Moderate Causal Evidence

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 171 - 180 of 183

Choice architecture and retirement savings plans (Benartzi et al. 2007)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: Moderate Causal Evidence
The report’s objective was to examine the impact of choice architecture—that is, aspects of a savings plan’s structure and enrollment process—on 401(k) savings decisions. The authors discussed five…
Given time it worked: Positive outcomes from a SSDI benefit offset pilot after the initial evaluation period (Delin et al. 2014)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: Moderate Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of Wisconsin’s Benefit Offset Pilot Demonstration (BOPD), which provided a more-generous work incentive for Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI…
Effectiveness of supported employment for individuals with schizophrenia: Results of a multi-site, randomized trial (Cook et al. 2008)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: Moderate Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to estimate the 24-month employment effects of supported employment interventions on people with severe mental illness, focusing on those with schizophrenia. Supported…
Initial impacts of the Ticket to Work program on Social Security disability beneficiary service enrollment, earnings, and benefits (Wittenburg et. al 2007)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: Moderate Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to determine the effectiveness of Ticket to Work (TTW), a program designed to enhance the employment services available to Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and Social…
Results of a multisite randomized trial of supported employment interventions for individuals with severe mental illness (Cook et al. 2005)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: Moderate Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to estimate the 24-month employment effects of supported employment on people with severe mental illness. Supported employment interventions use a combination of employment…
Can benefits and work incentives counseling be a path to future economic self-sufficiency for SSI/SSDI beneficiaries? (Nazarov et al. 2013)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: Moderate Causal Evidence
This study’s objective was to determine whether benefits and work incentives counseling provided by New York State’s vocational rehabilitation (VR) agency increased earnings and increased the number…
Evaluating the Vocational Rehabilitation Program using longitudinal data: Evidence for a quasi-experimental research design (Dean et al. 1999)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: Moderate Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to determine the impact of participation in Vocational Rehabilitation (VR), a state and federal program, on earnings for people with disabilities. VR provides services and…
The impact of Medicare Part D on self-employment. (Moulton et al. 2017)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: Moderate Causal Evidence
The study examined the effect of the introduction of Medicare Part D on self-employment. The authors used a nonexperimental approach and data from the American Community Survey to estimate the…
The effect of the Affordable Care Act on labor transitions among older workers. (Camilleri 2017)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: Moderate Causal Evidence
The study examined the impact of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) on the employment outcomes of older workers. The author used data from the Current Population Survey for 2011–2016 and regression…
Who pays the high health costs of older workers? Evidence from prostate cancer screening mandates. (Bailey 2014)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: Moderate Causal Evidence
The study examined the impact of state mandates that health insurance plans cover prostate cancer screenings on the earnings and employment of men older than age 50 The study used nonexperimental…

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.