Do team-based input incentives boost skill development? Evidence from India

Last registered on December 10, 2018

View Trial History

Pre-Trial

Trial Information

General Information

Title

Do team-based input incentives boost skill development? Evidence from India

RCT ID

AEARCTR-0003645

Initial registration date

December 06, 2018

Initial registration date is when the trial was registered.

It corresponds to when the registration was submitted to the Registry to be reviewed for publication.

First published

December 10, 2018, 2:04 PM EST

First published corresponds to when the trial was first made public on the Registry after being reviewed.

Locations

Country

India

Region

New Delhi

Primary Investigator

Name

Tarun Jain

Affiliation

Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad

Contact Primary Investigator

Other Primary Investigator(s)

PI Name

Sisir Debnath

PI Affiliation

Indian School of Business

Contact Investigator

Additional Trial Information

Status

On going

Start date

2017-09-01

End date

2019-09-01

Keywords

Education

Additional Keywords

Incentive design, peer effects

JEL code(s)

I21, M52

Secondary IDs

Abstract

Skill development programs are sub-optimally effective because participants do not attend frequently enough, or because they drop out of the program before completion. Especially while learning skills with non-linear rewards to attendance, such as English language and soft skills, motivating students to attend more frequently, and to stick with the program till completion might yield significantly better outcomes.

Drawing on the case of a one year English and non-cognitive skills development program in India, we analyze whether group incentives for attendance can be effective in increasing attendance and reducing dropout. To investigate this question, we divide the program’s sessions (at the instructor level) into four treatment arms: (1) A treatment where students are combined into self-chosen two-person teams, with rewards for the team with the maximum joint attendance in a term, (2) A treatment where students are combined into exogenously chosen two-person teams, with rewards for the team with the maximum joint attendance in a term, (3) A treatment where students individually rewarded for maximum attendance in a term, and (4) A control group where no incentives are implemented. We anticipate that the team incentives (treatments 1 and 2) will increase attendance and decrease dropout compared to the individual rewards. We further analyze the impact of the incentives on the development of English and non-cognitive skills.

External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Citation

Debnath, Sisir and Tarun Jain. 2018. "Do team-based input incentives boost skill development? Evidence from India." AEA RCT Registry. December 10. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.3645-1.0

Former Citation

Debnath, Sisir and Tarun Jain. 2018. "Do team-based input incentives boost skill development? Evidence from India." AEA RCT Registry. December 10. https://www.socialscienceregistry.org/trials/3645/history/38639

Sponsors & Partners

There is information in this trial unavailable to the public. Use the button below to request access.

Request Information

Experimental Details

Interventions

Intervention(s)

The experiment was conducted with the universe of the partner organization’s students. The organization consists of multiple facilitators, each running 4 sessions per day with 20 students each. We randomize the facilitators into the treatment arms described above. The baseline data was collected starting September 2017, as new sessions were beginning. The one year program lasted till December 2018, when we started collecting the endline data.

Intervention Start Date

2017-10-01

Intervention End Date

2018-12-01

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)

The primary outcomes are (1) daily attendance as measured by the program's administrative records, (2) dropout, (3) Scores on tests administered by the partner, (4) Scores on cognitive skills test administered through a survey module, (5) Scores on non-cognitive skills test administered through a survey module.

Primary Outcomes (explanation)

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)

Secondary Outcomes (explanation)

Experimental Design

Experimental Design Details

Randomization Method

We randomize the facilitators who run each session into a treatment arm. The randomization was conducted on a computer using Stata.

Randomization Unit

The unit of randomization is a facilitator who runs four sessions each.

Was the treatment clustered?

Yes

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters

There are 253 facilitators in the experiment.

Sample size: planned number of observations

The anticipated number of students in the experiment is 20240.

Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms

The number of facilitators in each treatment arm is 63 for treatment with self-chosen teams, 61 for treatment with exogenously chosen team, 63 in the individual reward treatment, and 66 in the control group.

Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)

Supporting Documents and Materials

IRB