Coding Test

Last registered on September 09, 2025

View Trial History

Pre-Trial

Trial Information

General Information

Title

Coding Test

RCT ID

AEARCTR-0015889

Initial registration date

May 01, 2025

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

May 06, 2025, 4:56 AM EDT

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

Last updated

September 09, 2025, 10:17 PM EDT

Last updated is the most recent time when changes to the trial's registration were published.

Locations

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

Request Information

Primary Investigator

Name

Sofia Bapna

Affiliation

Contact Primary Investigator

Other Primary Investigator(s)

PI Name

PI Affiliation

PI Name

PI Affiliation

Additional Trial Information

Status

In development

Start date

2025-05-01

End date

2026-05-31

Keywords

Behavior, Gender, Labor

Additional Keywords

JEL code(s)

Secondary IDs

Prior work

This trial does not extend or rely on any prior RCTs.

Abstract

How does the selection process influence the applicant pool for software jobs?
We examine differences in applicant pools (pool size, gender composition, and applicant experience/quality) when a coding test is explicitly mentioned in the job posting versus when this information is omitted.

External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Citation

Bapna, Sofia, Russell Funk and Prasanna Parasurama. 2025. "Coding Test." AEA RCT Registry. September 09. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.15889-1.1

Sponsors & Partners

Experimental Details

Interventions

Intervention(s)

Intervention Start Date

2025-05-01

Intervention End Date

2025-05-31

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)

The key outcome is whether an interested individual (anyone who clicks on the job-application link in the job post) applies for the job after seeing the selection process.

Primary Outcomes (explanation)

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)

Secondary Outcomes (explanation)

Experimental Design

A software/mobile developer job is posted on LinkedIn by a company. The job post includes a link to apply to the job. When interested candidates click on the link they are directed to a form (on Qualtrics) where their contact info is collected. Following this they are randomly shown one of two selection processes. One process indicates that there will be a coding test and interview and the other process indicates that there will be two rounds of interviews. We analyze the applicant data to identify if more people are likely to apply to one of the experimental conditions, and if there is heterogeneity (by gender and experience/quality) across conditions.

Experimental Design Details

Not available

Randomization Method

Randomization will occur via Qualtrics. The Qualtrics survey will contain 2 blocks for the selection process (one for the treatment and one for the control). Qualtrics will randomly display one of the blocks.

Randomization Unit

Randomization is at the individual level.

Was the treatment clustered?

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters

Not applicable

Sample size: planned number of observations

It is difficult to predict how many people the job will be shown to (as this depends on the competing bids on LinkedIn), and of these the number of people who will be interested in applying to the job. The job ad will run for a month and the ad will be set up to be more discoverable (by job-seekers) in states where there are more software developers.

Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms

See the section titled "planned number of observations."

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

Supporting Documents and Materials

IRB

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)

IRB Name

IRB Approval Date

IRB Approval Number

Analysis Plan