Randomized Control Trial (RCT)

Recently Added

CLEAR searches the existing literature for research relevant to this topic area's focus. Browse the most recently reviewed research below.

Search
for studies on
this topic using
keywords
and filters

Displaying 11 - 20 of 527

Back to work: Testing reemployment services for displaced workers (Bloom 1990)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: Moderate Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of the Texas Worker Adjustment Demonstration on the Unemployment Insurance (UI) receipt, employment, and earnings of UI claimants one year after…
Two years after a job loss: Long-term impact of the JOBS Program on reemployment and mental health (Vinokur et al. 2000)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: Low Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of the JOBS II program on long-term employment, earnings, and monthly hours worked. The authors randomly assigned eligible unemployed individuals to…
Reemployment and Eligibility Assessment (REA) Study: FY 2005 Initiative: Final Report (Benus et al. 2008)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: High Causal Evidence
This study’s objective was to assess the effectiveness of the Reemployment and Eligibility Assessment (REA) Initiative in North Dakota, a program that provided eligibility and reemployment case…
Reemployment and Eligibility Assessment (REA) Study: FY 2005 Initiative: Final Report (Benus et al. 2008)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: Moderate Causal Evidence
This study’s objective was to assess the effectiveness of the Reemployment and Eligibility Assessment (REA) initiative in Minnesota, a program that provided eligibility and reemployment case…
Small + Safe + Well: Lessons learned from a Total Worker Health® randomized intervention to promote organizational change in small business (Schwatka et al., 2022)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: Low Causal Evidence
The Small + Safe + Well (SSWell) study's objective was to examine the impact of participation in a Total Worker Health® (TWH) leadership development program on small business health and safety…
RCT evidence on differential impact of US job training programmes by pre-training employment status (Baird et al., 2022)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: High Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of the New Orleans Office of Workforce Development’s (OWD’s) Career Pathways job training program on employment and earnings. The study was a…
An Earned Income Tax Credit that works for singles: Final impact findings from the Paycheck Plus Demonstration in Atlanta (Yang et al., 2022)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: High Causal Evidence
The study's objective was to examine the impact of Paycheck Plus in Atlanta on earnings and employment. Paycheck Plus is part of the Subsidized and Transitional Employment Demonstration (STED), a…
Outcomes of on-line financial education for chronically ill rural women (Haynes et al., 2011)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: Moderate Causal Evidence
The study's objective was to examine the impact of an online financial education module on financial knowledge. This profile focuses on the comparison between the intensive intervention group and the…
Randomized multi-site trial of the Job Seekers’ Workshop in patients with substance use disorders (Svikis et al., 2012)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: High Causal Evidence
The study's objective was to examine the impact of Job Seekers' Workshop (JSW) on employment outcomes among unemployed or underemployed patients receiving treatment for substance use disorders. …
Individual placement and support (IPS) for methadone maintenance therapy patients: A pilot randomized controlled trial (Lones et al., 2017)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: Moderate Causal Evidence
The study's objective was to examine the impact of Individual Placement and Support (IPS) on employment. The study was a randomized control trial that assigned 45 individuals with moderate to…

CLEAR Icon Key

Below is a key for icons used to indicate important details about a study, such as its type, evidence rating, and outcome findings.

High Causal Evidence

Strong evidence the effects are caused by the examined intervention.
Moderate Causal Evidence

Evidence that the effects are caused to some degree by the examined intervention.
Low Causal Evidence

Little evidence that the effects are caused by the examined intervention.
Causal Impact Analysis

Uses quantitative methods to assess the effectiveness of a program, policy, or intervention.
Descriptive Analysis

Describes a program, policy, or intervention using qualitative or quantitative methods.
Implementation Analysis

Examines the implementation of a program, policy, or intervention.
Favorable

The study found at least one favorable impact in the outcome domain, and no unfavorable impacts.
Mixed

The study found some favorable and some unfavorable impacts in the outcome domain.
None

The study found no statistically significant impacts in the outcome domain.
Unfavorable

The study found at least one unfavorable impact in the outcome domain, and no favorable impacts.
Not applicable

Not applicable because no outcomes were examined in the outcome domain.
Favorable - low evidence

The study found at least one favorable impact in the outcome domain, and no unfavorable impacts. The study received a low causal evidence ratings so these findings should be interpreted with caution.
Mixed - low evidence

The study found some favorable and some unfavorable impacts in the outcome domain. The study received a low causal evidence ratings so these findings should be interpreted with caution.
None - low evidence

The study found no statistically significant impacts in the outcome domain. The study received a low causal evidence ratings so these findings should be interpreted with caution.
Unfavorable - low evidence

The study found at least one unfavorable impact in the outcome domain, and no favorable impacts. The study received a low causal evidence ratings so these findings should be interpreted with caution.