to Interview Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 1 Score Scores required? Would your program consider applicants who fail the 100% N=15 exam on the first attempt? 90% 87% 100% N=15 90% 80% 80% 70% 70% 67% 60% 60% 50% 50% 40% 40% 30% 30% 20% 20% 13% 20% 13% 10% 10% 0% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Never Seldom Often

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 (CK) Score Scores required? Would your program consider applicants who fail N=15 the exam on the first attempt? N=15 100% 100% 90% 87% 90% 80% 80% 70% 70% 67% 60% 60% 50% 50% 40% 40% 30% 30% 20% 20% 13% 20% 13% 10% 10% 0% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Never Seldom often

IQR* of Average USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 CK Scores Programs Consider When Granting Interviews Scores Below Which Programs Scores Above Which Programs Generally Do Not Grant Interviews Almost Always Grant Interviews

USMLE Step 2 CK USMLE Step 1 not USMLE Step 2 CK USMLE Step 1 not not reported reported because not reported reported because because of low of low response because of low of low response response rate rate response rate rate

*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.

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 304 Pediatric Nephrology Figure-4 Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 Clinical Skill (CS), Step 3, and COMLEX-USA Scores* When Considering Which Applicants to Interview Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 CS and Step 3 Scores USMLE Step 2 CS USMLE Step 3 100% N=15 100% N=15 100% 90% 90% 80% 80% 80% 70% 70% 60% 60% 50% 50% 40% 40% 30% 30% 20% 20% 13% 10% 10% 7% 0% 0% 0% Yes No Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

Percentage of Programs That Use COMLEX-USA Level 1 and Level 2-CE Scores COMLEX-USA Level 1* COMLEX-USA Level 2-CE* 100% 100% N=8 N=8 90% 90% 80% 75% 80% 75% 70% 70% 60% 60% 50% 50% 40% 40% 30% 25% 30% 25% 20% 20% 10% 10% 0% 0% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

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

COMLEX-USA Level 2-PE* COMLEX-USA Level 3* 100% N=8 100% N=8 90% 90% 80% 75% 80% 75% 70% 70% 60% 60% 50% 50% 40% 40% 30% 25% 30% 25% 20% 20% 10% 10% 0% 0% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

* Osteopathic applicants only

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 305 Pediatric Nephrology Figure-5 Programs That Use Core Specialty Certifying Examination When Considering Applicants for Interview Scores required? Would your program consider applicants who fail the N=7 100% exam on the first attempt? 100% N=6 90% 80% 100% 90% 70% 80% 60% 70% 50% 60% 50% 40% 50% 40% 33% 30% 30% 20% 20% 17% 10% 10% 0% 0% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No, not required Never Seldom Often

Pediatric Nephrology Figure-6 Programs Positions

Average Number of Accredited Positions and Funded Positions Average Percentage of Accredited Positions Offered Outside of 3.2 the Match 2.8 2.9 2.8 100% 90% 2.4 80% 75% 75% 2.0 70% 60% 54% 1.6 50% 1.2 40% 30% 0.8 20% 0.4 10% 0% 0.0 Positions Filled Before Positions Offered Outside Positions Filled Outside Accredited Positions Funded Positions Match Day the Match the Match

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

Pediatric Nephrology Figure-7 Dedicated Time for Research

Program Requirement on Dedicated Time for Average Number of Months if Research Time is Research Required N=17 24 21 20 20 18 18

16

12

8

4 Required 100.0% 0 Accredited Locally Funded Integrated Other N=15 N=2 N=1 N=1

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 306 Pediatric Nephrology Figure-8 Program's Interview Activities

Interview Invitations Sent and Interviews Conducted

100% N=11 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 35% 35% 36% 29% 30% 20% 12% 13% 10% 11% 10% 6% 4% 0%0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 3% 0% Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Interview invitations Interviews conducted

Average Number of Positions, Applications Received, Interview Average Percentage of Applicants Rejected and Reviewed Invitations Sent, and Applicants Interviewed and Ranked 12 100% 91% 10 90% 10 80% 70% 8 8 60% 6 50% 6 40% 30% 4 20% 12% 10% 2 0% Rejected based on a In-depth review 0 standardized screening Number of applications Number of interview Number of applicants process received invitations sent interviewed N=16 N=16 N=16 N=17 N=17

Percentage of Programs that Typically Interview and Rank Each Applicant Type 40% of Pediatric Nephrology programs consider all applicant groups 100% 100% 93% N=15 90% 87% 80% 80% 70% 67% 60% 50% 40% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% U.S. Graduate Osteopathic Canadian Fifth Pathway U.S. IMG Non-U.S. IMG Physician Frequency of Programs Interviewing and Ranking Candidates Interview Ranking 100% 100% 90% 14% 90% 21% 29% 29% 80% 40% 43% 80% 53% 70% 60% 70% 60% 57% 60% 60% 87% 93% 50% 71% 50% 64% 40% 40% 71% 71% 27% 30% 60% 50% 20% 30% 33% 36% 20% 20% 10% 13% 14% 20% 10% 14% 20% 0% 7% 0% 7% 7% 7% Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-US Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-US IMG IMG Often Seldom Never Often Seldom Never n=15 n=15

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 307 Pediatric Nephrology

Figure-9 Potential Challenges in Recruiting Applicants to Your Specialty

Average rating on a scale of 5 (1=least challenging; 5=most challenging) n=15

Not enough applicants in the specialty 4.9

Undesirable income potential as a practicing physician 3.8

Undesirable work/life balance as a practicing physician 3.9

Long or irregular work hours required by specialty 3.6

Fellowship Match scheduled at inconvenient time of year 1.9

012345

Pediatric Nephrology

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

n=15

We consider those applicants on an individual basis 60%

We give those applicants serious consideration if they have 33% shown improvement

We do not usually consider those applicants 20%

We favor those applicants 0%

Other 0%

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

Pediatric Nephrology

Figure-11 Years as Program Director

At Any Fellowship Program At Current Fellowship Program

11 to 15 11 to 15Less than 3 7.1% 13.3% Less than 3 14.3% 20.0% 6 to 10 6 to 14.3% 6.7%10

3 to 5 3 to 5 60.0% 64.3%

n=15 n=14

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 308 Pediatric Pulmonology

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 309 Pediatric Pulmonology Table 1 General Information

2016 Survey Number of responses 20 Response rate 43.5%

Match Information* Appointment Years 2016 2015 2014 Number of programs in the Match 47 43 41 Number of positions in the Match 66 61 56 Number of applicants ranking specialty 44 33 32 * Source: NRMP Data Warehouse

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 310 Pediatric Pulmonology Figure-1 Percentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Selecting Applicants to Interview (N=14) Percent Citing Factor Average Rating Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialty 100% 4.5 Residency performance evaluation (Program Director letter) 100% 4.5 Reputation of residency program 100% 3.8 Demonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research 100% 3.8 Perceived commitment to specialty 93% 4.8 Personal statement 86% 4.5 Perceived interest in program 93% 4.7 Evidence of professionalism and ethics 71% 4.5 USMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score 64% 3.8 Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chapters 86% 3.3 USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE score 64% 3.9 Leadership qualities 86% 3.9 Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicant 79% 4.0 Oral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements 79% 3.5 Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institution 86% 4.1 Pass USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PE 79% 4.5 Any failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX 57% 4.4 USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 score 57% 4.0 Interest in academic career 86% 4.5 Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based) 64% 3.9 Clinical/laboratory research experience 79% 3.5 Awards or special honors in medical school 71% 3.3 Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership 50% 3.5 Other life experience 64% 3.4 Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter) 64% 3.8 Graduate of highly‐regarded medical school 57% 4.0 Visa status* 50% 4.1 Volunteer/extracurricular experiences 57% 3.6 Awarded grant money for research 57% 3.4 Grades in medical school 50% 3.4 Lack of gaps in medical education 29% 3.3 Medical school class ranking/quartile 50% 3.3 Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP 36% 4.2 Electives at your fellowship site 71% 3.4 Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membership 43% 3.7 Residency class ranking/quartile 21% 3.3 Fluency in language spoken by your patient population 36% 3.0 In‐Training Examination (ITE) 7% 4.0 Residency program size 43% 3.0 Having finished another fellowship 21% 2.3 100% 50% 0% 1 2 345

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

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 311 Pediatric Pulmonology Figure-2 Percentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Ranking Applicants (N=14) Percent Citing Factor Average Rating Interactions with faculty during interview and visit 100% 4.8 Interpersonal skills 100% 4.8 Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialty 100% 4.4 Interactions with house staff during interview and visit 86% 4.9 Perceived commitment to specialty 86% 4.7 Feedback from current residents and fellows 93% 4.8 Perceived interest in program 71% 4.7 Demonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research 93% 3.9 Reputation of residency program 86% 3.6 Residency performance evaluation (Program Director letter) 79% 4.4 Evidence of professionalism and ethics 71% 4.5 Personal statement 71% 4.6 Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicant 86% 4.3 Leadership qualities 43% 3.6 Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chapters 64% 3.8 Interest in academic career 71% 4.3 Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institution 71% 3.9 USMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score 57% 3.9 USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE score 64% 3.9 Any failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX 43% 4.6 Passing USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PE 57% 4.3 Clinical/laboratory research experience 79% 3.5 USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 score 57% 4.0 Oral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements 64% 4.0 Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based) 43% 4.0 Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership 29% 3.0 Other life experience 29% 3.0 Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter) 57% 3.6 Second interview/visit 43% 4.2 Awards or special honors in medical school 43% 3.4 Visa status* 43% 3.7 Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP 36% 4.6 Graduate of highly‐regarded medical school 36% 3.4 Electives at your fellowship site 50% 3.6 Awarded grant money for research 50% 3.6 Volunteer/extracurricular experiences 43% 3.2 Medical school class ranking/quartile 14% 3.0 Lack of gaps in medical education 21% 3.7 Grades in medical school 43% 3.4 Residency class ranking/quartile 14% 4.0 Fluency in language spoken by your patient population 14% 3.0 Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membership 29% 3.5 Residency program size 29% 3.3 In‐Training Examination (ITE) 7% 4.0 Second interview/visit 21% 3.7 Having finished another fellowship 14% 3.0 100% 50% 0% 12345 ¹ Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). * International Medical Graduates only

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 312 Pediatric Pulmonology Figure-3 Programs That Use USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) Scores When Considering Which Applicants to Interview Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 1 Score Scores required? Would your program consider applicants who fail the 100% N=14 exam on the first attempt? 90% 100% N=14 90% 80% 79% 80% 70% 71% 70% 60% 60% 50% 50% 40% 40% 30% 29% 21% 30% 20% 20% 10% 10% 0% 0% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Never Seldom Often

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 (CK) Score Scores required? Would your program consider applicants who fail N=14 the exam on the first attempt? N=14 100% 100% 90% 90% 86% 79% 80% 80% 70% 70% 60% 60% 50% 50% 40% 40% 30% 30% 21% 20% 20% 10% 10% 7% 7% 0% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Never Seldom often

IQR* of Average USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 CK Scores Programs Consider When Granting Interviews Scores Below Which Programs Scores Above Which Programs Generally Do Not Grant Interviews Almost Always Grant Interviews

USMLE Step 2 CK USMLE Step 1 not USMLE Step 2 CK USMLE Step 1 not not reported reported because not reported reported because because of low of low response because of low of low response response rate rate response rate rate

*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.

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 313 Pediatric Pulmonology Figure-4 Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 Clinical Skill (CS), Step 3, and COMLEX-USA Scores* When Considering Which Applicants to Interview Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 CS and Step 3 Scores USMLE Step 2 CS USMLE Step 3 100% N=14 100% N=12 100% 90% 90% 80% 80% 75% 70% 70% 60% 60% 50% 50% 40% 40% 30% 30% 20% 20% 17% 10% 10% 8% 0% 0% 0% Yes No Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

Percentage of Programs That Use COMLEX-USA Level 1 and Level 2-CE Scores COMLEX-USA Level 1* COMLEX-USA Level 2-CE* 100% 100% N=12 N=12 90% 90% 80% 75% 80% 75% 70% 70% 60% 60% 50% 50% 40% 40% 30% 25% 30% 25% 20% 20% 10% 10% 0% 0% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

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

COMLEX-USA Level 2-PE* COMLEX-USA Level 3* 100% N=12 100% N=10 90% 90% 80% 75% 80% 70% 70% 70% 60% 60% 50% 50% 40% 40% 30% 30% 25% 30% 20% 20% 10% 10% 0% 0% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

* Osteopathic applicants only

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 314 Pediatric Pulmonology Figure-5 Programs That Use Core Specialty Certifying Examination When Considering Applicants for Interview Scores required? Would your program consider applicants who fail the 100% N=7 exam on the first attempt? 90% N=3 100% 80% 100% 71% 70% 90% 80% 60% 70% 50% 60% 40% 50% 30% 40% 30% 20% 14% 14% 20% 10% 10% 0% 0% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No, not required Never Seldom Often

Pediatric Pulmonology Figure-6 Programs Positions

Average Number of Accredited Positions and Funded Positions Average Percentage of Accredited Positions Offered Outside of 2.8 2.8 the Match 2.6 100% 2.4 90%

2.0 80% 75% 70% 1.6 60% 50% 42% 42% 1.2 40% 30% 0.8 20% 0.4 10% 0% 0.0 Positions Filled Before Positions Offered Outside Positions Filled Outside Accredited Positions Funded Positions Match Day the Match the Match

N=20 N=18 N=6 N=2 N=2

Pediatric Pulmonology Figure-7 Dedicated Time for Research

Program Requirement on Dedicated Time for Average Number of Months if Research Time is Research Required N=20 20 18

16 16

Optional 20.0% 12 11

8

4 Required 80.0%

0 Accredited Locally Funded Integrated Other N=12 N=2 N=0 N=2

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 315 Pediatric Pulmonology Figure-8 Program's Interview Activities

Interview Invitations Sent and Interviews Conducted

100% N=14 90% 80% 70% 60% 49% 50% 40% 37% 30% 25% 27% 16% 20% 11% 10% 7% 7% 7% 2% 0%0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Interview invitations Interviews conducted

Average Number of Positions, Applications Received, Interview Average Percentage of Applicants Rejected and Reviewed Invitations Sent, and Applicants Interviewed and Ranked 16 15 100% 90% 14 79% 80% 12 70% 10 10 60% 9 50% 8 40% 6 30% 19% 20% 4 10% 2 0% Rejected based on a In-depth review 0 standardized screening Number of applications Number of interview Number of applicants process received invitations sent interviewed N=17 N=17 N=17 N=17 N=17

Percentage of Programs that Typically Interview and Rank Each Applicant Type 14% of Pediatric Pulmonology programs consider all applicant groups

100% 93% N=14 90% 86% 86% 79% 80% 70% 60% 57% 50% 40% 30% 20% 14% 10% 0% U.S. Graduate Osteopathic Canadian Fifth Pathway U.S. IMG Non-U.S. IMG Physician Frequency of Programs Interviewing and Ranking Candidates Interview Ranking 100% 100% 15% 15% 90% 90% 23% 31% 31% 31% 80% 80% 46% 46% 70% 54% 70% 62% 46% 60% 85% 38% 60% 85% 50% 50% 40% 40% 85% 69% 69% 69% 46% 30% 54% 30% 46% 20% 38% 20% 38% 38% 10% 15% 10% 15% 8% 0% 0% Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-US Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-US IMG IMG Often Seldom Never Often Seldom Never n=13 n=13

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 316 Pediatric Pulmonology

Figure-9 Potential Challenges in Recruiting Applicants to Your Specialty

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

Not enough applicants in the specialty 4.9

Undesirable income potential as a practicing physician 4.0

Undesirable work/life balance as a practicing physician 3.2

Long or irregular work hours required by specialty 1.8

Fellowship Match scheduled at inconvenient time of year 2.8

012345

Pediatric Pulmonology

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

n=13

We consider those applicants on an individual basis 92%

We give those applicants serious consideration if they have 23% shown improvement

We do not usually consider those applicants 0%

We favor those applicants 8%

Other 0%

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

Pediatric Pulmonology

Figure-11 Years as Program Director

At Any Fellowship Program At Current Fellowship Program

More than 15 More than 15 11.8% 5.9% Less than 11 to 15 29.4%3 17.6% Less than 3 11 to 15 35.3% 17.6%

3 to 5 11.8% 6 to 10 3 to 5 6 to 10 29.4% 11.8% 29.4%

n=17 n=17

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 317 Pediatric Rheumatology

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 318 Pediatric Rheumatology Table 1 General Information

2016 Survey Number of responses 10 Response rate 35.7%

Match Information* Appointment Years 2016 2015 2014 Number of programs in the Match 28 30 29 Number of positions in the Match 37 40 38 Number of applicants ranking specialty 29 27 30 * Source: NRMP Data Warehouse

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 319 Pediatric Rheumatology Figure-1 Percentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Selecting Applicants to Interview (N=9) Percent Citing Factor Average Rating Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialty 89% 4.1 Residency performance evaluation (Program Director letter) 100% 4.6 Reputation of residency program 67% 4.0 Demonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research 100% 3.9 Perceived commitment to specialty 78% 4.7 Personal statement 89% 4.4 Perceived interest in program 89% 4.4 Evidence of professionalism and ethics 78% 4.5 USMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score 100% 3.8 Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chapters 89% 3.7 USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE score 100% 3.8 Leadership qualities 67% 3.8 Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicant 56% 3.8 Oral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements 78% 3.0 Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institution 56% 3.8 Pass USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PE 100% 3.9 Any failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX 67% 4.0 USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 score 89% 3.7 Interest in academic career 100% 4.5 Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based) 56% 4.2 Clinical/laboratory research experience 100% 3.6 Awards or special honors in medical school 78% 3.7 Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership 89% 4.1 Other life experience 67% 3.4 Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter) 78% 3.8 Graduate of highly‐regarded medical school 89% 4.1 Visa status* 44% 3.8 Volunteer/extracurricular experiences 78% 3.7 Awarded grant money for research 78% 3.7 Grades in medical school 56% 4.0 Lack of gaps in medical education 44% 3.3 Medical school class ranking/quartile 56% 3.8 Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP 22% 4.5 Electives at your fellowship site 67% 3.5 Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membership 78% 4.2 Residency class ranking/quartile 22% 4.0 Fluency in language spoken by your patient population 22% 4.5 In‐Training Examination (ITE) 11% Residency program size 22% 3.5 Having finished another fellowship 0% 100% 50% 0% 1 2 345

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

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 320 Pediatric Rheumatology Figure-2 Percentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Ranking Applicants (N=9) Percent Citing Factor Average Rating Interactions with faculty during interview and visit 100% 4.6 Interpersonal skills 100% 4.7 Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialty 86% 4.3 Interactions with house staff during interview and visit 86% 4.7 Perceived commitment to specialty 86% 4.2 Feedback from current residents and fellows 57% 3.8 Perceived interest in program 86% 4.3 Demonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research 86% 4.3 Reputation of residency program 71% 4.0 Residency performance evaluation (Program Director letter) 71% 4.4 Evidence of professionalism and ethics 43% 4.3 Personal statement 100% 4.0 Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicant 29% 4.5 Leadership qualities 71% 4.0 Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chapters 57% 3.8 Interest in academic career 71% 4.8 Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institution 0% USMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score 86% 3.8 USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE score 86% 3.8 Any failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX 29% 4.0 Passing USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PE 71% 3.8 Clinical/laboratory research experience 57% 3.8 USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 score 71% 3.6 Oral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements 0% Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based) 57% 4.5 Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership 57% 4.5 Other life experience 29% 4.0 Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter) 57% 4.3 Second interview/visit 0% Awards or special honors in medical school 57% 4.3 Visa status* 29% 4.0 Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP 43% 4.7 Graduate of highly‐regarded medical school 57% 4.0 Electives at your fellowship site 29% 4.0 Awarded grant money for research 29% 4.5 Volunteer/extracurricular experiences 29% 4.0 Medical school class ranking/quartile 43% 4.3 Lack of gaps in medical education 29% 4.0 Grades in medical school 43% 3.3 Residency class ranking/quartile 43% 4.0 Fluency in language spoken by your patient population 0% Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membership 29% 5.0 Residency program size 0% In‐Training Examination (ITE) 0% Second interview/visit 29% 3.5 Having finished another fellowship 0% 100% 50% 0% 12345 ¹ Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). * International Medical Graduates only

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 321 Pediatric Rheumatology Figure-3 Programs That Use USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) Scores When Considering Which Applicants to Interview Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 1 Score Scores required? Would your program consider applicants who fail the 100% N=8 exam on the first attempt? 90% 100% N=8 90% 88% 80% 80% 70% 63% 70% 60% 60% 50% 50% 40% 40% 30% 25% 30% 20% 13% 20% 13% 10% 10% 0% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Never Seldom Often

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 (CK) Score Scores required? Would your program consider applicants who fail N=8 the exam on the first attempt? N=8 100% 100% 90% 90% 80% 80% 70% 63% 70% 63% 60% 60% 50% 50% 40% 40% 30% 25% 30% 25% 20% 13% 20% 13% 10% 10% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Never Seldom often

IQR* of Average USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 CK Scores Programs Consider When Granting Interviews Scores Below Which Programs Scores Above Which Programs Generally Do Not Grant Interviews Almost Always Grant Interviews

USMLE Step 2 CK USMLE Step 1 not USMLE Step 2 CK USMLE Step 1 not not reported reported because not reported reported because because of low of low response because of low of low response response rate rate response rate rate

*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.

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 322 Pediatric Rheumatology Figure-4 Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 Clinical Skill (CS), Step 3, and COMLEX-USA Scores* When Considering Which Applicants to Interview Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 CS and Step 3 Scores USMLE Step 2 CS USMLE Step 3 100% N=8 100% N=8 90% 90% 80% 75% 80% 70% 70% 60% 60% 50% 50% 50% 40% 40% 38% 30% 25% 30% 20% 20% 13% 10% 10% 0% 0% Yes No Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

Percentage of Programs That Use COMLEX-USA Level 1 and Level 2-CE Scores COMLEX-USA Level 1* COMLEX-USA Level 2-CE* 100% 100% N=5 N=5 90% 90% 80% 80% 70% 70% 60% 60% 50% 50% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 30% 30% 20% 20% 20% 20% 10% 10% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

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

COMLEX-USA Level 2-PE* COMLEX-USA Level 3* 100% N=5 100% N=5 90% 90% 80% 80% 70% 70% 60% 60% 50% 50% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 30% 30% 20% 20% 20% 20% 10% 10% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

* Osteopathic applicants only

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 323 Pediatric Rheumatology Figure-5 Programs That Use Core Specialty Certifying Examination When Considering Applicants for Interview Scores required? Would your program consider applicants who fail the N=4 100% exam on the first attempt? 100% N=5 90% 80% 100% 90% 70% 80% 60% 70% 50% 60% 50% 40% 40% 40% 40% 30% 30% 20% 20% 20% 10% 10% 0% 0% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No, not required Never Seldom Often

Pediatric Rheumatology Figure-6 Programs Positions

Average Number of Accredited Positions and Funded Positions Average Percentage of Accredited Positions Offered Outside of 3.5 the Match 3.1 100% 3.0 90% 2.5 2.4 80% 70% 61% 2.0 60% 50% 50% 50% 1.5 40% 30% 1.0 20% 0.5 10% 0% 0.0 Positions Filled Before Positions Offered Outside Positions Filled Outside Accredited Positions Funded Positions Match Day the Match the Match

N=10 N=10 N=3 N=2 N=2

Pediatric Rheumatology Figure-7 Dedicated Time for Research

Program Requirement on Dedicated Time for Average Number of Months if Research Time is Research Required N=10 24 24 24 22

20 19

Optional 10.0% 16

12

8

4 Required 90.0% 0 Accredited Locally Funded Integrated Other N=5 N=4 N=1 N=1

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 324 Pediatric Rheumatology Figure-8 Program's Interview Activities

Interview Invitations Sent and Interviews Conducted

100% N=8 90% 80% 70% 60% 52% 50% 40% 40% 31% 30% 23% 20% 13% 11% 10% 4% 5% 4% 5% 0%0% 0% 0% 0%0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Interview invitations Interviews conducted

Average Number of Positions, Applications Received, Interview Average Percentage of Applicants Rejected and Reviewed Invitations Sent, and Applicants Interviewed and Ranked 12 100% 12 90% 90% 10 80% 70% 8 8 60% 7 50% 6 40% 30% 4 20% 16% 10% 2 0% Rejected based on a In-depth review 0 standardized screening Number of applications Number of interview Number of applicants process received invitations sent interviewed N=9 N=9 N=9 N=10 N=10

Percentage of Programs that Typically Interview and Rank Each Applicant Type 60% of Pediatric Rheumatology programs consider all applicant groups

100% N=10 90% 90% 80% 80% 80% 80% 70% 70% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% U.S. Graduate Osteopathic Canadian Fifth Pathway U.S. IMG Non-U.S. IMG Physician Frequency of Programs Interviewing and Ranking Candidates Interview Ranking 100% 100% 90% 90% 25% 29% 29% 80% 38% 80% 70% 57% 70% 63% 71% 67% 75% 60% 60% 88% 86% 86% 50% 50% 40% 40% 75% 71% 71% 30% 63% 30% 43% 14% 20% 13% 38% 20% 33% 10% 10% 13% 13% 14% 14% 14% 0% 0% Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-US Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-US IMG IMG Often Seldom Never Often Seldom Never n=8 n=7

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 325 Pediatric Rheumatology

Figure-9 Potential Challenges in Recruiting Applicants to Your Specialty

Average rating on a scale of 5 (1=least challenging; 5=most challenging) n=7

Not enough applicants in the specialty 4.8

Undesirable income potential as a practicing physician 3.7

Undesirable work/life balance as a practicing physician 2.0

Long or irregular work hours required by specialty 1.7

Fellowship Match scheduled at inconvenient time of year 2.0

012345

Pediatric Rheumatology

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

n=7

We consider those applicants on an individual basis 57%

We give those applicants serious consideration if they have 29% shown improvement

We do not usually consider those applicants 29%

We favor those applicants 0%

Other 0%

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

Pediatric Rheumatology

Figure-11 Years as Program Director

At Any Fellowship Program At Current Fellowship Program

More than 15 11 to 15 10.0% 11.1% Less than 3 11 to 15 Less than 3 22.2% 10.0% 30.0%

6 to 10 6 to 10 50.0% 66.7%

n=10 n=9

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 326 Pediatric Surgery

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 327 Pediatric Surgery Table 1 General Information

2016 Survey Number of responses 12 Response rate 32.4%

Match Information* Appointment Years 2016 2015 2014 Number of programs in the Match 38 47 37 Number of positions in the Match 39 48 38 Number of applicants ranking specialty 77 83 71 * Source: NRMP Data Warehouse

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 328 Pediatric Surgery Figure-1 Percentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Selecting Applicants to Interview (N=11) Percent Citing Factor Average Rating Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialty 91% 4.6 Residency performance evaluation (Program Director letter) 82% 4.8 Reputation of residency program 100% 4.6 Demonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research 82% 3.4 Perceived commitment to specialty 55% 3.8 Personal statement 73% 4.2 Perceived interest in program 27% 3.7 Evidence of professionalism and ethics 91% 4.8 USMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score 64% 3.8 Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chapters 82% 4.4 USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE score 64% 3.8 Leadership qualities 91% 4.4 Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicant 82% 4.4 Oral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements 91% 4.1 Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institution 36% 3.0 Pass USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PE 36% 3.8 Any failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX 45% 4.0 USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 score 45% 4.0 Interest in academic career 36% 4.0 Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based) 82% 4.3 Clinical/laboratory research experience 82% 4.1 Awards or special honors in medical school 45% 3.3 Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership 73% 3.2 Other life experience 73% 3.6 Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter) 9% 3.0 Graduate of highly‐regarded medical school 36% 4.3 Visa status* 18% 3.0 Volunteer/extracurricular experiences 36% 3.3 Awarded grant money for research 45% 4.0 Grades in medical school 64% 3.5 Lack of gaps in medical education 0% Medical school class ranking/quartile 18% 3.0 Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP 45% 5.0 Electives at your fellowship site 0% Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membership 36% 2.7 Residency class ranking/quartile 9% 4.0 Fluency in language spoken by your patient population 27% 4.5 In‐Training Examination (ITE) 100% 4.1 Residency program size 36% 3.7 Having finished another fellowship 36% 2.3 100% 50% 0% 1 2 345

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

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 329 Pediatric Surgery Figure-2 Percentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Ranking Applicants (N=11) Percent Citing Factor Average Rating Interactions with faculty during interview and visit 70% 4.9 Interpersonal skills 80% 4.7 Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialty 60% 4.7 Interactions with house staff during interview and visit 70% 4.7 Perceived commitment to specialty 20% 5.0 Feedback from current residents and fellows 50% 5.0 Perceived interest in program 30% 4.3 Demonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research 30% 3.7 Reputation of residency program 90% 5.0 Residency performance evaluation (Program Director letter) 50% 4.4 Evidence of professionalism and ethics 70% 4.4 Personal statement 50% 3.8 Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicant 40% 4.3 Leadership qualities 70% 4.4 Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chapters 50% 4.0 Interest in academic career 30% 4.0 Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institution 20% 2.5 USMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score 30% 4.3 USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE score 30% 4.3 Any failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX 30% 4.3 Passing USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PE 20% 4.5 Clinical/laboratory research experience 50% 4.2 USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 score 20% 4.5 Oral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements 40% 4.0 Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based) 50% 4.8 Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership 30% 3.3 Other life experience 30% 3.3 Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter) 0% Second interview/visit 20% 3.5 Awards or special honors in medical school 20% 4.0 Visa status* 20% 4.5 Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP 20% 5.0 Graduate of highly‐regarded medical school 20% 4.5 Electives at your fellowship site 0% Awarded grant money for research 20% 4.0 Volunteer/extracurricular experiences 10% 4.0 Medical school class ranking/quartile 10% 4.0 Lack of gaps in medical education 10% 3.0 Grades in medical school 20% 4.0 Residency class ranking/quartile 0% Fluency in language spoken by your patient population 20% 4.5 Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membership 10% 3.0 Residency program size 10% 4.0 In‐Training Examination (ITE) 70% 4.3 Second interview/visit 0% Having finished another fellowship 20% 3.0 100% 50% 0% 12345 ¹ Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). * International Medical Graduates only

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 330 Pediatric Surgery Figure-3 Programs That Use USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) Scores When Considering Which Applicants to Interview Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 1 Score Scores required? Would your program consider applicants who fail the 100% N=10 exam on the first attempt? N=10100% 90% 100% 80% 90% 70% 80% 60% 60% 70% 60% 50% 50% 40% 30% 40% 30% 30% 20% 20% 10% 10% 10% 0% 0% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Never Seldom Often

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 (CK) Score Scores required? Would your program consider applicants who fail N=10 the exam on the first attempt? N=10 100% 100% 90% 90% 90% 80% 80% 70% 70% 60% 60% 60% 50% 50% 40% 40% 30% 30% 30% 20% 20% 10% 10% 10% 10% 0% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Never Seldom often

IQR* of Average USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 CK Scores Programs Consider When Granting Interviews Scores Below Which Programs Scores Above Which Programs Generally Do Not Grant Interviews Almost Always Grant Interviews

USMLE Step 2 CK USMLE Step 1 not USMLE Step 2 CK USMLE Step 1 not not reported reported because not reported reported because because of low of low response because of low of low response response rate rate response rate rate

*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.

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 331 Pediatric Surgery Figure-4 Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 Clinical Skill (CS), Step 3, and COMLEX-USA Scores* When Considering Which Applicants to Interview Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 CS and Step 3 Scores USMLE Step 2 CS USMLE Step 3 100% N=10 100% N=9 90% 90% 90% 80% 80% 78% 70% 70% 60% 60% 50% 50% 40% 40% 30% 30% 20% 20% 10% 11% 11% 10% 10% 0% 0% Yes No Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

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

Not reported because Not reported because of low response rate of low response rate

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

Not reported because Not reported because of low response rate of low response rate

* Osteopathic applicants only

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 332 Pediatric Surgery Figure-5 Programs That Use Core Specialty Certifying Examination When Considering Applicants for Interview Scores required? Would your program consider applicants who fail the 100% N=4 exam on the first attempt? 90% N=4 80% 75% 100% 70% 90% 80% 75% 60% 70% 50% 60% 40% 50% 40% 30% 25% 30% 25% 20% 20% 10% 10% 0% 0% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No, not required Never Seldom Often

Pediatric Surgery Figure-6 Programs Positions

Average Number of Accredited Positions and Funded Positions Average Percentage of Accredited Positions Offered Outside of 1.2 1.2 1.2 the Match 100% 100% 100% 100% 1.0 90% 80% 0.8 70% 60% 0.6 50% 40% 0.4 30% 20% 0.2 10% 0% 0.0 Positions Filled Before Positions Offered Outside Positions Filled Outside Accredited Positions Funded Positions Match Day the Match the Match

N=12 N=12 N=1 N=1 N=1

Pediatric Surgery Figure-7 Dedicated Time for Research

Program Requirement on Dedicated Time for Average Number of Months if Research Time is Research Required N=12 6

4

2

0

-2

-4 Optional 100.0% -6 Accredited Locally Funded Integrated Other N=0 N=0 N=0 N=0

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 333 Pediatric Surgery Figure-8 Program's Interview Activities

Interview Invitations Sent and Interviews Conducted

100% N=10 90% 80% 78% 70% 60% 50% 40% 34% 30% 26% 20% 14% 9% 9% 10% 8% 4% 0%0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Interview invitations Interviews conducted

Average Number of Positions, Applications Received, Interview Average Percentage of Applicants Rejected and Reviewed Invitations Sent, and Applicants Interviewed and Ranked 90 100% 80 80 90% 83% 80% 70 70% 60 60% 50 50% 47% 40 40% 30% 30 27 26 20% 20 10% 10 0% Rejected based on a In-depth review 0 standardized screening Number of applications Number of interview Number of applicants process received invitations sent interviewed N=10 N=11 N=11 N=11 N=11

Percentage of Programs that Typically Interview and Rank Each Applicant Type 25% of Pediatric Surgery programs consider all applicant groups 100% 100% N=12 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 50% 40% 33% 33% 30% 25% 25% 20% 10% 0% U.S. Graduate Osteopathic Canadian Fifth Pathway U.S. IMG Non-U.S. IMG Physician Frequency of Programs Interviewing and Ranking Candidates Interview Ranking 100% 100% 9% 9% 90% 90% 36% 80% 36% 80% 45% 45% 55% 70% 70% 73% 60% 60% 73% 73% 91% 50% 100% 100% 50% 100% 40% 40% 55% 64% 30% 55% 30% 55% 20% 20% 45% 27% 10% 18% 18% 10% 9% 9% 0% 0% Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-US Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-US IMG IMG Often Seldom Never Often Seldom Never n=11 n=10

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 334 Pediatric Surgery

Figure-9 Potential Challenges in Recruiting Applicants to Your Specialty

Average rating on a scale of 5 (1=least challenging; 5=most challenging) n=9

Not enough applicants in the specialty 1.4

Undesirable income potential as a practicing physician 1.7

Undesirable work/life balance as a practicing physician 2.6

Long or irregular work hours required by specialty 2.8

Fellowship Match scheduled at inconvenient time of year 1.8

012345

Pediatric Surgery

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

n=10

We consider those applicants on an individual basis 90%

We give those applicants serious consideration if they have 40% shown improvement

We do not usually consider those applicants 0%

We favor those applicants 0%

Other 0%

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

Pediatric Surgery

Figure-11 Years as Program Director

At Any Fellowship Program At Current Fellowship Program

More than 15 More than 15 12.5% 12.5%

Less than 3 6 to 10 Less than 3 37.5% 12.5% 37.5% 6 to 10 25.0%

3 to 5 3 to 5 37.5% 25.0%

n=8 n=8

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 335 Psychosomatic Medicine

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 336 Psychosomatic Medicine Table 1 General Information

2016 Survey Number of responses 17 Response rate 34.0%

Match Information* Appointment Years 2016 2015 2014 Number of programs in the Match 51 50 51 Number of positions in the Match 101 93 95 Number of applicants ranking specialty 80 68 73 * Source: NRMP Data Warehouse

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 337 Psychosomatic Medicine Figure-1 Percentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Selecting Applicants to Interview (N=12) Percent Citing Factor Average Rating Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialty 100% 4.7 Residency performance evaluation (Program Director letter) 83% 4.9 Reputation of residency program 83% 3.4 Demonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research 58% 4.0 Perceived commitment to specialty 75% 4.9 Personal statement 83% 4.5 Perceived interest in program 83% 5.0 Evidence of professionalism and ethics 75% 5.0 USMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score 67% 3.4 Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chapters 50% 4.0 USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE score 75% 3.3 Leadership qualities 92% 4.5 Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicant 75% 4.4 Oral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements 58% 4.1 Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institution 83% 4.2 Pass USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PE 75% 3.9 Any failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX 33% 3.5 USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 score 67% 3.7 Interest in academic career 75% 4.1 Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based) 42% 3.4 Clinical/laboratory research experience 33% 4.0 Awards or special honors in medical school 42% 4.2 Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership 42% 3.8 Other life experience 58% 4.0 Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter) 50% 3.7 Graduate of highly‐regarded medical school 42% 3.6 Visa status* 42% 3.8 Volunteer/extracurricular experiences 50% 4.3 Awarded grant money for research 25% 4.3 Grades in medical school 42% 3.0 Lack of gaps in medical education 50% 4.0 Medical school class ranking/quartile 42% 3.6 Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP 33% 5.0 Electives at your fellowship site 67% 4.5 Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membership 42% 3.2 Residency class ranking/quartile 25% 4.3 Fluency in language spoken by your patient population 25% 3.7 In‐Training Examination (ITE) 8% 3.0 Residency program size 25% 3.0 Having finished another fellowship 17% 4.5 100% 50% 0% 1 2 345

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

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 338 Psychosomatic Medicine Figure-2 Percentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Ranking Applicants (N=12) Percent Citing Factor Average Rating Interactions with faculty during interview and visit 92% 4.9 Interpersonal skills 92% 5.0 Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialty 100% 4.7 Interactions with house staff during interview and visit 92% 4.9 Perceived commitment to specialty 92% 4.7 Feedback from current residents and fellows 83% 4.9 Perceived interest in program 83% 4.5 Demonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research 58% 4.3 Reputation of residency program 58% 3.5 Residency performance evaluation (Program Director letter) 75% 4.7 Evidence of professionalism and ethics 83% 4.9 Personal statement 92% 4.4 Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicant 75% 4.6 Leadership qualities 83% 4.6 Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chapters 42% 4.4 Interest in academic career 67% 4.4 Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institution 83% 4.2 USMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score 58% 3.7 USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE score 58% 3.7 Any failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX 33% 3.3 Passing USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PE 58% 4.0 Clinical/laboratory research experience 42% 3.8 USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 score 58% 3.8 Oral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements 50% 4.2 Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based) 17% 3.5 Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership 42% 4.0 Other life experience 50% 4.5 Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter) 50% 4.2 Second interview/visit 50% 4.5 Awards or special honors in medical school 42% 4.2 Visa status* 17% 3.0 Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP 33% 5.0 Graduate of highly‐regarded medical school 42% 4.0 Electives at your fellowship site 33% 4.8 Awarded grant money for research 25% 4.3 Volunteer/extracurricular experiences 58% 4.4 Medical school class ranking/quartile 42% 4.0 Lack of gaps in medical education 33% 4.8 Grades in medical school 42% 4.0 Residency class ranking/quartile 42% 3.8 Fluency in language spoken by your patient population 25% 4.0 Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membership 25% 3.7 Residency program size 8% 5.0 In‐Training Examination (ITE) 17% 3.0 Second interview/visit 42% 4.8 Having finished another fellowship 25% 4.0 100% 50% 0% 12345 ¹ Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). * International Medical Graduates only

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 339 Psychosomatic Medicine Figure-3 Programs That Use USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) Scores When Considering Which Applicants to Interview Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 1 Score Scores required? Would your program consider applicants who fail the 100% N=13 exam on the first attempt? 92% 90% 100% N=11 90% 80% 80% 70% 73% 70% 60% 60% 50% 50% 40% 40% 30% 30% 27% 20% 20% 10% 8% 10% 0% 0% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Never Seldom Often

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 (CK) Score Scores required? Would your program consider applicants who fail N=12 the exam on the first attempt? N=11 100% 92% 100% 90% 90% 82% 80% 80% 70% 70% 60% 60% 50% 50% 40% 40% 30% 30% 20% 20% 18% 10% 8% 10% 0% 0% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Never Seldom often

IQR* of Average USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 CK Scores Programs Consider When Granting Interviews Scores Below Which Programs Scores Above Which Programs Generally Do Not Grant Interviews Almost Always Grant Interviews

USMLE Step 2 CK USMLE Step 1 not USMLE Step 2 CK USMLE Step 1 not not reported reported because not reported reported because because of low of low response because of low of low response response rate rate response rate rate

*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.

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 340 Psychosomatic Medicine Figure-4 Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 Clinical Skill (CS), Step 3, and COMLEX-USA Scores* When Considering Which Applicants to Interview Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 CS and Step 3 Scores USMLE Step 2 CS USMLE Step 3 100% N=12 100% N=12 92% 92% 90% 90% 80% 80% 70% 70% 60% 60% 50% 50% 40% 40% 30% 30% 20% 20% 10% 8% 10% 8% 0% 0% 0% Yes No Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

Percentage of Programs That Use COMLEX-USA Level 1 and Level 2-CE Scores COMLEX-USA Level 1* COMLEX-USA Level 2-CE* 100% 100% N=8 N=8 90% 90% 80% 75% 80% 75% 70% 70% 60% 60% 50% 50% 40% 40% 30% 25% 30% 25% 20% 20% 10% 10% 0% 0% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

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

COMLEX-USA Level 2-PE* COMLEX-USA Level 3* 100% N=8 100% N=8 90% 90% 80% 75% 80% 70% 70% 63% 60% 60% 50% 50% 40% 40% 38% 30% 25% 30% 20% 20% 10% 10% 0% 0% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

* Osteopathic applicants only

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 341 Psychosomatic Medicine Figure-5 Programs That Use Core Specialty Certifying Examination When Considering Applicants for Interview Scores required? Would your program consider applicants who fail the 100% N=5 exam on the first attempt? 90% N=5 80% 100% 70% 90% 60% 80% 60% 70% 50% 60% 40% 50% 40% 40% 40% 30% 40% 30% 20% 20% 20% 10% 10% 0% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No, not required Never Seldom Often

Psychosomatic Medicine Figure-6 Programs Positions

Average Number of Accredited Positions and Funded Positions Average Percentage of Accredited Positions Offered Outside of 2.4 2.4 the Match 2.1 100% 2.0 90% 80% 75% 1.6 70% 60% 57% 1.2 50% 40% 38% 0.8 30% 20% 0.4 10% 0% 0.0 Positions Filled Before Positions Offered Outside Positions Filled Outside Accredited Positions Funded Positions Match Day the Match the Match

N=17 N=17 N=5 N=2 N=2

Psychosomatic Medicine Figure-7 Dedicated Time for Research

Program Requirement on Dedicated Time for Average Number of Months if Research Time is Research Required 3.2 N=17 3 2.8

2.4 Required 11.8% 2.0

1.6

1.2

0.8 1 Optional 0.4 88.2% 0.0 Accredited Locally Funded Integrated Other N=0 N=1 N=0 N=1

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 342 Psychosomatic Medicine Figure-8 Program's Interview Activities

Interview Invitations Sent and Interviews Conducted

100% N=14 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 40% 32% 27% 30% 22% 17% 19% 20% 12% 10% 7% 8% 5% 4% 5% 0%0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%1% 0% 0% Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Interview invitations Interviews conducted

Average Number of Positions, Applications Received, Interview Average Percentage of Applicants Rejected and Reviewed Invitations Sent, and Applicants Interviewed and Ranked 12 100% 95% 11 90% 10 80% 8 8 70% 8 60% 50% 6 40% 30% 4 20% 13% 10% 2 0% Rejected based on a In-depth review 0 standardized screening Number of applications Number of interview Number of applicants process received invitations sent interviewed N=15 N=15 N=15 N=15 N=15

Percentage of Programs that Typically Interview and Rank Each Applicant Type 62% of Psychosomatic Medicine programs consider all applicant groups 100% 100% 100% 100% N=13 90% 85% 80% 77% 77% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% U.S. Graduate Osteopathic Canadian Fifth Pathway U.S. IMG Non-U.S. IMG Physician Frequency of Programs Interviewing and Ranking Candidates Interview Ranking 100% 100% 13% 90% 20% 90% 33% 80% 36% 80% 13% 44% 70% 20% 58% 70% 75% 70% 70% 60% 77% 83% 60% 82% 50% 50% 33% 36% 22% 40% 40% 75% 30% 60% 17% 30% 20% 8% 20% 33% 33% 27% 25% 25% 30% 30% 10% 15% 17% 10% 18% 0% 0% Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-US Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-US IMG IMG Often Seldom Never Often Seldom Never n=13 n=11

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 343 Psychosomatic Medicine

Figure-9 Potential Challenges in Recruiting Applicants to Your Specialty

Average rating on a scale of 5 (1=least challenging; 5=most challenging) n=10

Not enough applicants in the specialty 4.3

Undesirable income potential as a practicing physician 2.3

Undesirable work/life balance as a practicing physician 1.6

Long or irregular work hours required by specialty 2.1

Fellowship Match scheduled at inconvenient time of year 1.6

012345

Psychosomatic Medicine

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

n=11

We consider those applicants on an individual basis 91%

We give those applicants serious consideration if they have 9% shown improvement

We do not usually consider those applicants 9%

We favor those applicants 0%

Other 0%

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

Psychosomatic Medicine

Figure-11 Years as Program Director

At Any Fellowship Program At Current Fellowship Program

More than 15 More than 18.8% 25.0%15 Less than 3 Less than 3 37.5% 37.5%

6 to 10 18.8%

6 to 25.0%10 3 to 5 3 to 12.5% 25.0%5

n=16 n=16

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 Medicine Table 1 General Information

2016 Survey Number of responses 58 Response rate 42.6%

Match Information* Appointment Years 2016 2015 2014 Number of programs in the Match 140 139 135 Number of positions in the Match 515 519 489 Number of applicants ranking specialty 689 780 753 * Source: NRMP Data Warehouse

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 346 Pulmonary Disease and Critical Care Medicine Figure-1 Percentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Selecting Applicants to Interview (N=53) Percent Citing Factor Average Rating Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialty 92% 4.4 Residency performance evaluation (Program Director letter) 91% 4.5 Reputation of residency program 96% 4.2 Demonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research 94% 4.1 Perceived commitment to specialty 74% 4.2 Personal statement 60% 3.4 Perceived interest in program 60% 4.0 Evidence of professionalism and ethics 70% 4.5 USMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score 85% 3.8 Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chapters 81% 4.1 USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE score 83% 3.9 Leadership qualities 77% 4.3 Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicant 66% 4.3 Oral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements 74% 4.0 Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institution 72% 4.1 Pass USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PE 70% 4.1 Any failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX 79% 4.6 USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 score 72% 3.9 Interest in academic career 53% 4.4 Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based) 87% 4.2 Clinical/laboratory research experience 70% 4.0 Awards or special honors in medical school 58% 3.4 Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership 60% 3.8 Other life experience 51% 3.8 Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter) 43% 3.5 Graduate of highly‐regarded medical school 57% 3.8 Visa status* 51% 4.2 Volunteer/extracurricular experiences 25% 3.8 Awarded grant money for research 43% 3.8 Grades in medical school 30% 3.4 Lack of gaps in medical education 30% 3.8 Medical school class ranking/quartile 23% 3.3 Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP 42% 4.8 Electives at your fellowship site 30% 3.5 Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membership 38% 4.0 Residency class ranking/quartile 30% 4.4 Fluency in language spoken by your patient population 17% 3.8 In‐Training Examination (ITE) 9% 3.6 Residency program size 25% 3.8 Having finished another fellowship 13% 3.6 100% 50% 0% 1 2 345

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

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 347 Pulmonary Disease and Critical Care Medicine Figure-2 Percentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Ranking Applicants (N=53) Percent Citing Factor Average Rating Interactions with faculty during interview and visit 90% 4.8 Interpersonal skills 90% 4.6 Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialty 75% 4.4 Interactions with house staff during interview and visit 80% 4.7 Perceived commitment to specialty 57% 4.4 Feedback from current residents and fellows 86% 4.7 Perceived interest in program 59% 4.3 Demonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research 78% 4.2 Reputation of residency program 82% 4.2 Residency performance evaluation (Program Director letter) 73% 4.5 Evidence of professionalism and ethics 57% 4.7 Personal statement 33% 3.8 Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicant 53% 4.4 Leadership qualities 53% 4.6 Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chapters 65% 4.0 Interest in academic career 53% 4.5 Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institution 53% 4.2 USMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score 51% 3.9 USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE score 53% 4.0 Any failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX 47% 4.7 Passing USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PE 43% 4.1 Clinical/laboratory research experience 53% 4.1 USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 score 45% 4.0 Oral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements 41% 3.7 Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based) 63% 4.3 Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership 41% 4.0 Other life experience 35% 3.9 Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter) 22% 4.1 Second interview/visit 14% 3.9 Awards or special honors in medical school 27% 3.6 Visa status* 31% 4.5 Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP 29% 4.7 Graduate of highly‐regarded medical school 33% 4.3 Electives at your fellowship site 20% 4.5 Awarded grant money for research 33% 3.8 Volunteer/extracurricular experiences 18% 4.2 Medical school class ranking/quartile 14% 4.0 Lack of gaps in medical education 16% 4.4 Grades in medical school 14% 3.4 Residency class ranking/quartile 20% 4.3 Fluency in language spoken by your patient population 16% 3.8 Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membership 25% 4.1 Residency program size 12% 4.3 In‐Training Examination (ITE) 6% 4.3 Second interview/visit 4% 5.0 Having finished another fellowship 6% 4.7 100% 50% 0% 12345 ¹ Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). * International Medical Graduates only

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 348 Pulmonary Disease and Critical Care Medicine Figure-3 Programs That Use USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) Scores When Considering Which Applicants to Interview Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 1 Score Scores required? Would your program consider applicants who fail the 100% N=52 exam on the first attempt? 90% 100% N=53 90% 80% 80% 70% 70% 70% 60% 54% 60% 50% 46% 50% 40% 40% 30% 30% 23% 20% 20% 10% 10% 8% 0% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Never Seldom Often

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 (CK) Score Scores required? Would your program consider applicants who fail N=53 the exam on the first attempt? N=52 100% 100% 90% 90% 80% 80% 70% 70% 58% 60% 60% 56% 50% 42% 50% 40% 40% 37% 30% 30% 20% 20% 10% 10% 8% 0% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Never Seldom often

IQR* of Average USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 CK Scores Programs Consider When Granting Interviews Scores Below Which Programs Scores Above Which Programs Generally Do Not Grant Interviews Almost Always Grant Interviews 260 260

250 250

240 240

230 230

220 220

210 210

200 200

190 190

180 180

170 170 USMLE Step 1 USMLE Step 2 CK USMLE Step 1 USMLE Step 2 CK N=22 N=20 N=22 N=20

*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.

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 349 Pulmonary Disease and Critical Care Medicine Figure-4 Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 Clinical Skill (CS), Step 3, and COMLEX-USA Scores* When Considering Which Applicants to Interview Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 CS and Step 3 Scores USMLE Step 2 CS USMLE Step 3 100% N=53 100% N=51 100% 90% 90% 80% 80% 70% 70% 60% 60% 47% 50% 50% 37% 40% 40% 30% 30% 20% 20% 16% 10% 10% 0% 0% 0% Yes No Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

Percentage of Programs That Use COMLEX-USA Level 1 and Level 2-CE Scores COMLEX-USA Level 1* COMLEX-USA Level 2-CE* 100% 100% N=36 N=37 90% 90% 80% 80% 70% 70% 60% 56% 60% 57% 50% 50% 39% 40% 40% 35% 30% 30% 20% 20% 10% 6% 10% 8% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

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

COMLEX-USA Level 2-PE* COMLEX-USA Level 3* 100% N=36 100% N=36 90% 90% 80% 75% 80% 70% 70% 60% 60% 50% 50% 42% 40% 40% 36% 30% 30% 22% 20% 17% 20% 10% 8% 10% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

* Osteopathic applicants only

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 350 Pulmonary Disease and Critical Care Medicine Figure-5 Programs That Use Core Specialty Certifying Examination When Considering Applicants for Interview Scores required? Would your program consider applicants who fail the 100% N=25 exam on the first attempt? 90% 88% N=17 80% 100% 70% 90% 80% 60% 70% 50% 60% 53% 40% 50% 41% 30% 40% 30% 20% 12% 20% 10% 10% 6% 0% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No, not required Never Seldom Often

Pulmonary Disease and Critical Care Medicine Figure-6 Programs Positions

Average Number of Accredited Positions and Funded Positions Average Percentage of Accredited Positions Offered Outside of 12 the Match

10.2 100% 10 9.1 90% 80% 8 70% 60% 58% 6 50% 40% 4 30% 26% 19% 20% 2 10% 0% 0 Positions Filled Before Positions Offered Outside Positions Filled Outside Accredited Positions Funded Positions Match Day the Match the Match

N=57 N=53 N=18 N=12 N=11

Pulmonary Disease and Critical Care Medicine Figure-7 Dedicated Time for Research

Program Requirement on Dedicated Time for Average Number of Months if Research Time is Research Required N=58 12 12

10 8 Optional 8 8 8 15.5%

6

4

Required 2 84.5% 0 Accredited Locally Funded Integrated Other N=25 N=11 N=8 N=7

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 351 Pulmonary Disease and Critical Care Medicine Figure-8 Program's Interview Activities

Interview Invitations Sent and Interviews Conducted

100% N=48 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 50% 39% 42% 40% 30% 21% 24% 20% 14% 10% 6% 0%0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%3% 0% 0% 0% Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Interview invitations Interviews conducted

Average Number of Positions, Applications Received, Interview Average Percentage of Applicants Rejected and Reviewed Invitations Sent, and Applicants Interviewed and Ranked 320 290 100% 280 90% 80% 240 70% 200 60% 54% 50% 44% 160 40% 120 30% 20% 80 41 10% 40 34 0% Rejected based on a In-depth review 0 standardized screening Number of applications Number of interview Number of applicants process received invitations sent interviewed N=54 N=53 N=54 N=55 N=55

Percentage of Programs that Typically Interview and Rank Each Applicant Type 31% of Pulmonary Disease and Critical Care Medicine programs consider all applicant groups

100% 96% N=54 90% 81% 80% 78% 69% 70% 67% 60% 50% 40% 31% 30% 20% 10% 0% U.S. Graduate Osteopathic Canadian Fifth Pathway U.S. IMG Non-U.S. IMG Physician Frequency of Programs Interviewing and Ranking Candidates Interview Ranking 100% 100% 11% 9% 90% 90% 35% 80% 33% 80% 52% 30% 48% 53% 32% 53% 49% 70% 54% 70% 60% 60% 90% 88% 50% 50% 42% 40% 49% 40% 33% 33% 30% 37% 60% 30% 34% 60% 44% 45% 20% 20% 10% 18% 19% 10% 23% 18% 10% 12% 12% 13% 0% 2% 0% 2% Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-US Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-US IMG IMG Often Seldom Never Often Seldom Never n=51 n=51

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 352 Pulmonary Disease and Critical Care Medicine

Figure-9 Potential Challenges in Recruiting Applicants to Your Specialty

Average rating on a scale of 5 (1=least challenging; 5=most challenging) n=50

Not enough applicants in the specialty 1.6

Undesirable income potential as a practicing physician 2.1

Undesirable work/life balance as a practicing physician 3.5

Long or irregular work hours required by specialty 3.4

Fellowship Match scheduled at inconvenient time of year 1.8

012345

Pulmonary Disease and Critical Care Medicine

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

n=51

We consider those applicants on an individual basis 75%

We give those applicants serious consideration if they have 16% shown improvement

We do not usually consider those applicants 16%

We favor those applicants 0%

Other 0%

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

Pulmonary Disease and Critical Care Medicine

Figure-11 Years as Program Director

At Any Fellowship Program At Current Fellowship Program

More than More than 8.0%15 11 to 6.0%15 Less than 3 Less than 3 10.0%15 11 to 15 24.0% 26.0% 14.0%

6 to 10 32.0% 6 to 10 3 to 5 3 to 28.0% 26.0% 26.0%5

n=50 n=50

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 353 Reproductive Endocrinology

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 354 Reproductive Endocrinology Table 1 General Information

2016 Survey Number of responses 12 Response rate 35.3%

Match Information* Appointment Years 2016 2015 2014 Number of programs in the Match 36 37 38 Number of positions in the Match 42 47 43 Number of applicants ranking specialty 60 69 69 * Source: NRMP Data Warehouse

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 355 Reproductive Endocrinology Figure-1 Percentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Selecting Applicants to Interview (N=7) Percent Citing Factor Average Rating Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialty 86% 4.3 Residency performance evaluation (Program Director letter) 100% 4.6 Reputation of residency program 100% 3.9 Demonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research 100% 4.4 Perceived commitment to specialty 71% 4.4 Personal statement 86% 4.0 Perceived interest in program 86% 3.8 Evidence of professionalism and ethics 86% 5.0 USMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score 57% 3.8 Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chapters 86% 4.3 USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE score 57% 3.8 Leadership qualities 71% 4.0 Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicant 71% 3.8 Oral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements 57% 4.5 Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institution 43% 4.3 Pass USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PE 29% 3.5 Any failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX 43% 4.7 USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 score 29% 4.0 Interest in academic career 57% 4.3 Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based) 86% 3.7 Clinical/laboratory research experience 57% 4.3 Awards or special honors in medical school 71% 3.8 Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership 71% 4.0 Other life experience 43% 3.3 Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter) 0% Graduate of highly‐regarded medical school 43% 3.7 Visa status* 43% 4.0 Volunteer/extracurricular experiences 43% 3.3 Awarded grant money for research 43% 4.3 Grades in medical school 43% 4.0 Lack of gaps in medical education 14% 3.0 Medical school class ranking/quartile 29% 3.5 Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP 29% 5.0 Electives at your fellowship site 86% 3.7 Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membership 57% 4.5 Residency class ranking/quartile 29% 4.5 Fluency in language spoken by your patient population 29% 4.5 In‐Training Examination (ITE) 57% 4.3 Residency program size 0% Having finished another fellowship 0% 100% 50% 0% 1 2 345

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

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 356 Reproductive Endocrinology Figure-2 Percentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Ranking Applicants (N=7) Percent Citing Factor Average Rating Interactions with faculty during interview and visit 83% 5.0 Interpersonal skills 83% 4.8 Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialty 67% 4.5 Interactions with house staff during interview and visit 83% 4.8 Perceived commitment to specialty 83% 4.2 Feedback from current residents and fellows 83% 5.0 Perceived interest in program 67% 4.0 Demonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research 100% 4.2 Reputation of residency program 67% 3.8 Residency performance evaluation (Program Director letter) 67% 4.8 Evidence of professionalism and ethics 83% 4.8 Personal statement 83% 4.4 Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicant 67% 4.0 Leadership qualities 67% 4.0 Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chapters 67% 4.5 Interest in academic career 33% 4.5 Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institution 33% 3.5 USMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score 17% 4.0 USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE score 17% 4.0 Any failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX 33% 4.5 Passing USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PE 17% 4.0 Clinical/laboratory research experience 67% 4.3 USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 score 17% 4.0 Oral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements 33% 3.5 Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based) 33% 4.0 Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership 17% 5.0 Other life experience 17% 4.0 Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter) 50% 4.0 Second interview/visit 17% 3.0 Awards or special honors in medical school 17% 3.0 Visa status* 33% 4.0 Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP 33% 5.0 Graduate of highly‐regarded medical school 17% 4.0 Electives at your fellowship site 50% 4.0 Awarded grant money for research 17% 4.0 Volunteer/extracurricular experiences 33% 3.5 Medical school class ranking/quartile 17% 4.0 Lack of gaps in medical education 17% 3.0 Grades in medical school 33% 4.0 Residency class ranking/quartile 17% 5.0 Fluency in language spoken by your patient population 50% 3.0 Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membership 17% 5.0 Residency program size 0% In‐Training Examination (ITE) 33% 4.5 Second interview/visit 0% Having finished another fellowship 0% 100% 50% 0% 12345 ¹ Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). * International Medical Graduates only

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 357 Reproductive Endocrinology Figure-3 Programs That Use USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) Scores When Considering Which Applicants to Interview Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 1 Score Scores required? Would your program consider applicants who fail the 100% N=7 exam on the first attempt? 90% 100% N=6 90% 80% 80% 70% 70% 60% 60% 50% 50% 43% 50% 40% 40% 29% 29% 33% 30% 30% 20% 20% 17% 10% 10% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Never Seldom Often

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 (CK) Score Scores required? Would your program consider applicants who fail N=7 the exam on the first attempt? N=6 100% 100% 90% 90% 80% 80% 70% 70% 60% 60% 50% 50% 43% 43% 50% 40% 40% 33% 30% 30% 20% 14% 20% 17% 10% 10% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Never Seldom often

IQR* of Average USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 CK Scores Programs Consider When Granting Interviews Scores Below Which Programs Scores Above Which Programs Generally Do Not Grant Interviews Almost Always Grant Interviews

USMLE Step 2 CK USMLE Step 1 not USMLE Step 2 CK USMLE Step 1 not not reported reported because not reported reported because because of low of low response because of low of low response response rate rate response rate rate

*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.

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 358 Reproductive Endocrinology Figure-4 Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 Clinical Skill (CS), Step 3, and COMLEX-USA Scores* When Considering Which Applicants to Interview Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 CS and Step 3 Scores USMLE Step 2 CS USMLE Step 3 100% N=7 100% N=6 90% 90% 80% 80% 70% 70% 60% 57% 60% 50% 50% 50% 43% 40% 40% 33% 30% 30% 20% 20% 17% 10% 10% 0% 0% Yes No Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

Percentage of Programs That Use COMLEX-USA Level 1 and Level 2-CE Scores COMLEX-USA Level 1* COMLEX-USA Level 2-CE* 100% 100% 100% N=4 100% N=4 90% 90% 80% 80% 70% 70% 60% 60% 50% 50% 40% 40% 30% 30% 20% 20% 10% 10% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

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

COMLEX-USA Level 2-PE* COMLEX-USA Level 3* N=4 100% N=4 100% 100% 100% 90% 90% 80% 80% 70% 70% 60% 60% 50% 50% 40% 40% 30% 30% 20% 20% 10% 10% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

* Osteopathic applicants only

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 359 Reproductive Endocrinology Figure-5 Programs That Use Core Specialty Certifying Examination When Considering Applicants for Interview Scores required? Would your program consider applicants who fail the 100% N=4 exam on the first attempt? 90% N=1 100% 80% 75% 100% 70% 90% 80% 60% 70% 50% 60% 40% 50% 40% 30% 25% 30% 20% 20% 10% 10% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No, not required Never Seldom Often

Reproductive Endocrinology Figure-6 Programs Positions

Average Number of Accredited Positions and Funded Positions Average Percentage of Accredited Positions Offered Outside of 4.0 the Match 3.6 3.5 100% 3.2 90% 3.0 80% 78% 2.5 70% 60% 2.0 50% 1.5 40% 30% 1.0 20% 0.5 10% 0% 0.0 Positions Filled Before Positions Offered Outside Positions Filled Outside Accredited Positions Funded Positions Match Day the Match the Match

N=12 N=10 N=4 N=0 N=0

Reproductive Endocrinology Figure-7 Dedicated Time for Research

Program Requirement on Dedicated Time for Average Number of Months if Research Time is Research Required N=11 20 18 18 18

16 15

12

8

4 Required 100.0% 0 Accredited Locally Funded Integrated Other N=7 N=1 N=2 N=2

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 360 Reproductive Endocrinology Figure-8 Program's Interview Activities

Interview Invitations Sent and Interviews Conducted

100% N=7 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 50% 40% 31% 31% 35% 34% 30% 19% 20% 10% 0%0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Interview invitations Interviews conducted

Average Number of Positions, Applications Received, Interview Average Percentage of Applicants Rejected and Reviewed Invitations Sent, and Applicants Interviewed and Ranked 70 68 100% 90% 60 80% 50 70% 65% 60% 40 50% 44% 40% 30 23 22 30% 20 20% 10% 10 0% Rejected based on a In-depth review 0 standardized screening Number of applications Number of interview Number of applicants process received invitations sent interviewed N=8 N=8 N=9 N=8 N=8

Percentage of Programs that Typically Interview and Rank Each Applicant Type 14% of Reproductive Endocrinology programs consider all applicant groups 100% 100% N=7 90% 80% 71% 70% 60% 50% 43% 43% 40% 30% 20% 14% 14% 10% 0% U.S. Graduate Osteopathic Canadian Fifth Pathway U.S. IMG Non-U.S. IMG Physician Frequency of Programs Interviewing and Ranking Candidates Interview Ranking 100% 100% 90% 17% 17% 17% 17% 90% 20% 20% 20% 29% 80% 33% 40% 80% 70% 70% 33% 33% 60% 83% 40% 60% 86% 50% 60% 60% 50% 67% 40% 40% 57% 83% 30% 67% 60% 30% 50% 50% 20% 40% 20% 10% 17% 20% 20% 10% 14% 14% 17% 0% 0% Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-US Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-US IMG IMG Often Seldom Never Often Seldom Never n=6 n=7

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 361 Reproductive Endocrinology

Figure-9 Potential Challenges in Recruiting Applicants to Your Specialty

Average rating on a scale of 5 (1=least challenging; 5=most challenging) n=6

Not enough applicants in the specialty 1.2

Undesirable income potential as a practicing physician 1.5

Undesirable work/life balance as a practicing physician 1.5

Long or irregular work hours required by specialty 1.3

Fellowship Match scheduled at inconvenient time of year 1.3

012345

Reproductive Endocrinology

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

n=6

We consider those applicants on an individual basis 67%

We give those applicants serious consideration if they have 33% shown improvement

We do not usually consider those applicants 0%

We favor those applicants 0%

Other 0%

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

Reproductive Endocrinology

Figure-11 Years as Program Director

At Any Fellowship Program At Current Fellowship Program

11 to 15 11.1% 6 to 3 to 5 11.1%10 33.3%

Less than 55.6%3 3 to 5 Less than 22.2% 66.7%3

n=9 n=9

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 362 Rheumatology

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 363 Rheumatology Table 1 General Information

2016 Survey Number of responses 52 Response rate 48.1%

Match Information* Appointment Years 2016 2015 2014 Number of programs in the Match 108 107 106 Number of positions in the Match 215 209 206 Number of applicants ranking specialty 304 245 230 * Source: NRMP Data Warehouse

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 364 Rheumatology Figure-1 Percentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Selecting Applicants to Interview (N=44) Percent Citing Factor Average Rating Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialty 93% 4.4 Residency performance evaluation (Program Director letter) 89% 4.5 Reputation of residency program 86% 4.1 Demonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research 86% 3.9 Perceived commitment to specialty 77% 4.5 Personal statement 75% 3.9 Perceived interest in program 75% 4.2 Evidence of professionalism and ethics 68% 4.6 USMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score 77% 4.1 Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chapters 73% 4.1 USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE score 77% 4.3 Leadership qualities 52% 4.3 Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicant 66% 4.1 Oral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements 64% 3.9 Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institution 68% 4.2 Pass USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PE 68% 4.1 Any failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX 57% 4.5 USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 score 68% 4.3 Interest in academic career 70% 4.1 Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based) 77% 3.9 Clinical/laboratory research experience 66% 3.9 Awards or special honors in medical school 61% 3.5 Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership 52% 3.9 Other life experience 39% 3.9 Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter) 55% 3.6 Graduate of highly‐regarded medical school 64% 4.1 Visa status* 52% 4.2 Volunteer/extracurricular experiences 43% 3.8 Awarded grant money for research 36% 3.8 Grades in medical school 50% 3.6 Lack of gaps in medical education 39% 3.9 Medical school class ranking/quartile 45% 3.7 Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP 41% 4.9 Electives at your fellowship site 45% 3.9 Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membership 39% 3.6 Residency class ranking/quartile 36% 3.7 Fluency in language spoken by your patient population 36% 3.9 In‐Training Examination (ITE) 14% 3.8 Residency program size 14% 3.6 Having finished another fellowship 9% 3.0 100% 50% 0% 1 2 345

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

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 365 Rheumatology Figure-2 Percentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Ranking Applicants (N=44) Percent Citing Factor Average Rating Interactions with faculty during interview and visit 83% 4.7 Interpersonal skills 85% 4.6 Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialty 88% 4.5 Interactions with house staff during interview and visit 56% 4.6 Perceived commitment to specialty 80% 4.7 Feedback from current residents and fellows 41% 4.7 Perceived interest in program 63% 4.5 Demonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research 80% 4.1 Reputation of residency program 71% 4.2 Residency performance evaluation (Program Director letter) 73% 4.5 Evidence of professionalism and ethics 66% 4.6 Personal statement 56% 3.8 Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicant 54% 4.2 Leadership qualities 39% 4.6 Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chapters 56% 4.0 Interest in academic career 49% 4.5 Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institution 56% 4.4 USMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score 71% 4.0 USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE score 76% 4.1 Any failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX 41% 4.8 Passing USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PE 61% 4.1 Clinical/laboratory research experience 54% 4.1 USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 score 63% 4.2 Oral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements 34% 4.1 Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based) 46% 4.2 Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership 27% 4.2 Other life experience 27% 3.7 Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter) 34% 3.6 Second interview/visit 15% 4.5 Awards or special honors in medical school 27% 3.7 Visa status* 22% 4.3 Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP 37% 4.9 Graduate of highly‐regarded medical school 46% 4.1 Electives at your fellowship site 34% 4.2 Awarded grant money for research 29% 4.0 Volunteer/extracurricular experiences 32% 3.7 Medical school class ranking/quartile 29% 3.4 Lack of gaps in medical education 24% 3.9 Grades in medical school 27% 3.5 Residency class ranking/quartile 20% 4.1 Fluency in language spoken by your patient population 24% 4.2 Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membership 10% 4.3 Residency program size 5% 5.0 In‐Training Examination (ITE) 2% 5.0 Second interview/visit 7% 4.3 Having finished another fellowship 5% 3.5 100% 50% 0% 12345 ¹ Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). * International Medical Graduates only

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 366 Rheumatology Figure-3 Programs That Use USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) Scores When Considering Which Applicants to Interview Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 1 Score Scores required? Would your program consider applicants who fail the 100% N=43 exam on the first attempt? 90% 100% N=43 90% 80% 80% 70% 70% 67% 60% 51% 60% 50% 47% 50% 40% 40% 30% 30% 26% 20% 20% 10% 7% 2% 10% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Never Seldom Often

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 (CK) Score Scores required? Would your program consider applicants who fail N=43 the exam on the first attempt? N=43 100% 100% 90% 90% 80% 80% 70% 70% 65% 60% 60% 49% 49% 50% 50% 40% 40% 35% 30% 30% 20% 20% 10% 10% 2% 0% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Never Seldom often

IQR* of Average USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 CK Scores Programs Consider When Granting Interviews Scores Below Which Programs Scores Above Which Programs Generally Do Not Grant Interviews Almost Always Grant Interviews 260 260

250 250

240 240

230 230

220 220

210 210

200 200

190 190

180 180

170 170 USMLE Step 1 USMLE Step 2 CK USMLE Step 1 USMLE Step 2 CK N=13 N=13 N=10 N=10

*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.

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 367 Rheumatology Figure-4 Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 Clinical Skill (CS), Step 3, and COMLEX-USA Scores* When Considering Which Applicants to Interview Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 CS and Step 3 Scores USMLE Step 2 CS USMLE Step 3 100% 98% N=43 100% N=42 90% 90% 80% 80% 70% 70% 60% 60% 50% 50% 50% 40% 40% 36% 30% 30% 20% 20% 14% 10% 10% 2% 0% 0% Yes No Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

Percentage of Programs That Use COMLEX-USA Level 1 and Level 2-CE Scores COMLEX-USA Level 1* COMLEX-USA Level 2-CE* 100% 100% N=36 N=36 90% 90% 80% 80% 70% 70% 60% 60% 50% 50% 50% 50% 42% 42% 40% 40% 30% 30% 20% 20% 10% 8% 10% 8% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

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

COMLEX-USA Level 2-PE* COMLEX-USA Level 3* 100% N=36 100% N=35 90% 90% 80% 80%

70% 64% 70% 60% 60% 51% 50% 50% 40% 40% 34% 30% 28% 30% 20% 20% 14% 10% 8% 10% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

* Osteopathic applicants only

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 368 Rheumatology Figure-5 Programs That Use Core Specialty Certifying Examination When Considering Applicants for Interview Scores required? Would your program consider applicants who fail the 100% N=20 exam on the first attempt? 90% N=15 80% 80% 100% 70% 90% 80% 60% 70% 50% 60% 53% 40% 50% 47% 30% 40% 20% 30% 20% 20% 10% 10% 0% 0% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No, not required Never Seldom Often

Rheumatology Figure-6 Programs Positions

Average Number of Accredited Positions and Funded Positions Average Percentage of Accredited Positions Offered Outside of 3.5 the Match 3.2 3.0 100% 3.0 90% 80% 2.5 72% 70% 2.0 60% 50% 1.5 40% 30% 1.0 23% 23% 20% 0.5 10% 0% 0.0 Positions Filled Before Positions Offered Outside Positions Filled Outside Accredited Positions Funded Positions Match Day the Match the Match

N=51 N=51 N=12 N=2 N=2

Rheumatology Figure-7 Dedicated Time for Research

Program Requirement on Dedicated Time for Average Number of Months if Research Time is Research Required N=52 10 9

8 7 7 6 5 Optional 36.5% 4

Required 63.5% 2

0 Accredited Locally Funded Integrated Other N=17 N=8 N=8 N=5

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 369 Rheumatology Figure-8 Program's Interview Activities

Interview Invitations Sent and Interviews Conducted

100% N=44 90% 80% 70% 60% 52% 50% 46% 39% 40% 30% 25% 20% 10% 12% 10% 6% 6% 0%0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% 2% 0% 0% 0% Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Interview invitations Interviews conducted

Average Number of Positions, Applications Received, Interview Average Percentage of Applicants Rejected and Reviewed Invitations Sent, and Applicants Interviewed and Ranked 120 100% 107 90% 100 80% 70% 80 60% 50% 50% 47% 60 40% 30% 40 20% 21 10% 20 18 0% Rejected based on a In-depth review 0 standardized screening Number of applications Number of interview Number of applicants process received invitations sent interviewed N=45 N=45 N=48 N=47 N=47

Percentage of Programs that Typically Interview and Rank Each Applicant Type 43% of Rheumatology programs consider all applicant groups 100% 100% N=46 90% 87% 87% 80% 76% 70% 70% 60% 50% 43% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% U.S. Graduate Osteopathic Canadian Fifth Pathway U.S. IMG Non-U.S. IMG Physician Frequency of Programs Interviewing and Ranking Candidates Interview Ranking 100% 100% 90% 15% 90% 16% 28% 33% 80% 80% 52% 51% 70% 62% 70% 63% 70% 67% 60% 44% 60% 46% 50% 96% 50% 95% 51% 44% 40% 40% 30% 34% 30% 34% 26% 20% 25% 41% 36% 20% 26% 38% 10% 21% 10% 23% 14% 12% 15% 0% 4% 5% 2% 0% 5% 7% Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-US Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-US IMG IMG Often Seldom Never Often Seldom Never n=45 n=44

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 370 Rheumatology

Figure-9 Potential Challenges in Recruiting Applicants to Your Specialty

Average rating on a scale of 5 (1=least challenging; 5=most challenging) n=39

Not enough applicants in the specialty 3.0

Undesirable income potential as a practicing physician 3.7

Undesirable work/life balance as a practicing physician 1.6

Long or irregular work hours required by specialty 1.2

Fellowship Match scheduled at inconvenient time of year 1.8

012345

Rheumatology

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

n=41

We consider those applicants on an individual basis 78%

We give those applicants serious consideration if they have 17% shown improvement

We do not usually consider those applicants 12%

We favor those applicants 0%

Other 0%

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

Rheumatology

Figure-11 Years as Program Director

At Any Fellowship Program At Current Fellowship Program

Less than 3 More thanLess 15 than 3 9.1% 9.3% More than 11.6% 25.0%15 3 to 5 11.4% 11 to 15 23.3% 3 to 5 23.3%

11 to 15 6 to 10 22.7% 31.8% 6 to 10 32.6%

n=44 n=43

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 371 Sleep Medicine

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 372 Sleep Medicine Table 1 General Information

2016 Survey Number of responses 26 Response rate 38.8%

Match Information* Appointment Years 2016 2015 2014 Number of programs in the Match 72 70 69 Number of positions in the Match 142 130 133 Number of applicants ranking specialty 127 102 105 * Source: NRMP Data Warehouse

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 373 Sleep Medicine Figure-1 Percentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Selecting Applicants to Interview (N=23) Percent Citing Factor Average Rating Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialty 87% 4.2 Residency performance evaluation (Program Director letter) 78% 4.5 Reputation of residency program 65% 4.1 Demonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research 78% 3.6 Perceived commitment to specialty 91% 4.3 Personal statement 83% 4.1 Perceived interest in program 87% 4.2 Evidence of professionalism and ethics 78% 4.6 USMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score 74% 3.7 Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chapters 70% 3.8 USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE score 74% 3.7 Leadership qualities 61% 3.9 Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicant 61% 4.5 Oral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements 61% 3.5 Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institution 74% 4.1 Pass USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PE 70% 3.7 Any failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX 48% 4.6 USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 score 57% 3.7 Interest in academic career 48% 4.1 Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based) 57% 3.9 Clinical/laboratory research experience 43% 3.7 Awards or special honors in medical school 39% 4.1 Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership 30% 3.4 Other life experience 43% 4.0 Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter) 48% 3.5 Graduate of highly‐regarded medical school 22% 3.6 Visa status* 43% 3.9 Volunteer/extracurricular experiences 43% 3.3 Awarded grant money for research 30% 3.7 Grades in medical school 39% 3.4 Lack of gaps in medical education 35% 3.3 Medical school class ranking/quartile 30% 3.1 Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP 35% 4.8 Electives at your fellowship site 52% 3.6 Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membership 17% 3.3 Residency class ranking/quartile 22% 3.6 Fluency in language spoken by your patient population 13% 3.0 In‐Training Examination (ITE) 9% 2.5 Residency program size 22% 2.6 Having finished another fellowship 43% 3.2 100% 50% 0% 1 2 345

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

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 374 Sleep Medicine Figure-2 Percentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Ranking Applicants (N=23) Percent Citing Factor Average Rating Interactions with faculty during interview and visit 86% 4.7 Interpersonal skills 90% 4.7 Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialty 86% 4.4 Interactions with house staff during interview and visit 81% 4.3 Perceived commitment to specialty 76% 4.4 Feedback from current residents and fellows 76% 4.2 Perceived interest in program 76% 4.4 Demonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research 62% 3.8 Reputation of residency program 43% 3.4 Residency performance evaluation (Program Director letter) 76% 4.2 Evidence of professionalism and ethics 71% 4.8 Personal statement 76% 4.0 Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicant 52% 4.9 Leadership qualities 38% 4.4 Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chapters 43% 3.9 Interest in academic career 43% 4.1 Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institution 62% 4.3 USMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score 57% 3.8 USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE score 52% 3.9 Any failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX 38% 4.1 Passing USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PE 57% 3.8 Clinical/laboratory research experience 24% 4.0 USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 score 48% 3.8 Oral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements 38% 3.9 Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based) 29% 3.8 Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership 24% 3.2 Other life experience 24% 3.6 Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter) 48% 3.6 Second interview/visit 38% 4.0 Awards or special honors in medical school 24% 3.4 Visa status* 24% 4.3 Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP 29% 4.7 Graduate of highly‐regarded medical school 10% 3.0 Electives at your fellowship site 33% 3.6 Awarded grant money for research 10% 4.0 Volunteer/extracurricular experiences 14% 3.7 Medical school class ranking/quartile 10% 4.0 Lack of gaps in medical education 33% 3.7 Grades in medical school 14% 3.0 Residency class ranking/quartile 10% 3.0 Fluency in language spoken by your patient population 5% 4.0 Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membership 5% 3.0 Residency program size 10% 3.5 In‐Training Examination (ITE) 0% Second interview/visit 14% 4.0 Having finished another fellowship 19% 3.5 100% 50% 0% 12345 ¹ Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). * International Medical Graduates only

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 375 Sleep Medicine Figure-3 Programs That Use USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) Scores When Considering Which Applicants to Interview Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 1 Score Scores required? Would your program consider applicants who fail the 100% N=21 exam on the first attempt? 90% 100% N=21 81% 90% 80% 80% 70% 71% 70% 60% 60% 50% 50% 40% 40% 30% 30% 20% 14% 20% 14% 14% 10% 5% 10% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Never Seldom Often

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 (CK) Score Scores required? Would your program consider applicants who fail N=21 the exam on the first attempt? N=21 100% 100% 90% 81% 90% 80% 80% 71% 70% 70% 60% 60% 50% 50% 40% 40% 30% 30% 19% 20% 14% 20% 10% 10% 5% 10% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Never Seldom often

IQR* of Average USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 CK Scores Programs Consider When Granting Interviews Scores Below Which Programs Scores Above Which Programs Generally Do Not Grant Interviews Almost Always Grant Interviews

USMLE Step 2 CK USMLE Step 1 not USMLE Step 2 CK USMLE Step 1 not not reported reported because not reported reported because because of low of low response because of low of low response response rate rate response rate rate

*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.

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 376 Sleep Medicine Figure-4 Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 Clinical Skill (CS), Step 3, and COMLEX-USA Scores* When Considering Which Applicants to Interview Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 CS and Step 3 Scores USMLE Step 2 CS USMLE Step 3 100% 95% N=21 100% N=22 90% 90% 86% 80% 80% 70% 70% 60% 60% 50% 50% 40% 40% 30% 30% 20% 20% 9% 10% 5% 10% 5% 0% 0% Yes No Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

Percentage of Programs That Use COMLEX-USA Level 1 and Level 2-CE Scores COMLEX-USA Level 1* COMLEX-USA Level 2-CE* 100% 100% N=13 N=13 90% 90% 80% 77% 80% 77% 70% 70% 60% 60% 50% 50% 40% 40% 30% 30% 20% 15% 20% 15% 10% 8% 10% 8% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

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

COMLEX-USA Level 2-PE* COMLEX-USA Level 3* 100% N=13 100% N=13 90% 90% 80% 77% 80% 77% 70% 70% 60% 60% 50% 50% 40% 40% 30% 30% 20% 15% 20% 15% 10% 8% 10% 8% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

* Osteopathic applicants only

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 377 Sleep Medicine Figure-5 Programs That Use Core Specialty Certifying Examination When Considering Applicants for Interview Scores required? Would your program consider applicants who fail the 100% N=13 exam on the first attempt? 90% N=9 80% 100% 70% 90% 80% 60% 54% 70% 50% 60% 56% 40% 38% 50% 44% 30% 40% 30% 20% 20% 10% 8% 10% 0% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No, not required Never Seldom Often

Sleep Medicine Figure-6 Programs Positions

Average Number of Accredited Positions and Funded Positions Average Percentage of Accredited Positions Offered Outside of 3.2 the Match 3.0 2.8 2.8 100% 90% 85% 88% 88% 2.4 80% 2.0 70% 60% 1.6 50% 1.2 40% 30% 0.8 20% 0.4 10% 0% 0.0 Positions Filled Before Positions Offered Outside Positions Filled Outside Accredited Positions Funded Positions Match Day the Match the Match

N=25 N=24 N=7 N=1 N=1

Sleep Medicine Figure-7 Dedicated Time for Research

Program Requirement on Dedicated Time for Average Number of Months if Research Time is Research Required N=26 5 5

4

Required 3 26.9%

2

1 1 Optional 1 73.1%

0 Accredited Locally Funded Integrated Other N=0 N=1 N=3 N=2

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 378 Sleep Medicine Figure-8 Program's Interview Activities

Interview Invitations Sent and Interviews Conducted

100% N=19 90% 80% 70% 60% 57% 50% 47% 40% 30% 21% 23% 20% 15% 12% 10% 0%0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 3% 2% 1% 1% 0% 0% 3% 3% 0%1% 0% 0% 0% Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Interview invitations Interviews conducted

Average Number of Positions, Applications Received, Interview Average Percentage of Applicants Rejected and Reviewed Invitations Sent, and Applicants Interviewed and Ranked 35 32 100% 90% 30 80% 73% 25 70% 60% 20 50% 39% 40% 15 14 11 30% 10 20% 10% 5 0% Rejected based on a In-depth review 0 standardized screening Number of applications Number of interview Number of applicants process received invitations sent interviewed N=20 N=22 N=22 N=22 N=22

Percentage of Programs that Typically Interview and Rank Each Applicant Type 23% of Sleep Medicine programs consider all applicant groups 100% 100% 95% N=22 91% 90% 80% 73% 70% 68% 60% 50% 40% 30% 23% 20% 10% 0% U.S. Graduate Osteopathic Canadian Fifth Pathway U.S. IMG Non-U.S. IMG Physician Frequency of Programs Interviewing and Ranking Candidates Interview Ranking 100% 100% 13% 11% 90% 90% 25% 24% 80% 80% 26% 25% 70% 70% 58% 62% 65% 70% 60% 77% 77% 60% 91% 89% 50% 50% 60% 40% 40% 71% 30% 63% 30% 63% 24% 26% 20% 20% 35% 30% 10% 23% 23% 10% 9% 15% 14% 11% 16% 0% 0% 6% Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-US Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-US IMG IMG Often Seldom Never Often Seldom Never n=22 n=19

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 379 Sleep Medicine

Figure-9 Potential Challenges in Recruiting Applicants to Your Specialty

Average rating on a scale of 5 (1=least challenging; 5=most challenging) n=21

Not enough applicants in the specialty 4.3

Undesirable income potential as a practicing physician 2.9

Undesirable work/life balance as a practicing physician 1.7

Long or irregular work hours required by specialty 1.4

Fellowship Match scheduled at inconvenient time of year 2.5

012345

Sleep Medicine

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

n=21

We consider those applicants on an individual basis 81%

We give those applicants serious consideration if they have 33% shown improvement

We do not usually consider those applicants 5%

We favor those applicants 5%

Other 0%

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

Sleep Medicine

Figure-11 Years as Program Director

At Any Fellowship Program At Current Fellowship Program

More than 15 More than 15 4.3% Less than 3 4.5% 11 to 15 21.7% 11 to 15 Less than 3 17.4% 18.2% 27.3%

3 to 5 3 to 5 21.7% 13.6% 6 to 10 6 to 10 34.8% 36.4%

n=23 n=22

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 380 Sports Medicine

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 381 Sports Medicine Table 1 General Information

2016 Survey Number of responses 62 Response rate 43.4%

Match Information* Appointment Years 2016 2015 2014 Number of programs in the Match 158 152 139 Number of positions in the Match 247 236 206 Number of applicants ranking specialty 298 325 286 * Source: NRMP Data Warehouse

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 382 Sports Medicine Figure-1 Percentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Selecting Applicants to Interview (N=58) Percent Citing Factor Average Rating Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialty 97% 4.6 Residency performance evaluation (Program Director letter) 86% 4.2 Reputation of residency program 76% 3.5 Demonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research 62% 3.7 Perceived commitment to specialty 91% 4.7 Personal statement 86% 4.1 Perceived interest in program 86% 4.5 Evidence of professionalism and ethics 76% 4.5 USMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score 84% 3.6 Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chapters 66% 3.4 USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE score 81% 3.8 Leadership qualities 83% 4.4 Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicant 88% 4.1 Oral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements 72% 3.6 Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institution 67% 3.7 Pass USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PE 79% 3.9 Any failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX 91% 4.1 USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 score 78% 4.0 Interest in academic career 38% 4.0 Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based) 16% 2.9 Clinical/laboratory research experience 26% 3.7 Awards or special honors in medical school 59% 3.2 Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership 47% 3.5 Other life experience 62% 3.9 Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter) 52% 3.5 Graduate of highly‐regarded medical school 38% 3.3 Visa status* 50% 4.3 Volunteer/extracurricular experiences 86% 4.4 Awarded grant money for research 21% 3.3 Grades in medical school 41% 3.6 Lack of gaps in medical education 50% 3.8 Medical school class ranking/quartile 33% 3.4 Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP 45% 4.7 Electives at your fellowship site 69% 3.9 Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membership 28% 3.3 Residency class ranking/quartile 14% 3.9 Fluency in language spoken by your patient population 9% 4.4 In‐Training Examination (ITE) 17% 3.8 Residency program size 2% 3.0 Having finished another fellowship 5% 1.3 100% 50% 0% 1 2 345

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

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 383 Sports Medicine Figure-2 Percentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Ranking Applicants (N=58) Percent Citing Factor Average Rating Interactions with faculty during interview and visit 96% 4.9 Interpersonal skills 96% 4.7 Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialty 84% 4.5 Interactions with house staff during interview and visit 79% 4.9 Perceived commitment to specialty 86% 4.6 Feedback from current residents and fellows 86% 4.8 Perceived interest in program 84% 4.4 Demonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research 46% 3.6 Reputation of residency program 50% 3.6 Residency performance evaluation (Program Director letter) 54% 4.1 Evidence of professionalism and ethics 68% 4.6 Personal statement 75% 4.1 Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicant 75% 4.3 Leadership qualities 77% 4.4 Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chapters 46% 3.7 Interest in academic career 38% 3.8 Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institution 54% 3.7 USMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score 54% 3.6 USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE score 55% 3.7 Any failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX 79% 4.1 Passing USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PE 54% 3.7 Clinical/laboratory research experience 21% 3.3 USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 score 59% 3.9 Oral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements 59% 3.7 Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based) 13% 3.1 Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership 23% 3.8 Other life experience 54% 3.7 Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter) 27% 3.6 Second interview/visit 50% 3.9 Awards or special honors in medical school 32% 3.6 Visa status* 29% 4.4 Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP 38% 4.7 Graduate of highly‐regarded medical school 20% 3.6 Electives at your fellowship site 61% 4.3 Awarded grant money for research 13% 3.9 Volunteer/extracurricular experiences 70% 4.4 Medical school class ranking/quartile 20% 3.5 Lack of gaps in medical education 27% 3.7 Grades in medical school 25% 3.6 Residency class ranking/quartile 16% 3.8 Fluency in language spoken by your patient population 7% 4.8 Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membership 11% 3.8 Residency program size 0% In‐Training Examination (ITE) 11% 4.2 Second interview/visit 25% 3.9 Having finished another fellowship 5% 3.0 100% 50% 0% 12345 ¹ Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). * International Medical Graduates only

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 384 Sports Medicine Figure-3 Programs That Use USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) Scores When Considering Which Applicants to Interview Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 1 Score Scores required? Would your program consider applicants who fail the 100% N=58 exam on the first attempt? 90% 100% N=58 79% 90% 80% 80% 70% 70% 60% 62% 60% 50% 50% 40% 40% 30% 30% 26% 17% 20% 20% 12% 10% 3% 10% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Never Seldom Often

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 (CK) Score Scores required? Would your program consider applicants who fail N=58 the exam on the first attempt? N=58 100% 100% 90% 90% 79% 80% 80% 76% 70% 70% 60% 60% 50% 50% 40% 40% 30% 30% 17% 20% 20% 14% 10% 10% 3% 10% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Never Seldom often

IQR* of Average USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 CK Scores Programs Consider When Granting Interviews Scores Below Which Programs Scores Above Which Programs Generally Do Not Grant Interviews Almost Always Grant Interviews 260 260

250 250

240 240

230 230

220 220

210 210

200 200

190 190

180 180

170 170 USMLE Step 1 USMLE Step 2 CK USMLE Step 1 USMLE Step 2 CK N=8 N=7 N=8 N=7

*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.

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 385 Sports Medicine Figure-4 Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 Clinical Skill (CS), Step 3, and COMLEX-USA Scores* When Considering Which Applicants to Interview Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 CS and Step 3 Scores USMLE Step 2 CS USMLE Step 3 100% 97% N=58 100% N=56 90% 90% 80% 80% 75% 70% 70% 60% 60% 50% 50% 40% 40% 30% 30% 20% 20% 20%

10% 3% 10% 5% 0% 0% Yes No Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

Percentage of Programs That Use COMLEX-USA Level 1 and Level 2-CE Scores COMLEX-USA Level 1* COMLEX-USA Level 2-CE* 100% 100% N=55 N=55 90% 90% 80% 80% 71% 71% 70% 70% 60% 60% 50% 50% 40% 40% 30% 30% 20% 15% 15% 20% 15% 15% 10% 10% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

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

COMLEX-USA Level 2-PE* COMLEX-USA Level 3* 100% N=55 100% N=54 90% 90% 80% 80% 73% 70% 70% 69% 60% 60% 50% 50% 40% 40% 30% 30% 20% 20% 17% 13% 15% 15% 10% 10% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

* Osteopathic applicants only

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 386 Sports Medicine Figure-5 Programs That Use Core Specialty Certifying Examination When Considering Applicants for Interview Scores required? Would your program consider applicants who fail the 100% N=37 exam on the first attempt? 90% N=31 80% 100% 70% 90% 59% 80% 60% 70% 65% 50% 60% 40% 38% 50% 40% 30% 29% 30% 20% 20% 10% 6% 3% 10% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No, not required Never Seldom Often

Sports Medicine Figure-6 Programs Positions

Average Number of Accredited Positions and Funded Positions Average Percentage of Accredited Positions Offered Outside of 2.0 1.9 the Match 1.8 100% 100% 88% 1.6 90% 83% 80% 70% 1.2 60% 50% 0.8 40% 30% 20% 0.4 10% 0% 0.0 Positions Filled Before Positions Offered Outside Positions Filled Outside Accredited Positions Funded Positions Match Day the Match the Match

N=61 N=57 N=8 N=4 N=3

Sports Medicine Figure-7 Dedicated Time for Research

Program Requirement on Dedicated Time for Average Number of Months if Research Time is Research Required N=62 10 10

8

6 6 5 5 Required 40.3% 4 Optional 59.7% 2

0 Accredited Locally Funded Integrated Other N=6 N=2 N=8 N=5

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 387 Sports Medicine Figure-8 Program's Interview Activities

Interview Invitations Sent and Interviews Conducted

100% N=57 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 44% 44% 40% 38% 29% 30% 19% 20% 9% 10% 5% 6% 1% 2% 0% 0%0% 0%0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%2% 0% 1% 0% 0% Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Interview invitations Interviews conducted

Average Number of Positions, Applications Received, Interview Average Percentage of Applicants Rejected and Reviewed Invitations Sent, and Applicants Interviewed and Ranked 60 100% 53 90% 50 80% 69% 70% 40 60% 50% 40% 30 40% 30% 20 17 14 20% 10% 10 0% Rejected based on a In-depth review 0 standardized screening Number of applications Number of interview Number of applicants process received invitations sent interviewed N=57 N=58 N=58 N=58 N=57

Percentage of Programs that Typically Interview and Rank Each Applicant Type 8% of Sports Medicine programs consider all applicant groups 100% 100% 98% N=59 90% 80% 80% 70% 60% 51% 50% 40% 30% 27% 19% 20% 10% 0% U.S. Graduate Osteopathic Canadian Fifth Pathway U.S. IMG Non-U.S. IMG Physician Frequency of Programs Interviewing and Ranking Candidates Interview Ranking 100% 100% 2% 2% 5% 12% 5% 14% 90% 90% 23% 20% 80% 80% 46% 42% 70% 46% 70% 56% 60% 54% 60% 53% 93% 50% 95% 93% 50% 95% 40% 75% 40% 78% 49% 30% 49% 30% 49% 20% 20% 32% 39% 36% 10% 10% 8% 0% 5% 7% 5% 0% 5% 7% Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-US Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-US IMG IMG Often Seldom Never Often Seldom Never n=59 n=59

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 388 Sports Medicine

Figure-9 Potential Challenges in Recruiting Applicants to Your Specialty

Average rating on a scale of 5 (1=least challenging; 5=most challenging) n=53

Not enough applicants in the specialty 2.0

Undesirable income potential as a practicing physician 2.1

Undesirable work/life balance as a practicing physician 2.2

Long or irregular work hours required by specialty 1.8

Fellowship Match scheduled at inconvenient time of year 1.9

012345

Sports Medicine

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

n=56

We consider those applicants on an individual basis 93%

We give those applicants serious consideration if they have 36% shown improvement

We do not usually consider those applicants 4%

We favor those applicants 0%

Other 0%

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

Sports Medicine

Figure-11 Years as Program Director

At Any Fellowship Program At Current Fellowship Program

More than 15 More than 15 Less than 10.2% 16.3% Less than 3 20.4%3 11 to 15 6.1% 24.5% 11 to 15 10.2%

6 to 10 3 to 5 26.5% 26.5% 6 to 10 3 to 5 26.5% 32.7%

n=49 n=49

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 389 Surgical Critical Care

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 390 Surgical Critical Care Table 1 General Information

2016 Survey Number of responses 36 Response rate 35.6%

Match Information* Appointment Years 2016 2015 2014 Number of programs in the Match 119 108 95 Number of positions in the Match 241 212 185 Number of applicants ranking specialty 208 187 157 * Source: NRMP Data Warehouse

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 391 Surgical Critical Care Figure-1 Percentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Selecting Applicants to Interview (N=28) Percent Citing Factor Average Rating Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialty 93% 4.4 Residency performance evaluation (Program Director letter) 86% 4.3 Reputation of residency program 89% 3.9 Demonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research 82% 3.7 Perceived commitment to specialty 82% 4.5 Personal statement 71% 3.5 Perceived interest in program 75% 4.0 Evidence of professionalism and ethics 68% 4.5 USMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score 57% 3.9 Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chapters 68% 3.4 USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE score 54% 3.8 Leadership qualities 57% 4.3 Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicant 64% 4.3 Oral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements 64% 3.6 Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institution 71% 4.0 Pass USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PE 43% 3.6 Any failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX 43% 4.6 USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 score 50% 3.4 Interest in academic career 46% 3.9 Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based) 64% 3.9 Clinical/laboratory research experience 57% 3.4 Awards or special honors in medical school 36% 3.3 Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership 46% 3.5 Other life experience 46% 3.4 Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter) 25% 3.4 Graduate of highly‐regarded medical school 32% 3.2 Visa status* 39% 4.5 Volunteer/extracurricular experiences 32% 3.1 Awarded grant money for research 32% 3.6 Grades in medical school 21% 3.5 Lack of gaps in medical education 39% 3.9 Medical school class ranking/quartile 25% 3.6 Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP 18% 4.4 Electives at your fellowship site 29% 3.6 Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membership 36% 3.9 Residency class ranking/quartile 36% 3.7 Fluency in language spoken by your patient population 11% 3.3 In‐Training Examination (ITE) 71% 3.7 Residency program size 14% 4.0 Having finished another fellowship 14% 3.0 100% 50% 0% 1 2 345

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

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 392 Surgical Critical Care Figure-2 Percentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Ranking Applicants (N=28) Percent Citing Factor Average Rating Interactions with faculty during interview and visit 88% 4.9 Interpersonal skills 96% 4.6 Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialty 58% 4.4 Interactions with house staff during interview and visit 73% 4.7 Perceived commitment to specialty 69% 4.1 Feedback from current residents and fellows 69% 4.6 Perceived interest in program 73% 4.3 Demonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research 73% 3.6 Reputation of residency program 58% 3.8 Residency performance evaluation (Program Director letter) 46% 4.1 Evidence of professionalism and ethics 50% 4.5 Personal statement 38% 3.6 Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicant 62% 4.4 Leadership qualities 58% 4.1 Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chapters 42% 3.7 Interest in academic career 38% 4.0 Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institution 42% 3.8 USMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score 42% 3.7 USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE score 38% 3.6 Any failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX 27% 4.6 Passing USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PE 19% 3.8 Clinical/laboratory research experience 42% 3.5 USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 score 23% 3.8 Oral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements 42% 3.4 Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based) 35% 3.8 Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership 31% 3.9 Other life experience 27% 3.7 Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter) 8% 3.5 Second interview/visit 27% 4.1 Awards or special honors in medical school 19% 3.2 Visa status* 12% 4.3 Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP 12% 5.0 Graduate of highly‐regarded medical school 15% 3.3 Electives at your fellowship site 12% 4.0 Awarded grant money for research 15% 3.8 Volunteer/extracurricular experiences 8% 3.0 Medical school class ranking/quartile 15% 3.0 Lack of gaps in medical education 15% 4.3 Grades in medical school 12% 2.7 Residency class ranking/quartile 12% 3.0 Fluency in language spoken by your patient population 12% 3.3 Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membership 12% 4.0 Residency program size 8% 3.5 In‐Training Examination (ITE) 46% 4.0 Second interview/visit 12% 4.0 Having finished another fellowship 12% 3.3 100% 50% 0% 12345 ¹ Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). * International Medical Graduates only

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 393 Surgical Critical Care Figure-3 Programs That Use USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) Scores When Considering Which Applicants to Interview Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 1 Score Scores required? Would your program consider applicants who fail the 100% N=25 exam on the first attempt? 90% 100% N=25 90% 80% 80% 70% 68% 70% 60% 60% 56% 50% 50% 40% 40% 30% 24% 30% 28% 20% 20% 16% 8% 10% 10% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Never Seldom Often

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 (CK) Score Scores required? Would your program consider applicants who fail N=26 the exam on the first attempt? N=26 100% 100% 90% 90% 80% 73% 80% 70% 70% 62% 60% 60% 50% 50% 40% 40% 30% 30% 27% 20% 15% 20% 12% 12% 10% 10% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Never Seldom often

IQR* of Average USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 CK Scores Programs Consider When Granting Interviews Scores Below Which Programs Scores Above Which Programs Generally Do Not Grant Interviews Almost Always Grant Interviews 260 260

250 250

240 240

230 USMLE Step 2 CK 230 USMLE Step 2 CK not reported not reported 220 220 because of low because of low 210 response rate 210 response rate 200 200

190 190

180 180

170 170 USMLE Step 1 USMLE Step 1 N=6 N=5

*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.

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 394 Surgical Critical Care Figure-4 Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 Clinical Skill (CS), Step 3, and COMLEX-USA Scores* When Considering Which Applicants to Interview Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 CS and Step 3 Scores USMLE Step 2 CS USMLE Step 3 100% N=25 100% N=26 90% 88% 90% 80% 80% 69% 70% 70% 60% 60% 50% 50% 40% 40% 30% 30% 20% 20% 15% 15% 12% 10% 10% 0% 0% Yes No Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

Percentage of Programs That Use COMLEX-USA Level 1 and Level 2-CE Scores COMLEX-USA Level 1* COMLEX-USA Level 2-CE* 100% 100% N=16 N=16 90% 90% 80% 80% 70% 70% 63% 63% 60% 60% 50% 50% 40% 40% 30% 25% 30% 25% 20% 20% 13% 13% 10% 10% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

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

COMLEX-USA Level 2-PE* COMLEX-USA Level 3* 100% N=16 100% N=16 90% 90% 80% 80% 70% 70% 63% 63% 60% 60% 50% 50% 40% 40% 30% 25% 30% 25% 20% 20% 13% 13% 10% 10% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

* Osteopathic applicants only

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 395 Surgical Critical Care Figure-5 Programs That Use Core Specialty Certifying Examination When Considering Applicants for Interview Scores required? Would your program consider applicants who fail the 100% N=18 exam on the first attempt? 90% N=14 80% 100% 70% 67% 90% 79% 80% 60% 70% 50% 60% 40% 50% 30% 28% 40% 30% 20% 20% 14% 10% 6% 10% 7% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No, not required Never Seldom Often

Surgical Critical Care Figure-6 Programs Positions

Average Number of Accredited Positions and Funded Positions Average Percentage of Accredited Positions Offered Outside of 4.0 the Match 3.5 117% 3.5 3.3 100% 90% 86% 3.0 80% 68% 2.5 70% 60% 2.0 50% 1.5 40% 30% 1.0 20% 0.5 10% 0% 0.0 Positions Filled Before Positions Offered Outside Positions Filled Outside Accredited Positions Funded Positions Match Day the Match the Match

N=35 N=35 N=14 N=5 N=4

Surgical Critical Care Figure-7 Dedicated Time for Research

Program Requirement on Dedicated Time for Average Number of Months if Research Time is Research Required N=36 12 12

10

Required 8.3% 8

6

4

2 Optional 1 91.7% 0 Accredited Locally Funded Integrated Other N=0 N=1 N=0 N=1

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 396 Surgical Critical Care Figure-8 Program's Interview Activities

Interview Invitations Sent and Interviews Conducted

100% N=28 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 37% 40% 32% 35% 30% 22% 20% 12% 10% 9% 10% 7% 7% 4% 0% 0%4% 0% 0% 3% 4% 0% 1% 1% 1%0% 1% 4% 0% Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Interview invitations Interviews conducted

Average Number of Positions, Applications Received, Interview Average Percentage of Applicants Rejected and Reviewed Invitations Sent, and Applicants Interviewed and Ranked 60 60 100% 90% 50 80% 75% 70% 40 60% 50% 30 40% 32% 22 30% 19 20 20% 10% 10 0% Rejected based on a In-depth review 0 standardized screening Number of applications Number of interview Number of applicants process received invitations sent interviewed N=33 N=32 N=33 N=33 N=33

Percentage of Programs that Typically Interview and Rank Each Applicant Type 14% of Surgical Critical Care programs consider all applicant groups 100% 100% N=29 90% 79% 80% 70% 60% 52% 50% 45% 40% 30% 24% 20% 17% 10% 0% U.S. Graduate Osteopathic Canadian Fifth Pathway U.S. IMG Non-U.S. IMG Physician Frequency of Programs Interviewing and Ranking Candidates Interview Ranking 100% 100% 7% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 90% 90% 21% 22% 26% 23% 31% 80% 80% 37% 41% 70% 48% 70% 60% 60% 90% 86% 82% 50% 86% 50% 69% 40% 59% 74% 40% 78% 73% 30% 59% 30% 56% 20% 44% 20% 10% 10% 10% 10% 11% 14% 10% 14% 0% 0% Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-US Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-US IMG IMG Often Seldom Never Often Seldom Never n=29 n=29

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 397 Surgical Critical Care

Figure-9 Potential Challenges in Recruiting Applicants to Your Specialty

Average rating on a scale of 5 (1=least challenging; 5=most challenging) n=26

Not enough applicants in the specialty 3.1

Undesirable income potential as a practicing physician 2.3

Undesirable work/life balance as a practicing physician 3.6

Long or irregular work hours required by specialty 2.8

Fellowship Match scheduled at inconvenient time of year 2.4

012345

Surgical Critical Care

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

n=25

We consider those applicants on an individual basis 80%

We give those applicants serious consideration if they have 16% shown improvement

We do not usually consider those applicants 16%

We favor those applicants 0%

Other 0%

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

Surgical Critical Care

Figure-11 Years as Program Director

At Any Fellowship Program At Current Fellowship Program

More than 15 More than 15 3.1% 12.1% Less than 3 11 to 15 24.2% 18.8% Less than 11 to 15 34.4%3 15.2%

6 to 10 18.8% 3 to 5 6 to 10 24.2% 24.2% 3 to 5 25.0%

n=33 n=32

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 398 Thoracic Surgery

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 399 Thoracic Surgery Table 1 General Information

2016 Survey Number of responses 18 Response rate 31.0%

Match Information* Appointment Years 2016 2015 2014 Number of programs in the Match 67 67 71 Number of positions in the Match 90 87 97 Number of applicants ranking specialty 127 114 92 * Source: NRMP Data Warehouse

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 400 Thoracic Surgery Figure-1 Percentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Selecting Applicants to Interview (N=13) Percent Citing Factor Average Rating Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialty 100% 4.6 Residency performance evaluation (Program Director letter) 92% 4.3 Reputation of residency program 100% 4.0 Demonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research 85% 3.4 Perceived commitment to specialty 85% 4.1 Personal statement 100% 4.0 Perceived interest in program 69% 4.0 Evidence of professionalism and ethics 85% 4.5 USMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score 77% 3.9 Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chapters 92% 3.6 USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE score 77% 3.9 Leadership qualities 85% 4.4 Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicant 69% 4.0 Oral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements 69% 3.3 Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institution 77% 3.7 Pass USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PE 62% 4.1 Any failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX 62% 4.3 USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 score 54% 4.0 Interest in academic career 69% 4.3 Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based) 54% 3.6 Clinical/laboratory research experience 69% 3.4 Awards or special honors in medical school 77% 3.7 Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership 77% 3.8 Other life experience 46% 3.8 Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter) 62% 3.6 Graduate of highly‐regarded medical school 46% 3.7 Visa status* 62% 3.6 Volunteer/extracurricular experiences 31% 3.8 Awarded grant money for research 46% 3.2 Grades in medical school 62% 3.6 Lack of gaps in medical education 31% 4.0 Medical school class ranking/quartile 46% 3.7 Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP 15% 4.5 Electives at your fellowship site 31% 3.5 Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membership 31% 3.3 Residency class ranking/quartile 8% 4.0 Fluency in language spoken by your patient population 0% In‐Training Examination (ITE) 85% 4.4 Residency program size 23% 2.7 Having finished another fellowship 15% 1.5 100% 50% 0% 1 2 345

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

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 401 Thoracic Surgery Figure-2 Percentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Ranking Applicants (N=13) Percent Citing Factor Average Rating Interactions with faculty during interview and visit 100% 4.6 Interpersonal skills 92% 4.4 Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialty 92% 4.3 Interactions with house staff during interview and visit 83% 4.6 Perceived commitment to specialty 67% 4.1 Feedback from current residents and fellows 75% 4.8 Perceived interest in program 67% 4.1 Demonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research 83% 3.9 Reputation of residency program 92% 3.9 Residency performance evaluation (Program Director letter) 83% 4.3 Evidence of professionalism and ethics 67% 4.1 Personal statement 92% 4.0 Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicant 75% 4.3 Leadership qualities 83% 3.9 Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chapters 67% 4.0 Interest in academic career 50% 3.8 Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institution 67% 4.3 USMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score 83% 3.6 USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE score 83% 3.6 Any failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX 58% 4.5 Passing USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PE 75% 3.5 Clinical/laboratory research experience 67% 3.7 USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 score 58% 3.7 Oral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements 75% 3.9 Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based) 67% 3.6 Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership 67% 3.8 Other life experience 42% 3.6 Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter) 50% 3.3 Second interview/visit 33% 3.5 Awards or special honors in medical school 58% 3.3 Visa status* 42% 3.8 Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP 17% 3.5 Graduate of highly‐regarded medical school 42% 3.3 Electives at your fellowship site 50% 3.3 Awarded grant money for research 50% 3.8 Volunteer/extracurricular experiences 33% 3.3 Medical school class ranking/quartile 33% 2.7 Lack of gaps in medical education 33% 3.8 Grades in medical school 42% 3.0 Residency class ranking/quartile 8% 3.0 Fluency in language spoken by your patient population 8% 4.0 Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membership 17% 3.0 Residency program size 42% 2.8 In‐Training Examination (ITE) 75% 4.2 Second interview/visit 25% 3.5 Having finished another fellowship 25% 3.0 100% 50% 0% 12345 ¹ Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). * International Medical Graduates only

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 402 Thoracic Surgery Figure-3 Programs That Use USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) Scores When Considering Which Applicants to Interview Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 1 Score Scores required? Would your program consider applicants who fail the 100% N=12 exam on the first attempt? 90% 100% N=12 90% 80% 75% 80% 70% 70% 60% 60% 50% 50% 50% 40% 40% 33% 30% 25% 30% 20% 20% 17% 10% 10% 0% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Never Seldom Often

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 (CK) Score Scores required? Would your program consider applicants who fail N=12 the exam on the first attempt? N=12 100% 100% 90% 90% 80% 80% 70% 67% 70% 60% 60% 50% 50% 50% 40% 40% 33% 30% 25% 30% 20% 20% 17% 10% 8% 10% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Never Seldom often

IQR* of Average USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 CK Scores Programs Consider When Granting Interviews Scores Below Which Programs Scores Above Which Programs Generally Do Not Grant Interviews Almost Always Grant Interviews

USMLE Step 2 CK USMLE Step 1 not USMLE Step 2 CK USMLE Step 1 not not reported reported because not reported reported because because of low of low response because of low of low response response rate rate response rate rate

*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.

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 403 Thoracic Surgery Figure-4 Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 Clinical Skill (CS), Step 3, and COMLEX-USA Scores* When Considering Which Applicants to Interview Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 CS and Step 3 Scores USMLE Step 2 CS USMLE Step 3 100% N=12 100% N=11 92% 90% 90% 80% 80% 70% 70% 60% 60% 55% 50% 50% 40% 40% 30% 30% 27% 20% 20% 18% 10% 8% 10% 0% 0% Yes No Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

Percentage of Programs That Use COMLEX-USA Level 1 and Level 2-CE Scores COMLEX-USA Level 1* COMLEX-USA Level 2-CE* 100% 100% N=8 N=8 90% 90% 80% 80% 70% 70% 60% 60% 50% 50% 50% 50% 40% 38% 40% 38% 30% 30% 20% 20% 13% 13% 10% 10% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

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

COMLEX-USA Level 2-PE* COMLEX-USA Level 3* 100% N=8 100% N=8 90% 90% 80% 80% 70% 70% 60% 60% 50% 50% 50% 50% 40% 38% 40% 38% 30% 30% 20% 20% 13% 13% 10% 10% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

* Osteopathic applicants only

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 404 Thoracic Surgery Figure-5 Programs That Use Core Specialty Certifying Examination When Considering Applicants for Interview Scores required? Would your program consider applicants who fail the 100% N=8 exam on the first attempt? 90% N=6 80% 100% 70% 90% 80% 60% 67% 50% 70% 50% 60% 40% 38% 50% 30% 40% 30% 20% 13% 20% 17% 17% 10% 10% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No, not required Never Seldom Often

Thoracic Surgery Figure-6 Programs Positions

Average Number of Accredited Positions and Funded Positions Average Percentage of Accredited Positions Offered Outside of 4.0 the Match 4.0 3.9 100% 3.5 90% 3.0 80% 70% 2.5 61% 60% 2.0 50% 40% 1.5 30% 1.0 20% 10% 0.5 0% 0.0 Positions Filled Before Positions Offered Outside Positions Filled Outside Accredited Positions Funded Positions Match Day the Match the Match

N=17 N=16 N=5 N=0 N=0

Thoracic Surgery Figure-7 Dedicated Time for Research

Program Requirement on Dedicated Time for Average Number of Months if Research Time is Research Required N=18 6

4

2

0

-2

-4 Optional 100.0% -6 Accredited Locally Funded Integrated Other N=0 N=0 N=0 N=0

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 405 Thoracic Surgery Figure-8 Program's Interview Activities

Interview Invitations Sent and Interviews Conducted

100% N=13 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 45% 40% 38% 27% 30% 30% 22% 20% 10% 4% 4% 8% 7% 0% 0%4% 0% 4% 0%0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Interview invitations Interviews conducted

Average Number of Positions, Applications Received, Interview Average Percentage of Applicants Rejected and Reviewed Invitations Sent, and Applicants Interviewed and Ranked 70 100% 63 90% 60 80% 50 70% 64% 60% 40 50% 38% 40% 30 25 30% 19 20 20% 10% 10 0% Rejected based on a In-depth review 0 standardized screening Number of applications Number of interview Number of applicants process received invitations sent interviewed N=17 N=17 N=17 N=17 N=17

Percentage of Programs that Typically Interview and Rank Each Applicant Type 27% of Thoracic Surgery programs consider all applicant groups 100% 100% 93% N=15 90% 80% 70% 67% 60% 60% 50% 47% 40% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% U.S. Graduate Osteopathic Canadian Fifth Pathway U.S. IMG Non-U.S. IMG Physician Frequency of Programs Interviewing and Ranking Candidates Interview Ranking 100% 100% 15% 90% 15% 90% 80% 36% 80% 50% 46% 50% 50% 54% 54% 50% 70% 31% 70% 31% 60% 60% 50% 100% 50% 100% 40% 43% 40% 30% 46% 30% 43% 42% 50% 54% 43% 54% 38% 38% 20% 20% 10% 21% 10% 8% 8% 8% 8% 0% 7% 0% 7% Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-US Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-US IMG IMG Often Seldom Never Often Seldom Never n=14 n=14

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 406 Thoracic Surgery

Figure-9 Potential Challenges in Recruiting Applicants to Your Specialty

Average rating on a scale of 5 (1=least challenging; 5=most challenging) n=12

Not enough applicants in the specialty 2.7

Undesirable income potential as a practicing physician 2.1

Undesirable work/life balance as a practicing physician 3.6

Long or irregular work hours required by specialty 3.5

Fellowship Match scheduled at inconvenient time of year 1.6

012345

Thoracic Surgery

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

n=12

We consider those applicants on an individual basis 58%

We give those applicants serious consideration if they have 8% shown improvement

We do not usually consider those applicants 33%

We favor those applicants 0%

Other 0%

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

Thoracic Surgery

Figure-11 Years as Program Director

At Any Fellowship Program At Current Fellowship Program

Less than 3 13.3% More than 15 Less than 3 More than 15 23.1% 23.1% 26.7% 3 to 5 13.3%

11 to 15 3 to 5 13.3% 6 to 10 23.1% 6 to 10 30.8% 33.3%

n=15 n=13

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 407 Vascular Neurology

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 408 Vascular Neurology Table 1 General Information

2016 Survey Number of responses 26 Response rate 36.1%

Match Information* Appointment Years 2016 2015 2014 Number of programs in the Match 74 Number of positions in the Match 123 Number of applicants ranking specialty 103 * Source: NRMP Data Warehouse

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 409 Vascular Neurology Figure-1 Percentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Selecting Applicants to Interview (N=20) Percent Citing Factor Average Rating Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialty 85% 4.4 Residency performance evaluation (Program Director letter) 80% 4.6 Reputation of residency program 90% 4.2 Demonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research 80% 3.6 Perceived commitment to specialty 65% 4.6 Personal statement 70% 3.9 Perceived interest in program 60% 4.2 Evidence of professionalism and ethics 70% 4.6 USMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score 80% 3.8 Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chapters 80% 3.9 USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE score 75% 3.8 Leadership qualities 55% 4.2 Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicant 40% 4.4 Oral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements 70% 3.8 Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institution 55% 4.0 Pass USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PE 70% 3.9 Any failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX 70% 4.3 USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 score 70% 3.6 Interest in academic career 50% 4.1 Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based) 45% 3.4 Clinical/laboratory research experience 45% 3.3 Awards or special honors in medical school 40% 3.5 Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership 50% 3.1 Other life experience 40% 3.3 Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter) 35% 3.9 Graduate of highly‐regarded medical school 50% 3.3 Visa status* 55% 3.8 Volunteer/extracurricular experiences 35% 3.3 Awarded grant money for research 30% 4.2 Grades in medical school 30% 4.3 Lack of gaps in medical education 30% 3.8 Medical school class ranking/quartile 35% 3.6 Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP 25% 4.8 Electives at your fellowship site 25% 4.2 Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membership 35% 3.3 Residency class ranking/quartile 10% 3.0 Fluency in language spoken by your patient population 25% 3.5 In‐Training Examination (ITE) 15% 3.0 Residency program size 15% 3.0 Having finished another fellowship 0% 100% 50% 0% 1 2 345

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

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 410 Vascular Neurology Figure-2 Percentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Ranking Applicants (N=20) Percent Citing Factor Average Rating Interactions with faculty during interview and visit 80% 5.0 Interpersonal skills 85% 4.8 Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialty 60% 4.6 Interactions with house staff during interview and visit 60% 4.8 Perceived commitment to specialty 70% 4.6 Feedback from current residents and fellows 50% 4.9 Perceived interest in program 55% 4.7 Demonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research 70% 4.0 Reputation of residency program 70% 4.1 Residency performance evaluation (Program Director letter) 55% 4.3 Evidence of professionalism and ethics 50% 4.8 Personal statement 40% 4.0 Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicant 40% 4.4 Leadership qualities 45% 4.7 Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chapters 35% 3.4 Interest in academic career 45% 4.1 Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institution 35% 4.4 USMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score 55% 3.4 USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE score 55% 3.6 Any failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX 35% 4.1 Passing USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PE 45% 3.7 Clinical/laboratory research experience 30% 3.2 USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 score 50% 3.4 Oral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements 35% 3.6 Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based) 25% 3.2 Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership 20% 3.8 Other life experience 20% 4.0 Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter) 40% 3.8 Second interview/visit 25% 4.0 Awards or special honors in medical school 25% 3.6 Visa status* 20% 3.5 Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP 10% 5.0 Graduate of highly‐regarded medical school 20% 4.0 Electives at your fellowship site 20% 4.0 Awarded grant money for research 15% 3.3 Volunteer/extracurricular experiences 10% 4.5 Medical school class ranking/quartile 25% 4.0 Lack of gaps in medical education 15% 3.3 Grades in medical school 10% 5.0 Residency class ranking/quartile 10% 4.0 Fluency in language spoken by your patient population 25% 4.8 Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membership 5% 4.0 Residency program size 15% 3.7 In‐Training Examination (ITE) 0% Second interview/visit 15% 4.0 Having finished another fellowship 0% 100% 50% 0% 12345 ¹ Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). * International Medical Graduates only

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 411 Vascular Neurology Figure-3 Programs That Use USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) Scores When Considering Which Applicants to Interview Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 1 Score Scores required? Would your program consider applicants who fail the 100% N=19 exam on the first attempt? 90% 100% N=19 90% 80% 80% 70% 68% 70% 68% 60% 60% 50% 50% 40% 32% 40% 30% 30% 26% 20% 20% 10% 10% 5% 0% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Never Seldom Often

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 (CK) Score Scores required? Would your program consider applicants who fail N=19 the exam on the first attempt? N=19 100% 100% 90% 90% 80% 80% 70% 68% 70% 63% 60% 60% 50% 50% 40% 40% 32% 32% 30% 30% 20% 20% 10% 10% 5% 0% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Never Seldom often

IQR* of Average USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 CK Scores Programs Consider When Granting Interviews Scores Below Which Programs Scores Above Which Programs Generally Do Not Grant Interviews Almost Always Grant Interviews 260

250

240

230 USMLE Step 1 not USMLE Step 2 CK not reported 220 reported because of low response because of low 210 rate response rate 200

190

180

170 USMLE Step 1 USMLE Step 2 CK N=5 N=5

*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.

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 412 Vascular Neurology Figure-4 Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 Clinical Skill (CS), Step 3, and COMLEX-USA Scores* When Considering Which Applicants to Interview Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 CS and Step 3 Scores USMLE Step 2 CS USMLE Step 3 100% N=19 100% N=19 100% 90% 90% 80% 80% 70% 70% 63% 60% 60% 50% 50% 40% 40% 30% 30% 21% 20% 20% 16% 10% 10% 0% 0% 0% Yes No Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

Percentage of Programs That Use COMLEX-USA Level 1 and Level 2-CE Scores COMLEX-USA Level 1* COMLEX-USA Level 2-CE* 100% 100% N=12 N=12 90% 90% 80% 80% 70% 70% 60% 60% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 40% 40% 30% 30% 20% 20% 10% 10% 0% 0% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

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

COMLEX-USA Level 2-PE* COMLEX-USA Level 3* 100% N=12 100% N=12 90% 90% 80% 80% 70% 70% 60% 60% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 40% 40% 30% 30% 20% 20% 10% 10% 0% 0% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

* Osteopathic applicants only

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 413 Vascular Neurology Figure-5 Programs That Use Core Specialty Certifying Examination When Considering Applicants for Interview Scores required? Would your program consider applicants who fail the 100% N=10 exam on the first attempt? 90% 90% N=4 80% 100% 70% 90% 80% 75% 60% 70% 50% 60% 40% 50% 30% 40% 30% 25% 20% 20% 10% 10% 10% 0% 0% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No, not required Never Seldom Often

Vascular Neurology Figure-6 Programs Positions

Average Number of Accredited Positions and Funded Positions Average Percentage of Accredited Positions Offered Outside of 2.4 2.4 2.3 the Match 100% 2.0 90% 80% 1.6 70% 60% 1.2 50% 48% 48% 48% 40% 0.8 30% 20% 0.4 10% 0% 0.0 Positions Filled Before Positions Offered Outside Positions Filled Outside Accredited Positions Funded Positions Match Day the Match the Match

N=26 N=26 N=4 N=4 N=4

Vascular Neurology Figure-7 Dedicated Time for Research

Program Requirement on Dedicated Time for Average Number of Months if Research Time is Research Required N=26 7 7

6

5 4 4 3 Required Optional 3 50.0% 50.0% 2 2

1

0 Accredited Locally Funded Integrated Other N=6 N=5 N=3 N=1

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 414 Vascular Neurology Figure-8 Program's Interview Activities

Interview Invitations Sent and Interviews Conducted

100% N=18 90% 80% 70% 60% 53% 50% 40% 31% 30% 19% 21% 20% 17% 15% 10% 6% 5% 6% 6% 2% 0% 0%0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%3% 0% 3% 4% 0% Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Interview invitations Interviews conducted

Average Number of Positions, Applications Received, Interview Average Percentage of Applicants Rejected and Reviewed Invitations Sent, and Applicants Interviewed and Ranked 32 31 100% 28 90% 80% 70% 24 70% 20 60% 50% 15 16 40% 12 11 30% 26% 20% 8 10% 4 0% Rejected based on a In-depth review 0 standardized screening Number of applications Number of interview Number of applicants process received invitations sent interviewed N=22 N=22 N=22 N=23 N=23

Percentage of Programs that Typically Interview and Rank Each Applicant Type 55% of Vascular Neurology programs consider all applicant groups

100% 95% 95% N=20 90% 90% 85% 80% 75% 70% 60% 55% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% U.S. Graduate Osteopathic Canadian Fifth Pathway U.S. IMG Non-U.S. IMG Physician Frequency of Programs Interviewing and Ranking Candidates Interview Ranking 100% 100% 10% 10% 90% 20% 90% 20% 80% 80% 45% 50% 50% 50% 70% 40% 70% 35% 70% 70% 60% 75% 60% 80% 50% 60% 50% 60% 40% 40% 30% 40% 30% 40% 55% 50% 45% 55% 20% 25% 20% 25% 10% 25% 20% 10% 20% 20% 10% 10% 0% 5% 0% 5% 5% Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-US Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-US IMG IMG Often Seldom Never Often Seldom Never n=20 n=20

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 415 Vascular Neurology

Figure-9 Potential Challenges in Recruiting Applicants to Your Specialty

Average rating on a scale of 5 (1=least challenging; 5=most challenging) n=18

Not enough applicants in the specialty 3.3

Undesirable income potential as a practicing physician 2.4

Undesirable work/life balance as a practicing physician 3.4

Long or irregular work hours required by specialty 3.4

Fellowship Match scheduled at inconvenient time of year 2.1

012345

Vascular Neurology

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

n=18

We consider those applicants on an individual basis 78%

We give those applicants serious consideration if they have 6% shown improvement

We do not usually consider those applicants 17%

We favor those applicants 0%

Other 0%

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

Vascular Neurology

Figure-11 Years as Program Director

At Any Fellowship Program At Current Fellowship Program

More than 15 11 to 11 to 159.1% 9.5%15 4.5% Less than 3 31.8% Less than 3 6 to 10 38.1% 6 to 10 23.8% 22.7%

3 to 5 3 to 5 31.8% 28.6%

n=22 n=21

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 416 Vascular Surgery

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 417 Vascular Surgery Table 1 General Information

2016 Survey Number of responses 24 Response rate 26.1%

Match Information* Appointment Years 2016 2015 2014 Number of programs in the Match 92 90 86 Number of positions in the Match 121 115 115 Number of applicants ranking specialty 128 111 114 * Source: NRMP Data Warehouse

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 418 Vascular Surgery Figure-1 Percentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Selecting Applicants to Interview (N=20) Percent Citing Factor Average Rating Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialty 95% 4.7 Residency performance evaluation (Program Director letter) 90% 4.2 Reputation of residency program 90% 4.0 Demonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research 90% 3.7 Perceived commitment to specialty 85% 4.2 Personal statement 70% 3.8 Perceived interest in program 75% 4.1 Evidence of professionalism and ethics 70% 4.2 USMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score 85% 3.9 Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chapters 95% 3.7 USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE score 70% 3.9 Leadership qualities 65% 4.1 Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicant 80% 4.3 Oral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements 65% 3.8 Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institution 55% 3.6 Pass USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PE 55% 4.3 Any failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX 60% 4.9 USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 score 50% 3.9 Interest in academic career 70% 3.5 Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based) 50% 3.4 Clinical/laboratory research experience 55% 3.5 Awards or special honors in medical school 55% 3.4 Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership 90% 3.7 Other life experience 55% 3.7 Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter) 45% 3.4 Graduate of highly‐regarded medical school 50% 3.8 Visa status* 45% 4.3 Volunteer/extracurricular experiences 30% 3.2 Awarded grant money for research 45% 3.4 Grades in medical school 45% 3.7 Lack of gaps in medical education 50% 4.1 Medical school class ranking/quartile 60% 3.3 Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP 15% 5.0 Electives at your fellowship site 35% 2.6 Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membership 25% 4.0 Residency class ranking/quartile 15% 3.0 Fluency in language spoken by your patient population 0% In‐Training Examination (ITE) 85% 4.1 Residency program size 5% 2.0 Having finished another fellowship 10% 3.0 100% 50% 0% 1 2 345

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

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 419 Vascular Surgery Figure-2 Percentage of Programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating¹ for Each Factor in Ranking Applicants (N=20) Percent Citing Factor Average Rating Interactions with faculty during interview and visit 83% 4.7 Interpersonal skills 89% 4.6 Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialty 78% 4.5 Interactions with house staff during interview and visit 83% 4.5 Perceived commitment to specialty 44% 3.9 Feedback from current residents and fellows 67% 4.5 Perceived interest in program 61% 4.0 Demonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research 67% 3.5 Reputation of residency program 72% 3.6 Residency performance evaluation (Program Director letter) 56% 4.1 Evidence of professionalism and ethics 44% 4.3 Personal statement 33% 3.8 Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicant 56% 3.9 Leadership qualities 39% 4.2 Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chapters 72% 3.8 Interest in academic career 44% 3.3 Applicant was a resident in a core program at same institution 33% 3.3 USMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score 44% 3.9 USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE score 44% 3.9 Any failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX 39% 4.8 Passing USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PE 33% 4.2 Clinical/laboratory research experience 33% 3.6 USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 score 28% 3.8 Oral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements 50% 3.9 Residency program setting (univ.‐based vs. comm.‐based) 33% 4.0 Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership 50% 4.0 Other life experience 22% 4.0 Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter) 17% 3.0 Second interview/visit 22% 3.8 Awards or special honors in medical school 28% 3.6 Visa status* 50% 4.3 Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the NRMP 11% 5.0 Graduate of highly‐regarded medical school 33% 3.5 Electives at your fellowship site 22% 4.3 Awarded grant money for research 33% 3.4 Volunteer/extracurricular experiences 11% 5.0 Medical school class ranking/quartile 17% 3.3 Lack of gaps in medical education 33% 4.0 Grades in medical school 17% 3.3 Residency class ranking/quartile 6% 2.0 Fluency in language spoken by your patient population 0% Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membership 11% 4.0 Residency program size 11% 2.5 In‐Training Examination (ITE) 72% 4.3 Second interview/visit 17% 2.5 Having finished another fellowship 6% 3.0 100% 50% 0% 12345 ¹ Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). * International Medical Graduates only

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 420 Vascular Surgery Figure-3 Programs That Use USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) Scores When Considering Which Applicants to Interview Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 1 Score Scores required? Would your program consider applicants who fail the 100% N=20 exam on the first attempt? 90% 100% N=19 90% 80% 80% 70% 60% 70% 60% 60% 50% 53% 40% 50% 40% 42% 40% 30% 30% 20% 20% 10% 10% 5% 0% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Never Seldom Often

Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 (CK) Score Scores required? Would your program consider applicants who fail N=20 the exam on the first attempt? N=19 100% 100% 90% 90% 80% 80% 70% 65% 70% 60% 60% 58% 50% 50% 40% 35% 40% 37% 30% 30% 20% 20% 10% 10% 5% 0% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Never Seldom often

IQR* of Average USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 CK Scores Programs Consider When Granting Interviews Scores Below Which Programs Scores Above Which Programs Generally Do Not Grant Interviews Almost Always Grant Interviews 260 260

250 250

240 240

230 230

220 220

210 210

200 200

190 190

180 180

170 170 USMLE Step 1 USMLE Step 2 CK USMLE Step 1 USMLE Step 2 CK N=8 N=7 N=7 N=6

*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.

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 421 Vascular Surgery Figure-4 Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 Clinical Skill (CS), Step 3, and COMLEX-USA Scores* When Considering Which Applicants to Interview Percentage of Programs That Use USMLE Step 2 CS and Step 3 Scores USMLE Step 2 CS USMLE Step 3 100% N=20 100% N=19 100% 90% 90% 80% 80% 74% 70% 70% 60% 60% 50% 50% 40% 40% 30% 30% 21% 20% 20% 10% 10% 5% 0% 0% 0% Yes No Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

Percentage of Programs That Use COMLEX-USA Level 1 and Level 2-CE Scores COMLEX-USA Level 1* COMLEX-USA Level 2-CE* 100% 100% N=11 N=11 90% 90% 80% 80% 70% 70% 60% 60% 50% 45% 45% 50% 45% 45% 40% 40% 30% 30% 20% 20% 9% 9% 10% 10% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

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

COMLEX-USA Level 2-PE* COMLEX-USA Level 3* 100% N=11 100% N=11 90% 90% 80% 80% 70% 70% 60% 60% 50% 45% 45% 50% 45% 45% 40% 40% 30% 30% 20% 20% 9% 9% 10% 10% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No Yes, pass only Yes, target score No

* Osteopathic applicants only

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 422 Vascular Surgery Figure-5 Programs That Use Core Specialty Certifying Examination When Considering Applicants for Interview Scores required? Would your program consider applicants who fail the 100% N=9 exam on the first attempt? 89% 90% N=6 80% 100% 70% 90% 80% 60% 70% 67% 50% 60% 40% 50% 30% 40% 33% 30% 20% 11% 20% 10% 10% 0% 0% 0% 0% Yes, pass only Yes, target score No, not required Never Seldom Often

Vascular Surgery Figure-6 Programs Positions

Average Number of Accredited Positions and Funded Positions Average Percentage of Accredited Positions Offered Outside of 1.8 1.8 1.8 the Match

1.6 100% 90% 1.4 83% 80% 1.2 70% 1.0 60% 50% 0.8 42% 42% 40% 0.6 30% 0.4 20% 10% 0.2 0% 0.0 Positions Filled Before Positions Offered Outside Positions Filled Outside Accredited Positions Funded Positions Match Day the Match the Match

N=24 N=24 N=2 N=2 N=2

Vascular Surgery Figure-7 Dedicated Time for Research

Program Requirement on Dedicated Time for Average Number of Months if Research Time is Research Required N=24 24 24

20

Required 16 16.7% 13 12 12

8

Optional 4 83.3% 0 Accredited Locally Funded Integrated Other N=3 N=1 N=1 N=0

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 423 Vascular Surgery Figure-8 Program's Interview Activities

Interview Invitations Sent and Interviews Conducted

100% N=21 90% 80% 73% 70% 60% 50% 44% 40% 32% 30% 20% 10% 12% 10% 10% 6% 5% 5% 1% 0%0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%0% 0% 0% 2% 0% 0% Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Interview invitations Interviews conducted

Average Number of Positions, Applications Received, Interview Average Percentage of Applicants Rejected and Reviewed Invitations Sent, and Applicants Interviewed and Ranked 60 100% 53 90% 50 80% 70% 70% 40 60% 50% 30 40% 22 29% 30% 20 18 20% 10% 10 0% Rejected based on a In-depth review 0 standardized screening Number of applications Number of interview Number of applicants process received invitations sent interviewed N=23 N=23 N=23 N=23 N=23

Percentage of Programs that Typically Interview and Rank Each Applicant Type 20% of Vascular Surgery programs consider all applicant groups 100% 100% N=20 90% 80% 80% 75% 75% 70% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 25% 20% 10% 0% U.S. Graduate Osteopathic Canadian Fifth Pathway U.S. IMG Non-U.S. IMG Physician Frequency of Programs Interviewing and Ranking Candidates Interview Ranking 100% 100% 6% 6% 90% 16% 17% 90% 16% 18% 18% 28% 17% 32% 33% 80% 37% 80% 70% 70% 60% 60% 50% 100% 50% 100% 65% 79% 72% 79% 40% 67% 40% 78% 76% 68% 61% 30% 63% 30% 20% 20% 10% 10% 11% 18% 0% 5% 6% 0% 5% 6% Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-US Prev. Grad Osteo Pathway Canadian US IMG Non-US IMG IMG Often Seldom Never Often Seldom Never n=19 n=19

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 424 Vascular Surgery

Figure-9 Potential Challenges in Recruiting Applicants to Your Specialty

Average rating on a scale of 5 (1=least challenging; 5=most challenging) n=17

Not enough applicants in the specialty 2.8

Undesirable income potential as a practicing physician 1.9

Undesirable work/life balance as a practicing physician 3.2

Long or irregular work hours required by specialty 3.7

Fellowship Match scheduled at inconvenient time of year 1.9

012345

Vascular Surgery

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

n=17

We consider those applicants on an individual basis 76%

We give those applicants serious consideration if they have 12% shown improvement

We do not usually consider those applicants 18%

We favor those applicants 0%

Other 0%

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

Vascular Surgery

Figure-11 Years as Program Director

At Any Fellowship Program At Current Fellowship Program

More than 15 Less than 3 18.8% More than 15 25.0% 31.3% Less than 3 37.5%

3 to 5 11 to 15 12.5% 25.0% 11 to 15 18.8% 6 to 10 6 to 10 3 to 5 12.5% 6.3% 12.5%

n=16 n=16

NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 425