Recently Added
CLEAR searches the existing literature for research relevant to this topic area's focus. Browse the most recently reviewed research below.
Displaying 81 - 90 of 171
Study Type: Descriptive Analysis
The authors sought to determine whether the complexity of a mother’s occupation (or the quality of employment as defined by its task complexity, autonomy, and authority) affected her 6- to 13-year-…Study Type: Descriptive Analysis
The authors described two programs partnering with California community colleges—the Mathematics, Engineering, Science Achievement Community College Program (MCCP) and the CalWomen Tech Program—that…Women in industrial engineering: Stereotypes, persistence, and perspectives (Brawner & Camacho 2012)
Study Type: Descriptive Analysis
This study explored why more women major in industrial engineering in college than other engineering fields. The authors tabulated quantitative data from eight colleges and universities in the…Mentoring practices proven to broaden participation in STEM disciplines (Crumpton-Young et al. 2014)
Study Type: Descriptive Analysis
The study identified effective mentoring practices, mostly at postsecondary institutions, for women and minority students in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields. The…Study Type: Descriptive Analysis
The article discussed how career counselors can use social cognitive career theory (SCCT), a theory that one’s background and characteristics influence self-efficacy and ultimately career choice, to…Study Type: Descriptive Analysis
This study aimed to determine if student characteristics; financial aid receipt; and labor market conditions (such as unemployment, weekly wages, and professors’ salary) predicted doctoral degree…Study Type: Descriptive Analysis
The study’s objective was to examine the effects of the Washington Alternative Work Search Experiment on the employment, earnings, and unemployment insurance benefit receipt among those who…Study Type: Implementation Analysis
This report presented an implementation and impact analysis of the Utah Benefits Offset Pilot Demonstration Project (BOPD). The study examined pilot procedures and potential challenges for national…Study Type: Implementation Analysis
The study’s objective was to examine the implementation and impact of the Mental Health Treatment Study, which provided individual placement and support (IPS, an evidence-based model of supported…Study Type: Implementation Analysis
This article summarized the findings of a process evaluation of the Transitional Employment Training Demonstration, which aimed to transition Supplemental Security Income (SSI) recipients with…
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.