Gender Differences in Employer Provided Training: The Role of Training Initiation, Course Content, Work Arrangements, and Care Obligations – Part 2: The Employee Side

Last registered on June 12, 2026

Pre-Trial

Trial Information

General Information

Title
Gender Differences in Employer Provided Training: The Role of Training Initiation, Course Content, Work Arrangements, and Care Obligations – Part 2: The Employee Side
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0018770
Initial registration date
June 02, 2026

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
June 12, 2026, 11:48 AM EDT

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

Locations

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

Request Information

Primary Investigator

Affiliation
University of Potsdam

Other Primary Investigator(s)

PI Affiliation
Federal Institute for Vocational Education and Training (BIBB)
PI Affiliation
Institute for Employment Research (IAB)
PI Affiliation
National University of Singapore
PI Affiliation
University of Potsdam
PI Affiliation
Institute for Employment Research (IAB)

Additional Trial Information

Status
In development
Start date
2026-06-08
End date
2026-11-13
Secondary IDs
Prior work
This trial does not extend or rely on any prior RCTs.
Abstract
The ongoing transformation of the labor market driven by demographic and technological changes has a significant impact on both labor supply and skill demand, potentially resulting in skills mismatches. One way to address this is to continuously invest in human capital throughout one's working life – a concept promoted by policymakers worldwide. However, before designing effective programs, it is important to understand how decisions about on-the-job training are formed.

The aim of this project is to improve our understanding of how training decisions are made in German establishments. We develop and test hypotheses on previously underexplored factors that influence both managers' and employees' training investment decisions.

In the first part of our project (AEARCTR-0016440), we targeted decision-makers in German firms. To address the lack of exogenous variation in human capital measures in observational data, we designed a conjoint survey experiment introducing random variation in the characteristics of potential training candidates and training courses.

In this second – complementary – part, we conduct a vignette experiment with employees of the same representative sample of German firms. The experiment is embedded in the IAB Linked-Personnel-Panel (LPP) 2026 wave. For establishments that agree to data linkage (approximately 90%), we can additionally link the survey to administrative records on employees and establishments.
The employee vignette is explicitly designed to build on and complement the employer-side study. It examines training demand from the employee perspective using a harmonized design that mirrors key attributes of the manager vignette, while adding dimensions particularly relevant to employees. Our combined approach brings together information on training supply (employers) and training demand (employees) within the same firms.
External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Citation
Caliendo, Marco et al. 2026. "Gender Differences in Employer Provided Training: The Role of Training Initiation, Course Content, Work Arrangements, and Care Obligations – Part 2: The Employee Side ." AEA RCT Registry. June 12. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.18770-1.0
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)
A vignette survey experiment (choice experiment) as detailed below. Employees of German establishments evaluate pairs of hypothetical training opportunities that vary along several key dimensions. For each pair, respondents choose their preferred training option and report their expectations regarding productivity gains for the firm and career benefits for themselves.
Intervention Start Date
2026-06-08
Intervention End Date
2026-11-13

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)
Our first primary outcome is the binary choice of which of two hypothetical training options the employee would choose. Our second primary outcome is the employee's perception of the firm's expected productivity gain from each training option. Our third primary outcome is the employee's expected career benefit from each training option.
Primary Outcomes (explanation)
The two hypothetical training options in each choice are characterized by five different features.

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)
Effect heterogeneity concerning employee characteristics, firm characteristics, and manager characteristics from the linked vignette study (AEARCTR-0016440).
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)

Experimental Design

Experimental Design
This study implements a vignette experiment embedded in the IAB Linked-Personnel-Panel (LPP) 2026 wave – a subsample of the IAB Establishment Panel that provides rich information on firms, training and HR practices, and industry and work characteristics. Respondents are employees in a representative sample of German private-sector establishments. Each respondent evaluates four pairs of hypothetical training options and makes three decisions per pair. Respondents can be directly linked to the manager vignette experiment conducted in the same firms (AEARCTR-0016440).
Experimental Design Details
Not available
Randomization Method
Randomization is carried out by a computer-based randomization.
Randomization Unit
Randomization occurs at two levels: (i) respondent level (item order and task order) and (ii) vignette level (profile attributes).
Was the treatment clustered?
No

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters
-
Sample size: planned number of observations
approx. 6,500 respondents
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
-
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
-
IRB

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)

IRB Name
IRB Approval Date
IRB Approval Number