The registered apprenticeship and work-based learning topic area includes reviews of studies examining the effectiveness of work-based training programs on participants’ employment and earnings outcomes. CLEAR assessed the strength of causal evidence provided in each study and summarized each study’s design, methods, findings, and the program examined.
Registered Apprenticeship and Work-Based Learning
Status: Literature reviewed in this evidence review covers 2005 – 2023. An updated review protocol has been posted as of June 2024.
Recently Added
CLEAR searches the existing literature for research relevant to this topic area's focus. Browse the most recently reviewed research below.
Displaying 71 - 80 of 108
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
The study’s objective was to examine the effects of employment and training services offered through the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (WIA) on employment and earnings outcomes. The author…Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of paid work experience, part of Los Angeles’ Subsidized and Transitional Employment Demonstration, on employment, earnings, and public benefit…Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of on-the-job training, part of Los Angeles’ Subsidized and Transitional Employment Demonstration, on employment, earnings, education, training, and…Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of a paid work experience program, part of Los Angeles’ Subsidized and Transitional Employment Demonstration, on employment, earnings, education,…Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
The study’s objective was to examine the role of informal mentoring on annual compensation, as well as the moderating effects of mentor status. The authors investigated similar research questions in…Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
The study’s objective was to examine the role of informal mentoring on annual compensation, as well as the moderating effects of mentor status. The authors investigated similar research questions in…Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
The study’s objective was to examine the role of informal mentoring on annual compensation, as well as the moderating effects of mentor status and gender. The authors investigated similar research…Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
The study’s objective was to examine the role of informal mentoring on annual compensation, as well as the moderating effects of mentor status and gender. The authors investigated similar research…High-involvement work practices and the opportunities for promotion in the organization (Bonet 2014)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of employees’ participation in high-involvement work practices (HIWP) on their expected promotions. The author used regression methods in a…Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of the WorkAdvance sectoral training program at the Madison Strategies Group site on employment, earnings, education, and training from 2011 to 2015.…
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.