Causal Impact Analysis

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 561 - 570 of 1084

Evaluation of impacts of the Reemployment and Eligibility Assessment (REA) Program: Final report (Klerman et al. 2019)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: High Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of the Reemployment and Eligibility Assessment (REA) program in four states (Indiana, New York, Washington, and Wisconsin) on people’s public benefit…
Evaluation of impacts of the Reemployment and Eligibility Assessment (REA) Program: Final report (Klerman et al. 2019)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: High Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of the Reemployment and Eligibility Assessment (REA) program in four states on people’s public benefit receipt, employment, and earnings. The authors…
Tuning in to local labor markets: Findings from the Sectoral Employment impact study (Maguire et al. 2010)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: Low Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of the Jewish Vocational Service (JVS)-Boston sectoral employment program on earnings and employment. The authors investigated similar research…
Tuning in to local labor markets: Findings from the Sectoral Employment impact study (Maguire et al. 2010)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: Low Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of the Per Scholas sectoral employment program on participants’ earnings and employment. The authors investigated similar research questions with two…
Tuning in to local labor markets: Findings from the Sectoral Employment impact study (Maguire et al. 2010)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: High Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of the Wisconsin Regional Training Partnership’s (WRTP) sectoral employment program on earnings and employment. The authors investigated similar…
Central Georgia Technical College, TAACCCT (Center for Applied Research 2017)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: Moderate Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of the BlendFlex program on community college students’ education outcomes. The study used a nonexperimental design to compare outcomes of students…
Framing and claiming: How information-framing affects expected social security claiming behavior (Brown et al. 2016)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: Low Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of different ways of framing retirement information on the age at which individuals intended to claim Social Security benefits. The authors randomly…
Growing Regional Opportunity for the Workforce (Project GROW): Final evaluation report. (Patnaik et al. 2016)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: Moderate Causal Evidence
The study's objective was to examine the impact of Project GROW (Growing Regional Opportunities for the Workforce) on education, earnings, and employment outcomes. The study used a nonexperimental…
The returns to community college schooling for displaced workers (Jacobson et al. 2001)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: Moderate Causal Evidence
The study's objective was to examine the impact of community college schooling on displaced workers’ earnings and employment outcomes. This summary focuses on the Washington State sample. The study…
The returns to community college schooling for displaced workers (Jacobson et al. 2001).
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: Moderate Causal Evidence
The study's objective was to examine the impact of the Displaced Workers Educational Training Program (DWETP) on earnings. This summary focuses on the Pittsburgh sample. The study used a…

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.