This topic area focuses on the effectiveness of literacy interventions for adults, including English-language learners, designed to increase employment and earnings by improving participants’ reading, writing, technological/digital, and financial skills. CLEAR assessed the quality of the causal evidence and summarized its approach, findings, and the intervention examined.
Literacy
Status: Literature reviewed in this topic area currently covers 2000 - 2018.
Recently Added
CLEAR searches the existing literature for research relevant to this topic area's focus. Browse the most recently reviewed research below.
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of the Family Independence Initiative (FII) on education, earnings, employment, and public benefit receipt outcomes of low-income adults. The authors…Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of Adult Basic Skills (ABS) training on earnings and wages. The author used a nonexperimental design to compare the outcomes of adults who…Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of Adult Basic Skills (ABS) training on GED attainment. The author used a nonexperimental design to compare the outcomes of adults who participated in…Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of continuing education programs on agricultural worker earnings and employment outcomes. The author used a nonexperimental design to compare the…Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
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…Improving basic skills: The effects of adult education in welfare-to-work programs (Bos et al. 2002)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of both education- and employment-focused welfare-to-work programs on earnings and public benefit receipt. The study was a randomized controlled trial…
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.