Does online certification on a CV make a difference for a potential employer?
Last registered on November 07, 2018

Pre-Trial

Trial Information
General Information
Title
Does online certification on a CV make a difference for a potential employer?
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0003538
Initial registration date
November 07, 2018
Last updated
November 07, 2018 6:35 PM EST
Location(s)

This section is unavailable to the public. Use the button below to request access to this information.

Request Information
Primary Investigator
Affiliation
Georgia State University
Other Primary Investigator(s)
PI Affiliation
Georgia Institute of Technology
PI Affiliation
Georgia State University
Additional Trial Information
Status
In development
Start date
2019-02-01
End date
2019-06-01
Secondary IDs
Abstract
The present research is intended to study the effect of having an online specialization certification on a CV on the potential employers’ job posting response rates. The research idea is based on the widely acknowledged discrimination practices in the labor market and also speaks to the growing interest in the future of online education opportunities. The project implements the randomized controlled trials (RCT) to evaluate and inform job candidates as well as the MOOC platforms of potential benefits (or absence of those) of online certification as from the potential employers’ standpoint.
External Link(s)
Registration Citation
Citation
Asensio, Omar, Olga Churkina and Ross Rubenstein. 2018. "Does online certification on a CV make a difference for a potential employer?." AEA RCT Registry. November 07. https://www.socialscienceregistry.org/trials/3538/history/36930
Experimental Details
Interventions
Intervention(s)
Intervention Start Date
2019-02-01
Intervention End Date
2019-06-01
Primary Outcomes
Primary Outcomes (end points)
The response rates to the CVs sent to the job postings in the forms of call-backs and e-mails offering to participate in the next step of the hiring process or conduct the interview.
Primary Outcomes (explanation)
Secondary Outcomes
Secondary Outcomes (end points)
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)
Experimental Design
Experimental Design
The design is similar to the paper: Bertrand M., Mullainathan S. (2004). Are Emily and Greg More Employable than Lakisha and Jamal? A Field Experiment on Labor Market Discrimination. The American Economic Review, 94(4), 991-1013.

The treatment group consists of fictitious applicants’ CVs with an online specialization certification on them while the control group includes the ones whose CVs don’t include this proof of the extra skills, holding every other applicant’s characteristics equal. The instruments include four variations of the CVs by the job applicant’s gender and regarding presence/absence of the online specialization certification on their CVs.
Experimental Design Details
Not available
Randomization Method
Randomization done in office by a computer
Randomization Unit
Individual job applications
Was the treatment clustered?
No
Experiment Characteristics
Sample size: planned number of clusters
10,800 job applications
Sample size: planned number of observations
10,800 job applications
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
The sample size has to consist of 2,700 job applications in each group: male applicants with online specialization certification on their CVs, male applicants without online specialization certification on their CVs, female applicants with online specialization certification on their CVs, female applicants without online specialization certification on their CVs.
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
IRB
INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARDS (IRBs)
IRB Name
Georgia State University's Institutional Review Board
IRB Approval Date
2018-07-24
IRB Approval Number
H18648