Education and skills gains-Mod/high-Favorable impacts

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 61 - 70 of 128

Cognitive and non-cognitive predictors of success in adult education programs: Evidence from experimental data with low-income welfare recipients (Leininger & Kalil 2008)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: Moderate Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of an education-focused intervention and an employment-focused intervention on education outcomes. The authors used data from a randomized controlled…
Washington State’s Integrated Basic Education and Skills Training Program (I-BEST): New evidence of effectiveness (Zeidenberg, Cho, & Jenkins 2010)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: Moderate Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to examine the impacts of the Integrated Basic Education and Skills Training (I-BEST) program on educational attainment and wage outcomes. The authors used statistical…
Encouraging evidence on a sector-focused advancement strategy (Hendra et al. 2016)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: High Causal Evidence
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.…
Encouraging evidence on a sector-focused advancement strategy (Hendra et al. 2016)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: Moderate Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of the WorkAdvance sectoral training program at the Per Scholas site on employment, earnings, and education and training from 2011 to 2015. The…
Encouraging evidence on a sector-focused advancement strategy (Hendra et al. 2016)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: High Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of the WorkAdvance sectoral training program at the St. Nicks Alliance site on employment, earnings, education, and training from 2011 to 2015. The…
Providing public workforce services to job seekers: 15-month impact findings on the WIA Adult and Dislocated Worker programs [Comparison between Full-WIA Services versus Core-and-Intensive Services]. (McConnell et al. 2016)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: High Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) Adult and Dislocated Worker programs on training, employment, earnings, and service receipt after 15 months.…
Providing public workforce services to job seekers: 15-month impact findings on the WIA Adult and Dislocated Worker programs [Comparison betwwen Full-WIA Services versus Core Services]. (McConnell et al. 2016)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: High Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) Adult and Dislocated Worker programs on training, employment, earnings, and service receipt after 15 months.…
Providing public workforce services to job seekers: 15-month impact findings on the WIA Adult and Dislocated Worker programs [Comparison between Core-and-Intensive Services versus Core Services]. (McConnell et al. 2016)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: High Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) Adult and Dislocated Worker programs on training, employment, earnings, and service receipt after 15 months.…
Encouraging evidence on a sector-focused advancement strategy (Hendra et al. 2016)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: High Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of the WorkAdvance sectoral training program at the Towards Employment site on employment, earnings, education, and training from 2011 to 2015. The…
Schooling and the Vietnam-era GI bill: Evidence from the draft lottery (Angrist & Chen 2011)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: Moderate Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of the G.I. Bill on education, employment, earnings. The authors used a nonexperimental comparison group analysis to estimate the impact of the…

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.