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 451 - 460 of 527

Preventing youth violence and dropout: A randomized field experiment (No. w19014) (Heller et al. 2013)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: High Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of the Becoming a Man program on arrest and educational outcomes. The study was a randomized controlled trial. Eligible male youth from 18 public…
A promising start: Initial impacts of Year Up on low-income young adults' careers (Roder & Elliot, 2011)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: Low Causal Evidence
This report presents preliminary findings for the impacts of the Year Up program, which provides technical skills training and internships to low-income adults ages 18 to 24. The authors randomly…
National Job Corps study and longer-term follow-up study: Impact and benefit-cost findings using survey and summary earnings records data (Schochet et al. 2006)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: High Causal Evidence
The National Job Corps Study included several reports, including this longer-term impact report. The report’s objective was to examine the impact of the Job Corps program on participants’ long-term…
The challenge of repeating success in a changing world: Final report on the Center for Employment Training replication sites (Miller et al. 2005)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: Moderate Causal Evidence
This report’s objective was to examine the effectiveness of the Center for Employment Training (CET) model. Under this model, local employers help design training programs and provide them in a work…
National Job Corps Study: Findings using administrative earnings records data (Schochet et al. 2003)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: High Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to estimate the impact on long-term earnings and employment of the Job Corps program, which offers intensive academic classroom instruction and vocational skills training…
Supporting young women to enter engineering: Long-term effects of a middle school engineering outreach program for girls (Demetry et al. 2009)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: Low Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to assess the long-term impact of Camp Reach, a summer engineering enrichment program for middle school girls, on enrollment in STEM courses in high school and college.…
When trying hard isn’t natural: Women’s belonging with and motivation for male-dominated STEM fields as a function of effort expenditure concerns (Smith et al. 2013)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: Low Causal Evidence
The study examined the effect of providing information about effort requirements to succeed in a fictitious male-dominated eco-psychology master’s program on female students’ attitudes toward their…
STEMing the tide: Using in-group experts to inoculate women’s self-concept in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) (Stout et al. 2011)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: High Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of interacting with a male or female upperclass student majoring in math and psychology (hereafter referred to as a male or female peer expert) on…
The Accelerated Benefits Demonstration and Evaluation Project: Impacts on health and employment at twelve months (Michalopoulos et al. 2011)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: High Causal Evidence
This is the 12-month survey impact report of the Accelerated Benefits Demonstration (ABD), an effort to provide immediate health insurance and employment and benefits counseling to new, uninsured…
Small cues change savings choices (Choi et al. 2012)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: Low Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to gauge the effect of savings cues on 401(k) contribution rates by exposing randomly selected groups of employees to different hypothetical savings rates or amounts. The…

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.