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 461 - 470 of 527

Increasing saving behavior through age-progressed renderings of the future self (Hershfield et al. 2011)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: High Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to determine whether contact with an age-progressed visual representation of the self led participants to allocate more money to savings for retirement. The authors…
Psychological frictions and the incomplete take-up of social benefits: Evidence from an IRS field experiment (Bhargava & Manoli 2015)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: High Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of complexity, program information, and stigma on the take-up rate of the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) among eligible taxpayers who had not…
Signing at the beginning makes ethics salient and decreases dishonest self-reports in comparison to signing at the end (Shu et al. 2012)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: High Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to examine whether placing a signature line at the beginning of a form, rather than at the end, which is more common, discouraged dishonesty. The authors conducted three…
The effects of goal orientation on job search and reemployment: A field experiment among unemployed job seekers (van Hooft & Noordzij 2009)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: High Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to examine the effects of goal orientation—the way individuals frame their objectives in a given situation—on job search and reemployment among unemployed job seekers. The…
Conditional cash transfers in New York City: The continuing story of the Opportunity NYC—Family Rewards demonstration (Riccio et al. 2013)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: High Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of Family Rewards, an experimental privately funded conditional cash transfer program in New York City, on earnings, employment, public benefits…
Enhanced Early Head Start with employment services: 42-month impacts from the Kansas and Missouri sites of the Enhanced Services for the Hard-to-Employ Demonstration and Research Project (Hsueh & Farrell 2012)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: High Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of Enhanced Early Head Start (EHS) participation on employment, earnings, and public assistance receipt for low-income families with young children.…
A two-generational child-focused program enhanced with employment services: Eighteen-month impacts from the Kansas and Missouri sites of the enhanced services for the Hard-to-Employ Demonstration and Evaluation project (Hsueh et al. 2011)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: High Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of Enhanced Early Head Start (EHS) participation on employment, earnings, public assistance receipt, and education for low-income families with young…
The Employment Retention and Advancement project: How effective are different approaches aiming to increase employment retention and advancement? Final impacts for twelve models [Texas ERA—Corpus Christi] (Hendra et al. 2010)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: High Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to estimate the impact of pre- and post-employment job supports and intensive case management on welfare recipients’ employment and benefits receipt outcomes after four…
The Employment Retention and Advancement project: How effective are different approaches aiming to increase employment retention and advancement? Final impacts for twelve models [Texas ERA—Forth Worth] (Hendra et al. 2010)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: High Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to estimate the impact of pre- and post-employment job supports and intensive case management on welfare recipients’ employment and benefits receipt outcomes after four…
The Employment Retention and Advancement project: How effective are different approaches aiming to increase employment retention and advancement? Final impacts for twelve models [Achieve—Cleveland] (Hendra et al. 2010)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: High Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to determine the impact of a Cleveland, Ohio, program designed to increase employment retention among low-wage workers in the long-term nursing care industry. Cleveland…

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.