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 391 - 400 of 527

Evaluation of the perceivable demand list pilot project (Behrens 1987)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: High Causal Evidence
The report’s objective was to evaluate the Perceivable Demand List (PDL) Pilot Project on the duration of unemployment insurance (UI) receipt among recent beneficiaries laid off from high-demand…
Encouraging evidence on a sector-focused advancement strategy (Hendra et al. 2016)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: High Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of the WorkAdvance sectoral training program at the Towards Employment site on employment, earnings, education, and training from 2011 to 2015. The…
University of the District of Columbia - Final annual evaluation report TAACCCT grant program, round 4 (Hendricks et al. 2018)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: Low Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of the University of the District of Columbia Community College (UDC-CC) grant-funded healthcare and hospitality programs on education, earnings, and…
Directional control-response compatibility relationships assessed by physical simulation of an underground bolting machine (Steiner, Burgess-Limerick, & Porter 2014)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: High Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of directional control-response relationships on errors made when controlling roof-bolting machines. The study was a randomized controlled trial…
Shape-coding and length-coding as a measure to reduce the probability of selection errors during the control of industrial equipment (Steiner & Burgess-Limerick 2013)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: High Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of shape-coding and length-coding of roof-bolting machine levers on selection errors made when controlling the machines. The authors conducted three…
A visual warning system to reduce struck-by or pinning accidents involving mobile mining equipment (Sammarco et al. 2012)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: High Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of a visual warning system on motion detection time. The study was an experiment conducted in a laboratory setting. The authors assessed whether…
Evaluation of commercially available seat suspensions to reduce whole body vibration exposures in mining heavy equipment vehicle operators (Kim, Marin, & Dennerlein 2018)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: High Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of seat suspension systems on mine worker health and safety outcomes. The study was a randomized controlled trial conducted in a laboratory setting.…
Impact of public support payments, intensive psychiatric community care, and program fidelity on employment outcomes for people with severe mental illness (Resnick et al. 2003)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: High Causal Evidence
The study evaluated the one-year impacts of a U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) model of assertive community treatment for veterans with serious mental illnesses known as Intensive…
CogSMART compensatory cognitive training for traumatic brain injury: Effects over 1 year (Twamley et al. 2014)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: Low Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of Cognitive Symptom Management and Rehabilitation Therapy (CogSMART) and enhanced supported employment (ESE) on employment, earnings, and health…
Health Profession Opportunity Grants (HPOG 1.0) impact study interim report: Program implementation and short-term impacts. (Report No. 2018-16a) (Peck et al. 2018)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: High Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of the Health Profession Opportunity Grant (HPOG) program on educational progress, earnings, and employment. The authors used a randomized controlled…

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.