Related Experiment Video
Updated: Nov 11, 2025
Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting Propensity Score using the Military Health System Data Repository and National Death Index
Published on: January 8, 2020
The MedPhys match survey: Search criteria and advice for programs and applicants
Kristi R G Hendrickson1, Titania Juang2, Anna E Rodrigues3
1Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Purpose:
The purpose of this study was to gauge the experiences of applicants and program directors (PDs) in the Medical Physics (MedPhys) Match (MPM) and to determine the most important characteristics and factors that influence decision-making for applicants and programs when screening, interviewing, and ranking in the MPM. Opinions were also solicited from applicants and PDs on the status of medical physics residencies and the selection process, such as the availability of residency positions and satisfaction with the match process.
Methods:
A survey was sent to all applicants registered for the 2015-2018 MPM and to all PDs registered for the 2015-2017 MPM. Survey questions asked about the pre-interview screening, interview, and ranking stages of the residency match process. Survey data were analyzed using graphical methods and spreadsheet tools.
Results:
An increasing percentage of applicants are female and/or hold a PhD as their highest degree. The over all number of interview invitations per applicant has increased, leading some applicants to decline interviews with the top reasons being cost of travel and scheduling conflicts. The top considerations for applicants in ranking programs were residency program/institution reputation, program structure/organization, and facilities/equipment available. The primary considerations identified by PDs for ranking applicants included impressions from the interview, personality fit, and clinical potential. While two-thirds of applicants agreed or strongly agreed with the statement that a residency position was difficult to obtain, roughly one-third of PDs agree that the current residency placement rate is a problem.
Conclusion:
Four years of survey data on the experiences of applicants and PDs participating in the MPM is useful to future participants navigating the residency match system. It is hoped that the data will be helpful to inform improvements and to enhance understanding of the residency match system and how it shapes our profession.
