| Evaluation | Effect | Average Age | Observations | Experimental Evaluation | Country | Intervention |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Adhvaryu 2016 | 9 | 27 | 1,866 | Yes | India | Soft skills in-classroom training |
| Vinokur 1995 | 3 | 36 | 1,801 | Yes | United States | Learning and practicing job search skills |
| Groh 2016 | 0 | 21 | 1,249 | Yes | Jordan | Soft skills training programme for female college graduates |
| Butler 2012 ii | -7 | 29 | 1,211 | Yes | United States | Individualized treatment plan including High School Equivalency Certificate preparation |
Graph of Effects
This graph shows the effects of [Number of Evaluations] evaluations of [Program Type] programs. The first evaluation, [Evaluation name 1], estimated an effect of [Estimated effect Eval. 1] points (graphed with the top grey circle). Because this is an estimate, there is uncertainty about what the true effect is. But we know that the true effect will probably lie between a low value of [True effect lie between – Low value, Eval. 1] and a high value of [True effect lie between – High value, Eval. 1] (graphed with the top horizontal line). We can combine the estimates from all the evaluations and compute an average effect of [Estimated effect, Average] (graphed with the black circle). There is also uncertainty about where the true average effect is. But we know that the true average effect probably lies between [True effect lie between – Low value, Average] and [True effect lie between – High value, Average] points (graphed with the bottom horizontal line).
| Evaluation | Effects | Low Value | High Value | Weight in Average Effect (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Adhvaryu 2016 | 9 | 1 | 17 | 29 |
| Butler 2012 ii | -7 | -17 | 3 | 22 |
| Groh 2016 | 0 | -9 | 10 | 23 |
| Vinokur 1995 | 3 | -5 | 12 | 26 |
| Overall |