Personnel ReviewEffects of training framing, general self‐efficacy and training motivation on trainees'training effectivenessWei-Tao Tai

Article information:To cite this document:Wei-Tao Tai, (2006),"Effects of training framing, general self#efficacy and training motivation on trainees'training effectiveness", Personnel Review, Vol. 35 Iss 1 pp. 51 - 65Permanent link to this document:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00483480610636786

Downloaded on: 17 October 2014, At: 01:05 (PT)References: this document contains references to 45 other documents.To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.comThe fulltext of this document has been downloaded 7755 times since 2006*

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:Piyali Ghosh, Rachita Satyawadi, Jagdamba Prasad Joshi, Rashmi Ranjan, Priya Singh, (2012),"Towardsmore effective training programmes: a study of trainer attributes", Industrial and Commercial Training, Vol.44 Iss 4 pp. 194-202Farhad Analoui, (1994),"Training and Development: The Role of Trainers", Journal of ManagementDevelopment, Vol. 13 Iss 9 pp. 61-72Piyali Ghosh, Jagdamba Prasad Joshi, Rachita Satyawadi, Udita Mukherjee, Rashmi Ranjan,(2011),"Evaluating effectiveness of a training programme with trainee reaction", Industrial and CommercialTraining, Vol. 43 Iss 4 pp. 247-255

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 465057 []

For AuthorsIf you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald forAuthors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelinesare available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The companymanages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well asproviding an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.

Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committeeon Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archivepreservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Dow

nloa

ded

by K

ING

MO

NG

KU

T U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F T

EC

HN

OL

OG

Y T

HO

NB

UR

I A

t 01:

05 1

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

(PT

)

Effects of training framing,general self-efficacy and trainingmotivation on trainees’ training

effectivenessWei-Tao Tai

Department of Business Administration, Chihlee Institute of Commerce,Taipei, Taiwan

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine the effects of training framing from supervisorson trainee self-efficacy and training motivation, and further test how these variables subsequentlyinfluence overall training effectiveness.

Design/methodology/approach – The design of the study includes longitudinal, self-report andobjective measures. Data were collected from 126 employees who entered a training program aiming atintroduction of computer software operation and design. Participants were asked to complete threequestionnaires at the beginning, the midpoint, and the end of the course. Finally, the trainees’ learningperformances were obtained from the test held at the end of the training program.

Findings – Confirms the importance of supervisors training framing – which predicts theself-efficacy and training motivation of trainee, subsequently affects their reactions, learning andtransfer motivation.

Research limitations/implications – The sample of this study consisted of more youngemployees (the oldest was 35 years old), which perhaps limits its generalization. While this studyfound that supervisors’ training framing impacted trainees’ attitudes and in turn further influencedtheir training outcomes, other contextual determinants of trainees’ motivation, such as another type oftraining framing, post-training accountability, and organizational climate remain unexplored. Futureresearch should further examine the interactive effects of these variables on training effectiveness.

Practical implications – Mainly, organizations should increase trainees’ self-efficacy and trainingmotivation prior to the actual training program. Specifically, to increase trainees’ self-efficacy andtraining motivation, managers can provide training-related information, such as training attributes,training environment, content complexity, and the like. If trainees perceive the information as realistic,the more self-efficacy they will generate, the more motivated they are for training, and finally, the moreeffective training outcomes they will achieve.

Originality/value – This paper has enhanced our understanding in modeling trainees’ attitudes andtraining effectiveness. The results have suggested that both individual and contextual factorsimpacted training outcomes, and offer one practical implication to organizational training.

Keywords Training, Motivation (psychology), Self-actualization, Training management,Employee attitudes

Paper type Research paper

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0048-3486.htm

An earlier version of this article was presented at the 2003 Human Resources DevelopmentConference on The Challenging of Human Resources in an Environment of Rapid Change,Taipei, Taiwan.

Trainingeffectiveness

51

Received August 2003Revised April 2004Accepted July 2004

Personnel ReviewVol. 35 No. 1, 2006

pp. 51-65q Emerald Group Publishing Limited

0048-3486DOI 10.1108/00483480610636786

Dow

nloa

ded

by K

ING

MO

NG

KU

T U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F T

EC

HN

OL

OG

Y T

HO

NB

UR

I A

t 01:

05 1

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

(PT

)

IntroductionIn an era of rapid high-technology changes, all indicators show that the move oftechnological innovation will continue to accelerate in the future (Adler, 1991; Pulakoset al., 2000; Quinones, 1997). In an environment of rapid change, it is clear that anindividual must be able to adapt to meet new challenges. That is, changingtechnologies continue to alter the nature of work tasks, requiring employees to learnnew knowledge and skills to perform their jobs. Training is one of the crucial strategiesfor organizations to assist employees to gain those necessary knowledge and skillsneeded to meet the challenges (Goldstein and Gilliam, 1990; Rosow and Zager, 1988).)More recent studies indicated that today’s organizations will face two oncoming trends,the increasing age of the workforce and the increasing introduction of newtechnologies, and suggested that training is especially critical, as the workplaceintroduces further new technologies, such as web-based operation, computerizedintelligent systems, and other task technologies (Colquitt et al., 2000; Howard, 1995;Quinones, 1997). Training will play a critical role in increasing workers’ adaptabilityand flexibility which employers have found is becoming increasingly important. Thus,it is important for an organization to maintain a necessary competence in its employeesthrough adequate training. Recent researchers have suggested that the trainingmotivation of employees represents an important factor in improving the effectivenessof training outcomes. Additionally, researchers have learned that employee trainingmotivation can be profoundly affected by management actions, such as intentional orunintentional cues or signals (Baldwin and Magjuka, 1991). For instance, Tsai and Tai(2003) found that employees had more training motivation when they were assigned toattend training program by management than they made their choice freely. That is, atraining assignment by management sent a clear signal that attending the training wasimportant; and the nature and manner of the assigning of the training (i.e. volunteer ormandatory attendance) can further enhance trainee perception of the task. In addition,the framing of the assigned training to the needs of a department by a supervisor willincrease employee perception regarding the importance of the training and the value ofattending a specific training program (Quinones, 1997). However, to date, there is littleempirical research that has examined the effects of training framing. To this end, thepurpose of the present study is to examine the effects of training framing on traineeself-efficacy and training motivation, and further examine how these variablessubsequently influence overall training effectiveness. Figure 1 presents the framingmodel driving this study.

Figure 1.Framing model

PR35,1

52

Dow

nloa

ded

by K

ING

MO

NG

KU

T U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F T

EC

HN

OL

OG

Y T

HO

NB

UR

I A

t 01:

05 1

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

(PT

)

The influence of training framing on general self-efficacy and training motivationA number of training literatures have suggested that trainee ability and motivationcombines multiplicatively to determine training effectiveness (Colquitt et al., 2000; Noeand Wilk, 1993; Facteau et al., 1995; Mathieu et al., 1992). That is, training performancewill only be strengthened when trainees have both the capability and the motivation tolearn. Recent studies have focused on the pre-training antecedents of trainingoutcomes. For instance, Colquitt et al. noted that situational variables (e.g. climate,manager support) would enhance trainees’ self-efficacy and training motivation.Quinones (1995) posited that pre-training contextual factors such as framing wouldenhance trainees’ abilities to be trained (e.g. self-efficacy, training motivation). Someempirical studies have also showed that pre-information brings trainees moreself-efficacy and training motivation. Hicks and Klimoski (1987) found that trainees’motivation was higher when they attended training programs, armed with realisticinformation from their superiors. That is, realistic information about training washelpful for trainees’ pre-training preparations and in turn for increasing trainees’motivations to learn. Baldwin and Magjuka (1991) also showed that trainees whoobtained pre-information before attending training programs were more motivatedthan those who did not. Bandura (1986) suggested that self-efficacy is influenced byfour information cues: enactive mastery, vicarious experience, verbal persuasion, andemotional arousal. That is, trainees’ self-efficacy will be increased through managers’verbal persuasion which is aimed at encouraging them to attend training programs(Gist, 1987). Bandura (1984) noted that a supervisor’s expectations might be viewed aspersuasive input to the subordinate’s efficacy perceptions, while the strength of thepersuasion could be influenced by the supervisor’s credibility. Brown et al. (2001) alsoshowed that supervisory consideration (e.g. supervisors support and friendliness) ispositively associated with self-efficacy. Thus, we hypothesized that:

H1. Trainees who receive more positive training framing from their supervisorswill have more self-efficacy and training motivation when they attend atraining program. That is, if supervisors frame a specific training program, itwill be useful to trainees before they attend the training program. Traineeswho have positive training information will form a higher self-efficacy andtraining motivation than those who have not received it.

The influence of general self-efficacy on training motivation and training effectivenessSelf-efficacy is one of the important concepts that are based on social learning theory.According to the theory, people learn by observing other persons (models) whom theybelieve are credible and knowledgeable (Bandura, 1986).The theory relates to a belief inone’s capabilities to organize and perform the courses of action needed to achieve givenattainments (Bandura, 1997). In general, self-efficacy has two similar but distinctconstructs: general self-efficacy and task self-efficacy. General self-efficacy refers toone’s estimate of one’s fundamental ability to complete general job requirementssuccessfully; while task self-efficacy refers to one’s estimate of one’s specific ability toachieve task requirements successfully (Stajkovic and Luthans, 1998). Previousresearch suggests that both general and task self-efficacy are related to jobperformance (Judge and Bono, 2001; Hysong and Quinones, 1997; Stajkovic andLuthans, 1998). Training motivation also is impacted by an individual’s self-efficacy, inregard to whether one can make judgments concerning the ability to successfully learn

Trainingeffectiveness

53

Dow

nloa

ded

by K

ING

MO

NG

KU

T U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F T

EC

HN

OL

OG

Y T

HO

NB

UR

I A

t 01:

05 1

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

(PT

)

knowledge and skills. Individuals with substantial self-efficacy will have more trainingmotivation to attend a training program and to learn more. In recent studies,self-efficacy was shown to be positively associated with training motivation (Carlsonet al., 2000; Tracey et al., 2001). For instance, in the training model of Colquitt et al.(2000) indicated that self-efficacy positively influenced motivation to learn. Quinones(1995) also showed that trainees’ self-efficacy significantly increased their trainingmotivation. Self-efficacy was also shown to be positively associated with trainingperformance (Cheng, 2000; Ford et al., 1992; Gist et al., 1989; Martocchio and Webster,1992). That is, trainees with high self-efficacy will increase training motivation, and inturn will generate training effectiveness. In the present study, we postulated thatself-efficacy would mediate the relationship between framing and training motivation.Thus, we hypothesized that:

H2. Self-efficacy will be a mediator of the relationship between training framingand training motivation. That is, if supervisors frame the training that isuseful to trainees before they attend the training program, trainees who getthe training framing will form higher self-efficacy than those who do not,which in turn will increase the trainees’ training motivation.

H3. Trainees who are with higher self-efficacy will demonstrate more trainingeffectiveness (i.e. reactions, learning, and transfer motivation) than those whoare with lower self-efficacy.

The influence of training motivation on training effectivenessMotivation is typically defined as “variability in behavior not attributable to stableindividual differences (e.g. cognitive ability) or strong situational coercion” (Quinones,1997, pp. 182-3). That means, motivation is a characteristic of an individual willing toexpend efforts toward a particular set of behavior. In a training context, motivation caninfluence the willingness of an employee to attend the training program (Maurer andTarulli, 1994; Noe and Wilk, 1993), to exert energy toward the program (Ryman andBiersner, 1975), and to transfer what they learn in the program onto the job (Baldwinand Ford, 1988). Thus, it is likely that trainees cannot reap the full benefits of trainingwithout considering training motivation. In fact, studies have been showing anassociation between training motivation and training effectiveness (Noe and Wilk,1993; Facteau et al., 1995; Mathieu et al., 1992; Quinones, 1997). Some studies alsosuggested that motivation played a more determinant role than other individual factorsin regard to training performance. Colquitt et al. (2000) suggested that even if traineespossess the ability to learn the content of a course, they might fail to benefit fromtraining because of low motivation. This implies that the “g-centric” approach totrainability is not sufficient and should be accompanied by a trainee’s trainingmotivation. Other researchers also suggested that the characteristics of trainees suchas motivation and attitudes are more important to the training effectiveness than arecourse-content variables (Fleishman and Mumford, 1989; Quinones, 1997). Baldwinand Magjuka (1991) further posited that training motivation is a mediator between thepre-information and training outcomes. Therefore, this study hypothesized that:

H4. Trainees who possess higher training motivation will demonstrate moretraining effectiveness (i.e. reactions, learning, and transfer motivation) thanthose who have low motivation.

PR35,1

54

Dow

nloa

ded

by K

ING

MO

NG

KU

T U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F T

EC

HN

OL

OG

Y T

HO

NB

UR

I A

t 01:

05 1

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

(PT

)

The evaluation of training outcomesThe primary goal of any training program is to impart to employees a new set of KSAs,behavior, or attitudes. Training effectiveness refers to the extent to which the trainingobjectives are achieved. In general, training effectiveness is evaluated by measuring anumber of training and transfer outcomes. Kirkpatrick (1976) suggested that reactions,learning, behavior, and results are four measures that are relevant for the evaluation oftraining outcomes. In Kirkpatrick’s model, reactions refer to the extent to whichtrainees like and feel about training. Learning refers to the knowledge and skillsacquired by trainees. Behavior refers to the transfer of knowledge to the work situationby trainees. Results refer to the attainment of organizational objectives such asabsenteeism, personnel turnover, productivity gains and cost reduction. AlthoughAlliger and Janak (1989) criticized that the appropriate relationships among these fourmeasures, the measures are still a useful and valuable heuristic for evaluating trainingoutcomes (Colquitt et al., 2000; Kraiger et al., 1993; Gagne and Medsker, 1996;Quinones, 1997). For instance, Alliger et al. (1997) augmented Kirkpatrick’s trainingcriteria: They divided training reactions into affective and utility reactions, andlearning into immediate post-training knowledge, knowledge retention, behavior/skilldemonstration. Alliger et al. also found that utility reactions were more stronglyrelated to transfer than affective reactions. Kraiger et al. extended Kirkpatrick’s workand presented a comprehensive classification scheme of learning outcomes. Theyclassified learning outcomes into three major categories: skill-based or behaviorallybased learning, cognitive learning, and affective learning. Also, Gagne and Medskerclassified learning outcomes into five types such as verbal information, intellectualskills, motor skills, attitudes, and cognitive strategies. In Colquitt et al.’s trainingmotivation model, learning outcomes (i.e. declarative knowledge, skill acquisition, andreactions etc.) are considered as immediate training effectiveness, and transfer and jobperformance are considered as post-training effectiveness. Axtell et al. (1997) foundthat trainees’ transfer motivation was positively associated with short-term transferand long-term transfer after returning to their work sites. That is, transfer wasmeasured by trainees themselves or by managers after periods of one month and oneyear. Baldwin and Magjuka (1991) also emphasized that learning and transfer will onlyoccur when trainees have both the capability and the intention to transfer the learnedskills on the job. As indicated before, this study used training learning and utilityreactions as measures for evaluating immediate training effectiveness; and it also usedtransfer motivation as criterion variable which is generally considered to be associatedwith transfer effectiveness.

MethodParticipants and proceduresThe participants consisted of 106 trainees who attended a training program offered bya technological training institute in northern Taiwan. The contents of all trainingclasses were the same and aimed at introduction of computer software operation anddesign. The trainees came from businesses and went to the class after regular worktime. Each of the training classes lasted 48 hours and contained 30-50 trainees. Theaverage age of participants was 24 years old (SD ¼ 2.31); 21 percent were male.

Three surveys were distributed to the trainees who were ensured the confidentialityof their responses. The first survey was distributed in the beginning of the training

Trainingeffectiveness

55

Dow

nloa

ded

by K

ING

MO

NG

KU

T U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F T

EC

HN

OL

OG

Y T

HO

NB

UR

I A

t 01:

05 1

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

(PT

)

program. It measured self-efficacy, training motivation time no.1, training framing,and demographic characteristics (i.e. age, gender). Approximately in the middle of thetraining program, trainees’ self-evaluation of their experience about the training (i.e.familiarity) and training motivation time no. 2 were measured. Finally, the third surveywas distributed in the end of the program. It measured trainees’ reactions and transfermotivation. In addition, trainees had to pass two tests during training program. Thefirst test was held before the first survey was submitted and measured the basic abilityrelated to the training program of each trainee. The second test was expanded inaccordance with the previous test and held immediately after the end of the trainingprogram to measure the trainees’ learning performance during the training program. Atotal of 126 first-run surveys were distributed. Of these, 106 (88 percent) responded tothe third survey which comprised the study sample.

MeasuresVariables relevant to the current study as well as their corresponding sources ofinformation are described below.

Control variables. Age, gender, pretest and familiarity were included as controlvariables. Each demographic variable was measured with one self-rated item. Apretest, which was on the basis of a 100-point grade scale, was used to measure thelevels of trainees’ pre-course knowledge and was controlled to assess the levels oftrainees’ post-course knowledge (i.e. learning). In addition, three items were used toassess trainees’ familiarity with the training contents. Sample items included: “Myprevious job experiences and schooling have some connections with the contents ofthis training program,” and “My job has offered me opportunities to learn knowledgeand skills related to this training course.” Participants indicated their level ofagreement with each item using a five-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (stronglydisagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The Cronbach’s a was 0.76. We included familiarity as acontrol variable because past research has indicated that an individual’s pastexperience in a similar situation (i.e. high familiarity with the training contents) wouldlead to higher levels of self-efficacy (Bandura, 1984, 1986), which in turn would result inhigher levels of training motivation (Colquitt et al., 2000; Gist and Mitchell, 1992;Quinones, 1995; Tsai and Tai, 2003).

Framing. Three items obtained were used to measure training framing. Sampleitems included “My supervisor clearly told me that the training program would behelpful to my job,” and “My supervisor clearly told me that the training program wouldhelp my personal development.” Participants responded by using a five-pointLikert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). TheCronbach’s a of this measure was 0.79.

General self-efficacy. Eight items adapted from Noe and Wilk (1993) were used toassess trainee’s confidence in their own skills and abilities. Sample items included: “Ingeneral, I am usually a good judge of my own capabilities,” and “I feel confident thatmy skills and abilities equal or exceed those of my classmates.” Participants wereasked to rate how accurately each item describes them on a five-point Likert-type scaleranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The Cronbach’s a was 0.83.

Training motivation. A total of 16 items obtained from Noe and Wilk (1993) wereused to measure trainee’s training motivation. Sample items included: “I am willing toexert considerable effort in the training program in order to improve my skills,” and

PR35,1

56

Dow

nloa

ded

by K

ING

MO

NG

KU

T U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F T

EC

HN

OL

OG

Y T

HO

NB

UR

I A

t 01:

05 1

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

(PT

)

“I believe I tend to learn more from training programs than most people.” Participantsresponded by using a five-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to5 (strongly agree). This measure was distributed to the trainees twice to capturetrainees’ motivation for training at the beginning of the training (i.e. trainingmotivation time 1, a ¼ 0:74) and the middle of training (i.e. training motivation time 2,a ¼ 0:81). Note that training motivation time no. 1 and time no. 2 were administered atthe beginning and the middle rather than at the end of training. This is because theintended construct of measurement was the trainees’ decisions to exert energies towardlearning, rather than their motivations toward transfer. The present study usedmotivation time no. 2 in the framing model to predict training effectiveness.

Utility reactions. Three items adapted from previous research (Mathieu et al., 1992)were used to assess the trainees’ utility reactions to the program. A sample itemincluded: “The training program will have a positive impact on my job performance.”Participants indicated their level of agreement with each item using a five-pointLikert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). TheCronbach’s a was 0.72.

Transfer motivation. Eleven items adapted from previous research (Noe and Wilk,1993) were used to assess this measure. Sample items included: “I am willing to applythe skills and knowledge obtained from the training program on the job,” and “I cantransfer the skills, competencies and knowledge acquired from the training programsto my job.” Participants responded by using a five-point Likert-type scale ranging from1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The Cronbach’s a was 0.89.

Learning. The trainees’ learning performances were obtained from the test held atthe end of the training program. That is, trainees’ learning performances are inaccordance to the score of the test. The trainee’s post-course grade was on the basis of a100-point grade scale.

ResultsThe means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations of the study variables arepresented in Table I. In general, the bivariate correlations provided confidence that themeasures were functioning properly.

Results of intercorrelations of the study variables from Table I revealed that thecorrelations between dependant variables (i.e. training reactions, learning and transfermotivation) and independent variables (i.e. training framing, self-efficacy, motivationtime no. 1 and motivation time no. 2) were all positive, suggesting that training framingwas positively associated with self-efficacy, training motivation, and all the trainingeffectiveness variables (p , 0:05 or 0.01 respectively). Hence, H1 is supported.

Examination of framing, general self-efficacy, motivation and training effectivenessH2 posited that self-efficacy would be a mediator of the relationship between trainingframing and training motivation. The hypothesis was tested using Baron and Kenny’s(1986) three-part regression procedure to assess the possibility that self-efficacy acts asa mediator (standardized beta weights are shown in all regression results). Baron andKenny specified that for a mediation effect to occur: the predictor must correlate withthe proposed mediator; the predictor must correlate with the outcome variable; and thepredictor must become not correlated with the outcome variable when the mediator isalso included in the regression equation. The analyses are shown in Table II. In each

Trainingeffectiveness

57

Dow

nloa

ded

by K

ING

MO

NG

KU

T U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F T

EC

HN

OL

OG

Y T

HO

NB

UR

I A

t 01:

05 1

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

(PT

)

Var

iab

leM

ean

SD

12

34

56

78

910

1.A

ge

23.8

12.

31–

2.G

end

er0.

790.

412

0.30

**

–3.

Pre

test

12.0

02.

910.

000.

02–

4.F

amil

iari

ty2.

850.

740.

29*

*2

0.02

0.05

(0.7

6)5.

Fra

min

g2.

210.

530.

21*

0.07

0.18

0.42

**

(0.7

9)6.

Sel

f-ef

fica

cy2.

560.

560.

182

0.17

0.10

0.49

**

0.42

**

(0.8

3)7.

Tra

inin

gm

otiv

atio

n1

2.18

0.31

0.13

0.05

0.27

**

0.27

*0.

50*

*0.

48*

*(0

.74)

8.T

rain

ing

mot

ivat

ion

22.

250.

390.

21*

0.04

0.32

**

0.40

*0.

61*

*0.

56*

*0.

82*

*(0

.81)

9.U

tili

tyre

acti

ons

2.10

0.52

0.26

*2

0.05

0.07

0.29

**

0.35

**

0.55

**

0.44

**

0.54

**

(0.7

2)10

.T

ran

sfer

mot

ivat

ion

2.24

0.47

0.07

0.13

0.14

0.26

*0.

49*

*0.

58*

*0.

47*

*0.

54*

*0.

66*

*(0

.89)

11.

Lea

rnin

g59

.52

21.2

20.

152

0.04

0.46

**

0.04

0.25

*0.

25*

0.39

**

0.38

**

0.21

*0.

23*

Notes:

Val

ues

onth

ed

iag

onal

are

Cro

nb

ach

’sal

ph

a;g

end

erw

asco

ded

:0¼

mal

e,1¼

fem

ale;

* p,

0.05

;*

* p,

0.01

Table I.Means, standarddeviations, andintercorrelations amongthe study variables

PR35,1

58

Dow

nloa

ded

by K

ING

MO

NG

KU

T U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F T

EC

HN

OL

OG

Y T

HO

NB

UR

I A

t 01:

05 1

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

(PT

)

part, we controlled for the demographic variables (i.e. age, gender and familiarity).Table II indicates that framing was a significant predictor of: self-efficacy (b ¼ 0:25,p, 0.05); and both training motivation time no. 1 and training motivation time no. 2(b ¼ 0:48 and 0.47, respectively, p , 0:01). Furthermore, when self-efficacy was alsoincluded in the regression equation, framing was still a significant predictor of bothtraining motivation time no. 1 and training motivation time no. 2 (b reduced to 0.39and 0.41, respectively, p still less than 0.01). This suggests that self-efficacy partiallymediated the relationship between framing and training motivation. Hence, H2 ispartially supported. In Table I, training motivation time no. 1 was highly associatedwith training motivation time no. 2 (r ¼ 0:82, p , 0:01). It indicated that trainees’training motivation time no. 2 was almost as the same as time no. 1. Thus, the currentstudy used training motivation time no. 2 to measure this scale.

H3 and H4 posited that self-efficacy and training motivation constituted predictionsof training effectiveness. Hypotheses were tested using hierarchical multipleregression analyses. We entered control variables and framing in step 1,self-efficacy in step 2, and training motivation in the third step respectively. Thecumulative beta weights of step 3 included all the effects of predictors on criterionvariables. The results are presented in Table III. Analyses revealed the followinginformation. First, in step 2, self-efficacy accounted for an additional 14 percent(p , 0:01) of the variance of utility reactions, an additional 5 percent (p , 0:05) of thevariance of learning, and an additional 18 percent (p , 0:01) of the variance of transfermotivation respectively. Second, when training motivation was entered in step 3, theincrease in explained variance of reactions was 5 percent (p , 0:05), the increase inexplained variance of learning was 6 percent (p , 0:01), and the increase in explainedvariance of transfer motivation was 4 per cent (p , 0:05). In step 3, self-efficacybecame an insignificant predictor of learning when training motivation was alsoincluded in the regression equation (b reduced to from 0.29 to 0.16). This suggestedthat training motivation mediated the relationship between self-efficacy and learning.Additionally, both self-efficacy and training motivation were significant predictors ofall the training outcomes simultaneously. Finally, the regression model significantlyexplained 36 percent of the variance of utility reactions (p , 0:01), 37 percent of thevariance of learning (p , 0:01), and 52 percent of the variance of transfer motivation(p , 0:01) respectively. Hence, H3 was partially and H4 was fully supported.

Control variable Independent variableAge Gender Familiarity Framing Self-efficacy

Dependent variable (b1) (b2) (b3) (b4) (b5) R 2

Part 1Self-efficacy 20.00 20.12 0.41 * * 0.25 * 0.34 * *

Part 2Training motivation 1 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.48 * * 0.26 * *

Training motivation 2 0.08 0.12 0.21 * 0.47 * * 0.41 * *

Part 3Training motivation 1 0.01 0.09 20.14 0.39 * * 0.40 * * 0.36 * *

Training motivation 2 0.08 0.16 0.05 0.41 * * 0.33 * * 0.48 * *

Notes: standardized beta weights are shown; *p , 0.05; * *p , 0.01

Table II.Analysis of self-efficacyas a mediating variable

Trainingeffectiveness

59

Dow

nloa

ded

by K

ING

MO

NG

KU

T U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F T

EC

HN

OL

OG

Y T

HO

NB

UR

I A

t 01:

05 1

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

(PT

)

Therefore, this study modified the original framing model and posited the revisedmodel as Figure 2.

DiscussionPast research investigating the antecedents of training motivation or trainingeffectiveness has mainly focused on direct individual correlates. This study furtherscrutinized the relationships and examined both individual and contextual predictorsof training outcomes. In addition to the discovery that H2 and H3 were partiallysupported, results of this study supported all the other hypotheses (i.e. H1, H2).Particularly, it found that the training framing of supervisors affected the attitudes oftrainees and subsequently in turn impacted training outcomes.

First, the findings of this study confirmed the importance of supervisors trainingframing which predicts the self-efficacy and training motivation of trainees,

Figure 2.Revised framing model

Utility reactions Learning Transfer motivationIndependent variable b (only) b (cumulative) b (only) b (cumulative) b (only) b (cumulative)

Step 1Age 0.21 0.17 0.17 0.13 0.01 20.02Gender 0.07 0.07 0.02 20.01 0.19 0.21 *

Pretest 0.03 20.06 0.40 * * 0.30 * * 0.07 20.01Familiarity 0.13 20.07 20.08 20.12 0.11 20.12Framing 0.24 * 0.02 0.20 * 20.01 0.43 * * 0.19R 2 0.18 * * 0.25 * * 0.30 * *

KR 2

Step 2Self-efficacy 0.45 * * 0.34 * * 0.29 * 0.16 0.53 * * 0.43 * *

R 2 0.32 * * 0.31 * * 0.48 * *

KR 2 0.14 * * 0.05 * 0.18 * *

Step 3Training motivation 0.31 * 0.31 * 0.37 * * 0.37 * * 0.29 * 0.29 *

R 2 0.36 * * 0.37 * * 0.52 * *

KR 2 0.05 * 0.06 * * 0.04 *

Notes: Standardized beta weights are shown; the cumulative beta weights are drawn from the laststep of each set of hierarchical regressions; *p , 0.05; * *p , 0.01

Table III.Hierarchical regressionspredicting reactions,learning and transfermotivation

PR35,1

60

Dow

nloa

ded

by K

ING

MO

NG

KU

T U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F T

EC

HN

OL

OG

Y T

HO

NB

UR

I A

t 01:

05 1

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

(PT

)

subsequently affecting their reactions, learning and transfer motivation. The resultsshowed that self-efficacy partially mediated the association between framing andtraining motivation and subsequently influenced training outcomes, while a majorityof past studies only emphasized the effects of either self-efficacy or training motivationon training effectiveness (e.g. Facteau et al., 1995; Guerrero and Sire, 2001; Mathieuet al., 1992). Although self-efficacy didn’t fully mediate the relationship betweentraining framing and training motivation, training framing had direct effect on bothself-efficacy and training motivation; and thus it is suggested that the training framingfrom supervisors is important – it is not only translated into different levels ofself-efficacy, but also enhances trainees’ training motivation, and finally furtherinfluences their training outcomes. The current study hence extended the literature andcalled attention for a careful investigation of the mechanism through whichmanagement strategies and individual characteristics are correlated withtraining-related outcomes. While the past research suggested that pre-information ortraining framing would enhance trainee’s training motivation (e.g. Baldwin andMagjuka, 1991; Quinones, 1995), this study represented the first attempt to examinehow supervisors’ training framing affects training-related variables as a contextualand mediating facet.

Second, the results of this study also revealed that trainees’ familiarity with thetraining contents was positively related to their self-efficacy and training motivation.That is, the more trainees’ familiarity with the training contents, the more self-efficacywas generated, and the greater the willingness to attend the training program. Thisfinding was consistent with previous studies (Bandura, 1986; Ford et al., 1993; Mathieuand Martineau, 1997). For example, Bandura proposed that in a similar circumstance,employees’ work-related experience would influence their self-efficacy. Mathieu andMartineau proposed that trainees who possess training-related experience (i.e. KSAs)would exhibit a curvilinear relationship with their training motivation to develop theskills targeted in training. Thus, when organizations require employees to attendtraining programs, they should provide necessary information to the trainees toincrease their familiarity with the contents of training. Consequently, the self-efficacyand training motivation among trainees could be strengthened and training outcomeswould be increased.

Limitations and future researchLimitations of this study and suggestions for future research should be addressed.First, the sample of this study consisted of more young employees (the oldest was 35years old); the subjects chosen for this study yielded greater internal validity. Whilefield studies are traditionally thought to provide more external validity, this study wasenabled to control for various threats to internal validity such as maturation andmortality. It yet still utilized a real training and learning environment that producedobjective consequences such as the grade of the two tests. The style of the trainingclass was offered with computer-aided training. It may not be generalizable in lectureand classroom fashion that are non computer-aided. Nonetheless, it encourages futureresearchers to extend this study into more traditional organizational settings anddifferent types of training programs. Second, while this study found that supervisors’training framing (i.e. training is a good way to improve employee job-related skills)impacted trainees’ attitudes and in turn further influenced their training outcomes,

Trainingeffectiveness

61

Dow

nloa

ded

by K

ING

MO

NG

KU

T U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F T

EC

HN

OL

OG

Y T

HO

NB

UR

I A

t 01:

05 1

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

(PT

)

other contextual determinants of trainees’ motivation, such as another type of trainingframing (e.g. training is a necessity of employee survivals) and post-trainingaccountability (e.g. training performance is tied to job performance vs. trainingperformance is tied to rewards) and organizational climate (e.g. emotional socialsupport; perceived organizational support), remained unexplored. Last, future researchshould examine the interactive effects of these variables on training. The idea ofexamining the interactive effect on a person (e.g. anxiety or conscientiousness), andcontext (e.g. computer-based training or lecture and classroom fashion training) onlearning (e.g. Howell et al., 1986) can be further explored. This line of research suggestsa “fit” approach to modeling training outcomes and posits that a good match betweenindividual differences and contextual settings better explains levels of trainingoutcomes than any single predictor. Driving from the idea of this current study, futureresearch may investigate the interactive effects of training framing and personality(e.g. conscientiousness, neuroticism) or training framing and organizational climate(e.g. emotional social support; perceived organizational support) on employees’;training outcomes.

Managerial implicationsThe finding of this study has one practical implication. Mainly, organizations shouldincrease trainees’ self-efficacy and training motivation prior to the actual trainingprogram. Research has shown that self-efficacy is trainable (Karl et al., 1993), andtraining motivation can be increased (Colquitt et al., 2000). Thus, the more employeesare trained to believe in their ability to learn, the more they are willing to gainknowledge and the more they will master the program. Specifically, to increasetrainees’ self-efficacy and training motivation, managers can provide training-relatedinformation, such as training attributes, training environment, content complexity, andthe like. In addition to providing trainees sufficient pre-information concerningtraining programs, managers should enhance the utility and necessity of the trainingprogram to increase trainees’ self-efficacy and training motivation to ensure thattrainees have effective training outcomes. In this way, trainees’ transfer behavior oftraining and their subsequent results (e.g. job performance) can be maximized. Ofcourse, such a training framing should be appropriate and realistic. Hicks andKlimoski (1987) found that managers’ exaggerations of the training program did notincrease employees’ motivation for training, and contrarily their training motivationwas less than a realistic one. Therefore, for trainees perceiving the framing realistic, themore self-efficacy they generated, the more motivated they were for training, andfinally, the more effective training outcomes they achieved. In addition, this study alsoprovides managers another practical implication that the various types of framingswould generate different influences between trainees’ self-efficacy and theirmotivation. For example, the framing of personal utility or career utility wouldincrease more trainees’ motivation than self-efficacy. In contrast, the framing of jobutility or skills-learning support would enhance more trainees’ self-efficacy thanmotivation. Future research might explore this further.

ConclusionIn general, this study has enhanced our understanding in modeling trainees’ attitudesand training effectiveness. The results have suggested that both individual and

PR35,1

62

Dow

nloa

ded

by K

ING

MO

NG

KU

T U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F T

EC

HN

OL

OG

Y T

HO

NB

UR

I A

t 01:

05 1

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

(PT

)

contextual factors impacted training outcomes. General self-efficacy partially mediatedthe relationship between training framing and training motivation and subsequentlyinfluenced training outcomes. Thus, to raise employees’ general self-efficacy, learningself-efficacy and training motivation, managers should clearly address the importanceof training before they attend the training. Finally, more research should be conductedto investigate the form in which individual attributes and situational constraints areassociated with training outcomes.

References

Adler, P.S. (1991), “Capitalizing on new manufacturing technologies: current problems andemergent trends in US industry”, in National Academy of Engineering: Commission onBehavioral and Social Sciences and the Education and National Research Council, Peopleand Technology in the Workplace, National Academy Press, Washington, DC, p. 59.

Alliger, G.M. and Janak, E.A. (1989), “Kirkpatrick’s levels of training criteria: thirty years later”,Personnel Psychology, Vol. 42, pp. 331-41.

Alliger, G.M., Tannenbaum, S.I., Bennett, W., Traver, H. and Shotland, A. (1997), “Ameta-analysis of the relations among training criteria”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 50,pp. 341-58.

Axtell, C.M., Maitlis, S. and Yearta, S.K. (1997), “Prediction immediate and longer-term transferof training”, Personnel Review, Vol. 26, pp. 201-13.

Baldwin, T.T. and Ford, J.K. (1988), “Transfer of training: a review and directions for futureresearch”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 41, pp. 63-100.

Baldwin, T.T. and Magjuka, R.J. (1991), “Organizational training and signals of importance:linking pre-training perceptions to intentions to transfer”, Human Resource Development,Vol. 2, pp. 25-36.

Bandura, A. (1984), “Recycling misconceptions of perceived self-efficacy”, Cognitive Therapy andResearch, Vol. 8, pp. 231-55.

Bandura, A. (1986), Social Foundations of Thought and Action, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs,NJ.

Bandura, A. (1997), Self-efficacy: The Exercise of Control, Freeman, New York, NY.

Baron, R.M. and Kenny, D.A. (1986), “The moderator-mediator variable distinction in socialpsychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical consideration”, Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, Vol. 51, pp. 1173-82.

Brown, S.P., Ganesan, S. and Challagalla, G. (2001), “Self-efficacy as a moderator ofinformation-seeking effectiveness”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86, pp. 1043-51.

Carlson, D.S., Bozeman, D.P., Kacmar, K.M., Wright, P.M. and McMahan, G.C. (2000), “Trainingmotivation in organizations: an analysis of individual-level antecedents”, Journal ofManagerial Issues, Vol. 7, pp. 271-87.

Cheng, W.L. (2000), “Test of the MBA knowledge and skills transfer”, International Journal ofHuman Resource Management, Vol. 11, pp. 837-52.

Colquitt, J.A., LePine, J.A. and Noe, R.A. (2000), “Toward an integrative theory of trainingmotivation: a meta-analytic path analysis of 20 years of research”, Journal of AppliedPsychology, Vol. 85, pp. 678-707.

Facteau, J.D., Dobbins, G.H., Russell, J.A., Ladd, R.T. and Kudisch, J.D. (1995), “The influence ofgeneral perceptions the training environment of pretraining motivation and perceivedtraining transfer”, Journal of management, Vol. 21, pp. 1-25.

Trainingeffectiveness

63

Dow

nloa

ded

by K

ING

MO

NG

KU

T U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F T

EC

HN

OL

OG

Y T

HO

NB

UR

I A

t 01:

05 1

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

(PT

)

Fleishman, E.A. and Mumford, M.D. (1989), “Individual attributes and training performance”, inGoldstein, I.L. (Ed.), Training and Development in Organizations, Jossey-Bass,San Francisco, CA, pp. 183-255.

Ford, J.K., Quinones, M.A., Sego, D.J. and Sorra, J.S. (1992), “Factors affecting the opportunity toperform trained tasks on the job”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 45, pp. 511-27.

Ford, J.K., Smith, E.M., Sego, D.J. and Quinones, M.A. (1993), “Impact of task experience andindividual factors on training emphasis ratings”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 78,pp. 583-90.

Gagne, R.M. and Medsker, K.L. (1996), The Conditions of Learning, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich,Fort Worth, TX.

Gist, M.E. (1987), “Self-efficacy: implications for organizational behavior and human resourcemanagement”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 12, pp. 472-85.

Gist, M.E. and Mitchell, T.R. (1992), “Self-efficacy: a theoretical analysis of its determinants andmalleability”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 17, pp. 183-211.

Gist, M.E., Schwoerer, C. and Rosen, B. (1989), “Effects of alternative training methods onself-efficacy and performance in computer software training”, Journal of AppliedPsychology, Vol. 74, pp. 884-91.

Goldstein, I.L. and Gilliam, P. (1990), “Training system issues in the year 2000”, AmericanPsychologist, Vol. 45, pp. 134-43.

Guerrero, S. and Sire, S. (2001), “Motivation to train from the workers’ perspective: example ofFrench companies”, International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 12 No. 6,pp. 988-1004.

Hicks, W.D. and Klimoski, R.J. (1987), “Entry into training programs and its effects on trainingoutcomes: a field experiment”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 30, pp. 542-52.

Howard, A. (1995), The Changing Nature of Work, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.

Howell, J.P., Dorfman, P.W. and Kerr, S. (1986), “Moderator variables in leadership research”,Academy of Management Review, Vol. 11, pp. 88-102.

Hysong, S.J. and Quinones, M.A. (1997), “The relationship between self-efficacy and performance:a meta-analysis”, paper presented at the 12th annual conference of the Society forIndustrial and Organizational Psychology, St Louis, MO.

Judge, T.A. and Bono, J.W. (2001), “Relationship of core self-evaluations traits – self-esteem,generalized self-efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability – with job satisfactionand job performance: a meta-analysis”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86, pp. 80-92.

Karl, K.A., O’Leary-Kelly, A.M. and Martocchio, J.J. (1993), “The impact of feedback andself-efficacy on performance in training”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 14,pp. 379-94.

Kirkpatrick, D.L. (1976), “Evaluation of training”, in Craig, R.L. (Ed.), Training and DevelopmentHandbook, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, pp. 18.1-18.27.

Kraiger, K., Ford, J.K. and Salas, E. (1993), “Application of cognitive, skill-based, and affectivetheories of learning outcomes to new methods of training evaluation”, Journal of AppliedPsychology, Vol. 78, pp. 311-28.

Martocchio, J.J. and Webster, J. (1992), “Effects of feedback and cognitive playfulness onperformance in microcomputer software training”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 45,pp. 553-78.

Mathieu, J.E. and Martineau, J.W. (1997), “Individual and situational influences on trainingmotivation”, in Ford, J.K., Kozlowski, S.W.J., Kraiger, K., Salas, E. and Teachout, M.S.

PR35,1

64

Dow

nloa

ded

by K

ING

MO

NG

KU

T U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F T

EC

HN

OL

OG

Y T

HO

NB

UR

I A

t 01:

05 1

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

(PT

)

(Eds), Improving Training Effectiveness in Work Organizations, Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 193-221.

Mathieu, J.E., Tannenbaum, S.I. and Salas, E. (1992), “Influences of individual and situationalcharacteristics on measures of training effectiveness”, Academy of Management Journal,Vol. 35, pp. 828-47.

Maurer, T.J. and Tarulli, B.A. (1994), “Investigation of perceived environment, perceivedoutcome, and person variables in relationship to voluntary development activity byemployees”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 79, pp. 3-14.

Noe, R.A. and Wilk, S.L. (1993), “Investigation of the factors that influence employees’participation in development activities”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 78, pp. 291-302.

Pulakos, E.D., Arad, S. and Donovan, M.A. (2000), “Adaptability in the workplace: developmentof a taxonomy of adaptive performance”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 85, pp. 612-24.

Quinones, M.A. (1995), “Pretraining context effects: training assignment as feedback”, Journal ofApplied Psychology, Vol. 80, pp. 226-38.

Quinones, M.A. (1997), “Contextual influences: on training effectiveness”, in Quinones, M.A. andEhrenstein, A. (Eds), Training for a Rapidly Changing Workplace: Applications ofPsychological Research, American Psychological Association, Washington, DC, pp. 177-99.

Rosow, J.M. and Zager, R. (1988), Training – The Competitive Edge, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco,CA.

Ryman, D.H. and Biersner, R.J. (1975), “Attitudes predictive of driving success”, PersonnelPsychology, Vol. 28, pp. 181-8.

Stajkovic, A.D. and Luthans, F. (1998), “Self-efficacy and work-related performance: ameta-analysis”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 124, pp. 240-61.

Tracey, J.B., Timothy, R. and Mathieu, J.E. (2001), “The influence of individual characteristicsand the work environment on varying levels of training outcomes”, Human ResourceDevelopment, Vol. 12, pp. 5-23.

Tsai, W.C. and Tai, W.T. (2003), “Perceived importance as a mediator of the relationship betweentraining assignment and training motivation”, Personnel Review, Vol. 32, pp. 151-63.

About the authorWei-Tao Tai is an Associate Professor of Organizational Behavior and Human ResourceManagement in the Department of Business Administration at Chihlee Institute of Commence,Taipei, Taiwan. His particular research interests are in managerial psychology and trainingmanagement. He can be contacted at: twt9429@mail.chihlee.edu.tw

Trainingeffectiveness

65

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.comOr visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Dow

nloa

ded

by K

ING

MO

NG

KU

T U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F T

EC

HN

OL

OG

Y T

HO

NB

UR

I A

t 01:

05 1

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

(PT

)

This article has been cited by:

1. Mohammad Aktaruzzaman Khan, Anees Janee Ali. 2014. The role of training in reducing poverty:the case of the ultra-poor in Bangladesh. International Journal of Training and Development n/a-n/a.[CrossRef]

2. Ana-Inés Renta-Davids, José-Miguel Jiménez-González, Manel Fandos-Garrido, Ángel-Pío González-Soto. 2014. Transfer of learning. European Journal of Training and Development 38:8, 728-744. [Abstract][Full Text] [PDF]

3. Melvin Prince, David J. Burns, Chris Manolis. 2014. The Effects of Part-Time MBA Programs onStudents: The Relationships Between Students and Their Employers. Journal of Education for Business89, 300-309. [CrossRef]

4. Kueh Hua Ng. 2014. Supervisory practices and training transfer: lessons from Malaysia. Asia Pacific Journalof Human Resources n/a-n/a. [CrossRef]

5. Natalie Govaerts, Filip Dochy. 2014. Disentangling the role of the supervisor in transfer of training.Educational Research Review . [CrossRef]

6. Ketsaraporn Suttapong, Suwit Srimai, Pongsakorn Pitchayadol. 2014. Best Practices for Building HighPerformance in Human Resource Management. Global Business and Organizational Excellence 33:2, 39-50.[CrossRef]

7. Muhammad Awais Bhatti, Sharrifah Ali, Mohd Faizal Mohd Isa, Mohamed Mohamed Battour. 2014.Training Transfer and Transfer Motivation: The Influence of Individual, Environmental, Situational,Training Design, and Affective Reaction Factors. Performance Improvement Quarterly 27:1, 51-82.[CrossRef]

8. Chandra Sekhar, Manoj Patwardhan, Rohit Kr. Singh. 2013. A literature review on motivation. GlobalBusiness Perspectives 1:4, 471-487. [CrossRef]

9. Muhammad Awais Bhatti, Sharan Kaur, Mohamed Mohamed Battour. 2013. Training Transfer andTransfer Motivation in the Malaysian Banking Sector. Global Business and Organizational Excellence 33:1,40-57. [CrossRef]

10. JooBee Yeow, Robin Martin. 2013. The role of self-regulation in developing leaders: A longitudinal fieldexperiment. The Leadership Quarterly 24:5, 625-637. [CrossRef]

11. Martijn van der Locht, Karen van Dam, Dan S. Chiaburu. 2013. Getting the most of managementtraining: the role of identical elements for training transfer. Personnel Review 42:4, 422-439. [Abstract][Full Text] [PDF]

12. Patricia Yin Yin Lau, Gary N. McLean. 2013. Factors influencing perceived learning transfer of anoutdoor management development programme in Malaysia. Human Resource Development International16:2, 186-204. [CrossRef]

13. Muhammad Awais Bhatti, Mohamed Mohamed Battour, Veera Pandiyan Kaliani Sundram, Akmal AiniOthman. 2013. Transfer of training: does it truly happen?. European Journal of Training and Development37:3, 273-297. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

14. Abraham Wandersman, Victoria H. Chien, Jason Katz. 2012. Toward an Evidence-Based System forInnovation Support for Implementing Innovations with Quality: Tools, Training, Technical Assistance,and Quality Assurance/Quality Improvement. American Journal of Community Psychology 50:3-4, 445-459.[CrossRef]

Dow

nloa

ded

by K

ING

MO

NG

KU

T U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F T

EC

HN

OL

OG

Y T

HO

NB

UR

I A

t 01:

05 1

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

(PT

)

15. Tien‐Chen Chien. 2012. Computer self‐efficacy and factors influencing e‐learning effectiveness. EuropeanJournal of Training and Development 36:7, 670-686. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

16. Patti Millar, Julie Stevens. 2012. Management training and national sport organization managers:Examining the impact of training on individual and organizational performances. Sport ManagementReview 15:3, 288-303. [CrossRef]

17. Khawaja Fawad Latif. 2012. An integrated model of training effectiveness and satisfaction with employeedevelopment interventions. Industrial and Commercial Training 44:4, 211-222. [Abstract] [Full Text][PDF]

18. Piyali Ghosh, Rachita Satyawadi, Jagdamba Prasad Joshi, Rashmi Ranjan, Priya Singh. 2012. Towardsmore effective training programmes: a study of trainer attributes. Industrial and Commercial Training44:4, 194-202. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

19. John Patrick, Victoria Smy, Michal Tombs, Katherine Shelton. 2012. Being in one's chosen job determinespre-training attitudes and training outcomes. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 85:2,245-257. [CrossRef]

20. Foroogh Bakhtiari Esfandagheh, Roger Harris, Hamid R. Oreyzi. 2012. The impact of extraversion andpre-training self-efficacy on levels of training outcomes. Human Resource Development International 15:2,175-191. [CrossRef]

21. Amin Akhavan Tabassi, Mahyuddin Ramli, Abu Hassan Abu Bakar. 2012. Effects of training andmotivation practices on teamwork improvement and task efficiency: The case of construction firms.International Journal of Project Management 30:2, 213-224. [CrossRef]

22. Fu Dai, Karen Yuan Wang, Stephen T.T. Teo. 2011. Chinese immigrants in network marketing businessin Western host country context. International Business Review 20:6, 659-669. [CrossRef]

23. Sara Zaniboni, Franco Fraccaroli, Donald M. Truxillo, Marilena Bertolino, Talya N. Bauer. 2011. Trainingvalence, instrumentality, and expectancy scale (T‐VIES‐it). Journal of Workplace Learning 23:2, 133-151.[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

24. Siti Fardaniah Abdul Aziz, Shamsuddin Ahmad. 2011. Stimulating training motivation using the righttraining characteristic. Industrial and Commercial Training 43:1, 53-61. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

25. Fiona Draper, Crina Oltean‐Dumbrava, Chedly Tizaoui, Brian Newbury. 2011. Factors influencingattendance and success on the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment AssociateMembership Certificate course. Journal of Further and Higher Education 35:1, 1-23. [CrossRef]

26. Seonaid Kyle, Craig A. Melville, Andrea Jones. 2010. ORIGINAL ARTICLE: Effective communicationtraining interventions for paid carers supporting adults with learning disabilities. British Journal of LearningDisabilities 38:3, 210-216. [CrossRef]

27. Muhammad Awais Bhatti, Sharan Kaur. 2010. The role of individual and training design factors ontraining transfer. Journal of European Industrial Training 34:7, 656-672. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

28. Christina Yu-Ping Wang, Bih-Shiaw Jaw, Chester Hsieh-Che Tsai, Mu-Hua Chen. 2010. The causaleffects of organizational internal labor market on firm-specific learning – the mediating effect ofwillingness to internal transfer. The International Journal of Human Resource Management 21:7,1015-1034. [CrossRef]

29. Dan S. Chiaburu, Karen Van Dam, Holly M. Hutchins. 2010. Social Support in the Workplace andTraining Transfer: A longitudinal analysis. International Journal of Selection and Assessment 18:2, 187-200.[CrossRef]

Dow

nloa

ded

by K

ING

MO

NG

KU

T U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F T

EC

HN

OL

OG

Y T

HO

NB

UR

I A

t 01:

05 1

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

(PT

)

30. Janis A. Cannon-Bowers, Clint Bowers, Katelyn Procci. 2010. Optimizing Learning in SurgicalSimulations: Guidelines from the Science of Learning and Human Performance. Surgical Clinics of NorthAmerica 90:3, 583-603. [CrossRef]

31. Cody B. Cox, Margaret E. Beier. 2009. The moderating effect of individual differences on the relationshipbetween the framing of training and interest in training. International Journal of Training and Development13:4, 247-261. [CrossRef]

32. Li-An Ho, Tsung-Hsien Kuo. 2009. Alternative organisational learning therapy: An empirical case studyusing behaviour and U theory. The Australian Educational Researcher 36:3, 105-124. [CrossRef]

33. Amin Akhavan Tabassi, A.H. Abu Bakar. 2009. Training, motivation, and performance: The case ofhuman resource management in construction projects in Mashhad, Iran. International Journal of ProjectManagement 27:5, 471-480. [CrossRef]

34. Andreas Gegenfurtner, Dagmar Festner, Wolfgang Gallenberger, Erno Lehtinen, Hans Gruber. 2009.Predicting autonomous and controlled motivation to transfer training. International Journal of Trainingand Development 13:2, 124-138. [CrossRef]

35. Meera Komarraju. 2008. A Social-Cognitive Approach to Training Teaching Assistants. Teaching ofPsychology 35:4, 327-334. [CrossRef]

36. Jens Rowold. 2008. The impact of personality on training-related aspects of motivation: Test of alongitudinal model. Human Resource Development Quarterly 18:1, 9-31. [CrossRef]

37. Alexandros G. Sahinidis, John Bouris. 2008. Employee perceived training effectiveness relationship toemployee attitudes. Journal of European Industrial Training 32:1, 63-76. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

38. Humphry Hung, Yiu Hing Wong. 2007. The relationship between employer endorsement of continuingeducation and training and work and study performance: a Hong Kong case study. International Journalof Training and Development 11:4, 295-313. [CrossRef]

Dow

nloa

ded

by K

ING

MO

NG

KU

T U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F T

EC

HN

OL

OG

Y T

HO

NB

UR

I A

t 01:

05 1

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

(PT

)