Effects of Trainee Characteristics in Training Effectiveness

Effects of TraineeCharacteristics on TrainingEffectiveness

Aharon Tziner*, Michal Fisher*, Tami Senior* andJacob Weisberg**

*Netanya University College, 16 Kibutz, Galoyot Street, Netanya 42365, Israel. [email protected]**Bar-Ilan University, Box 90000, Ramat-Gan, 52900, Israel

Six employee characteristics (conscientiousness, self-efficacy, motivation to learn, learn-

ing goal orientation, performance goal orientation, instrumentality) and one work

environment characteristic (transfer of training climate) were captured for 130 trainees

in a large industrial company in an attempt to predict training effectiveness (training

grade, supervisor evaluation of the application of training). The results strongly support

the predicted links, although not all the predictor variables contributed a statistically

significant share of the explained variance of the training outcomes. Motivation to learn

and learning goal orientation were found to contribute most to predicting training

outcomes. The implications of the results are discussed and the limitations of the study

are noted, along with suggested avenues for future research.

1. Effects of trainee characteristics ontraining effectiveness

The constant pressure to maintain superiority in the

marketplace engenders the need to constantly

upgrade employee skills and knowledge and to improve

positive work-related attitudes (Tannenbaum, 1997).

The method most commonly used to attain these goals

is training. In economic terms, training represents a

major outlay for American companies, with estimates of

more than $55 billion spent annually for this purpose by

firms with 100 employees or more (Arthur, Bennett,

Edens, & Bell, 2003). This is thought to be money well

spent. Davis and Yi (2004) report, for example, that

Motorola estimates that every dollar spent on training

generates $30 in productivity gains within 3 years.

Given the paramount importance and substantial cost

of training, it is not surprising that both companies and

researchers are interested in identifying the factors

likely to affect training effectiveness.

Among the factors that have been singled out as

predictors of training outcomes are both individual

characteristics, such as self-efficacy, goal orientation,

and motivation to learn, and work environment pro-

perties, such as transfer of training climate (e.g., Gist,

Stevens, & Bavetta, 1991; Mathieu, Tannenbaum,

& Salas, 1992; Towler & Dipboye, 2001). Insufficient

research, however, has been devoted to investigating

the unique and combined effects of these two types

of predictors, particularly in real organizational

settings (Holladay & Quinones, 2003). This study was

therefore designed to build on and extend previous

research by studying the unique and combined effects

of six trainee characteristics and one work environment

variable on training effectiveness in a large industrial

company.

& 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation & 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd,

9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main St., Malden, MA, 02148, USA

International Journal of Selection and Assessment Volume 15 Number 2 June 2007

1.1. Training effectiveness

A recent meta-analysis of training effectiveness reveals

that two of the most relevant measures of training

success are learning outcomes and post-training job

performance (Arthur et al., 2003). The authors con-

tend, however, that despite the fact that these measures

are conceptually related, empirical investigations have

only partially succeeded in producing evidence of this

link (Alliger, Tannenbaum, Bennett, Traver, & Shotland,

1997; Colquitt, LePine, & Noe, 2000). It may be that

each of the two criteria captures a different facet of

training effectiveness, or that each is affected by differ-

ent factors. For instance, actual job performance may

be more susceptible to organizational factors than

training performance, or the post-training environment

may not generate appropriate opportunities for the

learned material, skills, or competencies to be demon-

strated. In either of these circumstances, empirical

findings of training effectiveness would differ depending

on the measure used. Consequently, this study incorpo-

rated two effectiveness-of-training measures: (a) train-

ing grade (as a measure of the learning outcome of

training) and (b) supervisor evaluation of post-training

performance (as an estimate of actual on-the-job

performance following completion of the training pro-

gram). This was merely a precautionary step, as there is

no reason to believe that any conceptual difference

exists between the two measures.

1.2. Trainee characteristics

The literature suggests that certain trainee character-

istics, relating either to personality or to motivation,

influence training outcomes to a greater extent than

others. The following attributes, all of which have been

shown to impact training outcomes, were chosen for

this study.

1.2.1. Conscientiousness

Individuals high on conscientiousness are more depend-

able, well-organized, persevering, and motivated to

excel on the job. Moreover, they tend to set themselves

higher standards of performance and to be more

committed to them. Conscientiousness has been found

to be related to overall performance in a wide range of

jobs (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Salgado, Viswesvaran, &

Ones, 2001; Zhas & Seibert, 2006), and trainees high on

conscientiousness tend to attain higher training out-

comes than those low on this personality trait (Barrick,

Stewart, & Piotrowski, 2002; Colquitt & Simmering,

1998).

1.2.2. Self-efficacy

This attribute is defined as the individual’s belief that he/

she can successfully meet training requirements and

master training-program contents (Gist et al., 1991;

Stevens & Gist, 1997). It has consistently proven to be

positively linked to training performance (Mathieu &

Martineau, 1997; Mathieu, Martineau, & Tannenbaum,

1993), most probably because it plays a motivational

role, affecting the amount of effort applied to task

performance.

1.2.3. Motivation to learn

This term refers to the intention to invest high levels

of consistent effort in a particular training program.

Several studies suggest that acquisition is influenced by

the motivation to learn (Mathieu & Martineau, 1997;

Tziner, Haccoun, & Kadish, 1991), but this contention

has thus far received only limited empirical support,

perhaps because motivation is not easily measurable.

1.2.4. Learning goal orientation

According to Seijts, Latham, Tasa, and Latham (2004)

and Seijts and Latham (2005), those driven by a learning

goal orientation seek challenging tasks that provide

them with the opportunity to acquire and master new

skills and expand competencies. Hence, they can also

be expected to devote more attention to training

programs that enable them to develop their abilities.

1.2.5. Performance goal orientation

Individuals high on performance goal orientation seek

to demonstrate competence and have a strong desire

to impress others. Unlike those high on learning goal

orientation, for whom the learning process itself is the

reward, people scoring high on performance goal

orientation are rewarded by external recognition for

the attainment of goals. This would lead us to expect

the two goal orientation types to be inversely related to

training effectiveness. Although the results are not

unequivocal, various studies do seem to indicate that

learning goal orientation is associated with higher

training scores than performance goal orientation

(VandeWalle, Cron, & Slocum, 2001; Fisher & Ford,

1998). However, research is yet to be conducted on the

link between goal orientation and performance during

and after training.

1.2.6. Instrumentality of training

This term refers to the individual’s perception that

completion of training will lead to valued outcomes,

such as a sense of accomplishment, greater chance of

promotion, or monetary rewards. Campbell and Kuncel

(2001) maintain that there is a reasonable body of

evidence indicating that the magnitude of training

instrumentality affects trainee achievements.

168 Aharon Tziner, Michal Fisher, Tami Senior and Jacob Weisberg

International Journal of Selection and Assessment

Volume 15 Number 2 June 2007

& 2007 The Authors

Journal compilation & 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

1.3. Work environment characteristic: transfer oftraining climate

Work environment characteristics have also been found

to influence the effectiveness of the learning process in

training, and the extent to which the capabilities

acquired in training are applied in the actual job setting.

One of the primary environmental factors is transfer

of training climate, defined as the trainee’s perception

of the degree to which there will be support for

using on the job what has been acquired in training.

Research clearly supports the proposition that a favor-

able transfer climate enhances training attainment

and subsequent job performance (Tracey, Tannenbaum,

& Kavangh, 1995; Tziner et al., 1991).

Although each of these variables has been studied

individually, no previous comprehensive investigation

has examined their combined and relative contribution

to training effectiveness in a real setting. This study sought

to fill this gap. On the basis of the above definitions and

previous findings, it was hypothesized that the trainee

personality characteristics of conscientiousness and

self-efficacy, the motivational characteristics of motiva-

tion to learn, learning goal orientation, performance

goal orientation, and instrumentality, and the environ-

mental characteristic of transfer of training climate,

would all be linked to training scores and to post-

training evaluated job performance. All the employee

and work environment variables were expected

to produce positive correlations with the outcome

variables, except for performance goal orientation,

which would yield a negative correlation.

2. Method

2.1. Participants

Data were collected from 130 male employees of a

large industrial power company who held a variety of

technical and operational jobs. All of them attended a

two-month in-house training program aimed at main-

taining and upgrading technical–professional knowl-

edge. Mean age of the participants was 37.48

(SD¼ 7.54) and mean tenure with the company was

10.45 years (SD¼ 6.35). In terms of education, 46.2%

had completed high school, 43.8% had some academic

training, and 10% held a university degree.

2.2. Procedure

A questionnaire designed to measure the trainee and

environmental variables was administered to the parti-

cipants about a week after commencement of the

training program. In addition, they were asked to note

their full date of birth and the name of their immediate

supervisor. This information was used as a code to

match each questionnaire with the grade obtained by

the respondent at the end of the course, thereby

maintaining anonymity for purposes of the study. (No

two respondents shared the same date of birth and the

same supervisor.) The final grade was as an objective

numerical score on a scale from 1 to 100 reflecting the

level of mastery of the course contents.

About 3 weeks after completion of the program, the

supervisors were asked to assess the degree to which

each trainee made use of the skills developed during

training. The same code was used to match these evalua-

tions with the participants’ final grades and questionnaires.

3. Instruments

3.1. Dependent variables

3.1.1. Training grade

The participant’s mark out of 100 on the final training

course examination, which assessed the knowledge he

had acquired in the program (M¼ 85.45; SD¼ 9.75).

3.1.2. Supervisor evaluation of post-training job performance

Ten items designed to obtain the supervisor’s assess-

ment of the extent to which the employee applied the

knowledge and skills he acquired during the training

program. The items related to issues such as the degree

to which the trainee tried to improve his performance,

to use new work techniques and knowledge, to change

existing work procedures, to persuade colleagues and

superiors at work to modify customary work proce-

dures, etc. Scores were marked on a six–point scale

ranging from 6 (to a large degree) to 1 (to a small degree),

with high scores indicative of greater use of the knowl-

edge and skills acquired in training, in the assessment

of the supervisor. This measure yielded an internal

consistency of a¼ .88 (M¼ 4.3; SD¼ .80).

3.2. Independent variables

Conscientiousness was assessed using nine items drawn

from the first items in this construct in the NEO Five-

Factors Inventory (Costa & McCrae, 1992). A high

score on this scale reflects a high degree of conscien-

tiousness. In this study, internal consistency was a¼ .86

(M¼ 5.14; SD¼ .57).

Self-efficacy was gauged by means of nine items

designed to assess the extent to which the trainee beli-

eved he had the necessary competencies to successfully

meet the training requirements, for example: ‘I believe I

am capable of absorbing the material taught in this

program,’ ‘I feel confident I can succeed in this program,’

‘I am capable of performing the training assignments.’ A

high score indicates a high level of perceived self-

Effects of Trainee Characteristics 169

& 2007 The Authors




efficacy. The internal consistency of the measure was

found to be a¼ .90 (M¼ 5.06; SD¼ .59).

Motivation to learn was assessed by means of 10

items, such as: ‘I am exerting considerable effort to

obtain a high grade in this program,’ ‘I am devoting a

considerable amount of time to my training assign-

ments,’ and ‘I have set high achievement goals for myself

in this program.’ A high score indicates a strong

motivation to learn. An internal consistency of a¼ .93

(M¼ 4.48; SD¼ .91) was found for this measure.

Learning goal orientation was measured by means of

nine items, for example: ‘The opportunity to learn new

things is important to me,’ ‘I like doing challenging

work,’ ‘It is important to me to make the most of my

skills.’ A high score indicates a high level of learning goal

orientation. The internal consistency of the measure

was found to be a¼ .83 (M¼ 5.29; SD¼ .46).

Performance goal orientation was measured by 10

items, including: ‘The things I enjoy the most are the

things I do best,’ ‘I enjoy performing tasks which I know I

will do well,’ and ‘I feel smart when I do things without

making mistakes.’ A high score is indicative of a high level

of performance goal orientation. This measure yielded

an internal consistency of a¼ .87 (M¼ 4.36; SD¼ .78).

Instrumentality of training was tapped by means of 10

items, for example: ‘I feel that successful completion of

the training program will help me to get higher monetary

rewards,’ ‘I trust and believe that succeeding in this

training program will enhance my chances of promotion.’

A high score indicates that the training course has a

high instrumentality value for the trainee. The internal

consistency found here was a¼ .88 (M¼ 3.96; SD¼ .87).

Transfer of training climate was assessed by means of

10 items, such as: ‘I can count on the support I will get

at work when I try to apply the skills acquired in

training,’ ‘In my work unit, the utilization of newly

acquired skills is valued highly,’ and ‘Back at work I

anticipate being assigned tasks which require that I

apply the knowledge I acquired in the training program.’

A high score on this measure is indicative of a work

environment supportive of the transfer of training. This

measure yielded an internal consistency of a¼ .85

(M¼ 4.62; SD¼ .76).

The final questionnaire measuring the independent

variables of trainee and work environment character-

istics therefore consisted of 57 statements. Participants

indicated their response to each statement on a six-

point scale ranging from 6 (strongly agree) to 1 (strongly

disagree). Each participant was assigned a score for each

of the seven variables equal to his total score on all the

items relating to that variable.

4. Results

Pearson’s correlations were performed among all the

study variables. The results of this analysis appear in

Table 1.

The correlation coefficients in Table 1 reveal that all

our hypotheses were confirmed. In addition, a strong

correlation was found between training grade and

supervisor evaluation. Studies typically report a corre-

lation around .45 between training scores and post-

training job performance ratings, often attributing the

relatively moderate magnitude of this association to

deficiencies in the training program. Our investigation,

however, found a correlation of .705 between the two

measures of training effectiveness, perhaps indicating

that a better job was carried out here in attuning the

training program to actual job requirements.

The trainee’s personality characteristics yielded sig-

nificant correlations with both success on the final

Table 1. Descriptive statistics and Pearson’s correlations among study variables (N¼ 130)

Mean SDConscien-tiousness

Self-efficacy

Transfer oftrainingclimate

Performancegoalorientation

Learninggoalorientation

Motivationto learn

Instru-mentality

Traininggrade

Conscientiousness 5.135 .574Self-efficacy 5.064 .593 .331**Transfer of trainingclimate

4.616 .757 .467** .547**

Performance goalorientation

4.356 .783 .093 (NS) �.407** �.218**

Learning goalorientation

5.287 .463 .473** .627** .465** �.210**

Motivation to learn 4.481 .910 .324** .689** .642** �.358** .487**Instrumentality 3.969 .872 .072 (NS) .453** .514** �.245** .272** .689**Training grade(0–100)

85.45 9.753 .292** .661** .530** �.411** .530** .758** .576**

Supervisorevaluation

4.320 .799 .395** .509** .503** �.330** .539** .609** .433** .705**

Note: **po.01. NS, not significant.




& 2007 The Authors


exam and supervisor’s evaluation of his successful

application of what he had learned. The higher the

trainee’s conscientiousness, the higher his final training

grade (r¼ .292, p¼ .001) and the higher his rating on

the supervisor evaluation (r¼ .395, p¼ .000). Similarly,

higher self-efficacy was associated with higher training

grade (r¼ .661, p¼ .000) and higher supervisor evalua-

tion (r¼ .509, p¼ .000).

Four variables were used to examine motivational

features of the trainee: motivation to learn, learning

goal orientation, performance goal orientation, and

instrumentality. These variables also produced signifi-

cant correlations in the expected directions with the

two measures of training effectiveness. Higher motiva-

tion to learn, learning goal orientation, and instrumen-

tality were all associated with higher training grades

(r¼ .758, p¼ .000; r¼ .530, p¼ .000; r¼ .576, p¼ .000,

respectively), as well as with higher supervisor evalua-

tion (r¼ .609, p¼ .000; r¼ .539, p¼ .000; r¼ .433,

p¼ .000, respectively). On the other hand, higher

performance goal orientation yielded negative correla-

tions with training grade (r¼�.441, p¼ .000) and

supervisor evaluation (r¼�.330, p¼ .000).

To ensure that no multi-colinearity effect existed

among these four motivational characteristics, a

Cronbach’s a test was performed and displayed the

very low a¼ .308. Moreover, while the correlation

coefficients between the four variables are significant,

they are not high, further reconfirming the lack of a

multi-colinearity bias.

Finally, the work environment characteristic of transfer

of training climate was also found to correlate positively

with the two measures of training effectiveness. The

higher the trainee perceived the transfer of training

climate, the higher his training grade (r¼ .530, p¼ .000)

and the higher the supervisor evaluation of his on-the-job

application of the training program (r¼ .503, p¼ .000).

To investigate the unique and combined contributions

of the independent variables on training effectiveness,

two hierarchical regression models were examined. The

results of this analysis are presented in Table 2.

Model 1 tested the multivariate effect on the trai-

nee’s final grade, and revealed that the personality

characteristic of self-efficacy had a significant direct

effect on grade (b¼ .259; p¼ .001) and contributed

most to the total explained variance (DR2¼ 43.7% out

of R2¼ 61.2%). Surprisingly, conscientiousness was not

found to have a significant effect on grade. Of the

motivational variables, only motivation to learn pro-

duced a significant effect (b¼ .561; p¼ .001), contribut-

ing the minor proportion to the explained variance

(DR2¼ 13.4% out of R2¼ 61.2%). The organizational

characteristic of the transfer of training climate did not

show a significant direct effect on grade, although an

indirect relationship was found via motivation to learn

(b¼ .642; p¼ .000).

Model 2 tested the multivariate effect on supervisor

evaluation. Here, both conscientiousness and self-effi-

cacy were significant in the first steps of the regression,

but lost their significance when additional variables

were entered. In the final step of the regression, self-

efficacy showed no significant direct relationship to

supervisor evaluation (b¼�.072; p¼ .490), but contrib-

uted very highly to the explained variance (DR2¼ 25.9%

out of R2¼ 48.5%). Moreover, it had a positive indirect

effect via motivation to learn (b¼ .740; p¼ .000). Con-

scientiousness displayed borderline significance (b¼ .157;

p¼ .054) and contributed the minor proportion to the

explained variance (DR2¼ out of R2¼ 48.5%).

With respect to motivation, motivation to learn

(b¼ .376; p¼ .001), learning goal orientation (b¼ .259;

p¼ .004), and performance goal orientation (b¼�.170;

p¼ .024) all displayed a significant effect on supervisor

evaluation, contributing to the explained variance

(DR2¼ 7.3%; DR2¼ 3.7%; DR2¼ 2.2%, respectively, out

of R2¼ 48.5%). No significant effect was found for

instrumentality. Nor did the environmental character-

istic of the transfer of training climate produce a

significant direct effect on supervisor evaluation,

although it had a significant indirect effect via motiva-

tion to learn (b¼ .454; p¼ .000).

Table 2. Hierarchical regression results for training grade andsupervisor’s evaluation

Model 1:training grade

Model 2: super-visor evaluation

b DR2 b DR2

Block 1Personality

2. Self-efficacy .661** .437 .424** .2591. Conscientiousness .254** .057

Block 2Personality

2. Self-efficacy .53** .437 .315** .2591. Conscientiousness .174 .057

Organization3. Transfer of training

climate.241** .041 .249** .038

Block 3Personality

1. Conscientiousness .157 (NS)2. Self-efficacy .259** .437 �.072 (NS)

Organization3. Transfer of training

climate.028 (NS) .070 (NS)

Motivation for training6. Motivation to learn .561** .134 .376** .0735. Learning goal

orientation.259** .037

4. Performance goalorientation

�.170* .022

7. Instrumentality

Note: *po.05, **po.01. NS, not significant.


& 2007 The Authors




5. Discussion

This investigation examined the direct influence of six

employee characteristics (conscientiousness, self-efficacy,

motivation to learn, learning goal orientation, perfor-

mance goal orientation, instrumentality) and a work

environment characteristic (transfer of training climate)

on two training outcomes (training grade, supervisor

evaluation of post-training performance) in a real

organizational setting. Having previously been investi-

gated individually, the seven independent variables are

all assumed to impact on the value of employee training.

Our aim here was to discover the relative contribution

of these diverse dimensions by examining their unique

and combined effects on training effectiveness.

Conscientiousness was found to have a direct effect

on supervisor evaluation, a finding consistent with the

claim that conscientious people tend to be organized

and systematic and to accurately assess the demands of

a task. They therefore have confidence in their abilities,

enabling them to perform better than people low on

conscientiousness (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Salgado,

1997). Contrary to expectations, however, no signifi-

cant effect for conscientiousness on the final training

grade was found, despite the familiar contention that

conscientious individuals, who display traits such as per-

severance and diligence, invest greater efforts in train-

ing programs and therefore achieve greater success

(McCrae & Costa, 1987). However important con-

scientiousness may be, it is possible that in the context

of training it has less effect on performance than other

personal qualities or than motivation.

Revealing the opposite pattern, the second person-

ality characteristic, self-efficacy, yielded a significant

effect on training grade but not on supervisor evalua-

tion. The effect on training grade is consistent with an

earlier study, which reported that trainees high on self-

efficacy displayed high performance levels that were

reflected in the final grade (Maurer & Pierce, 1998). The

fact that this characteristic did not show a direct

significant effect on supervisor evaluation is surprising,

as it has previously been found to have positive direct

links to work performance (Stajkovic & Luthans, 1998).

In our study, the effect of self-efficacy on performance

was mediated by motivation to learn. It is possible that

self-efficacy enhances the motivation to learn, which in

turn leads the trainee to acquire more knowledge,

skills, and competencies and to develop superior

work strategies. If this is the case, then motivation to

learn would exert a closer impact on performance than

on self-efficacy.

Indeed, this study found a significant positive effect

for motivation to learn on both training grade and

supervisor evaluation. It is reasonable to assume that

trainees with a high motivation to learn (as part of the

effect of other personality and situational variables)

invest greater efforts in the course and therefore are

more successful in acquiring new skills and work meth-

ods than trainees low on motivation. These employees

may logically be expected to bring their improved work

competencies back with them to the workplace, allowing

them to perform better and thereby achieve higher

supervisor evaluations than trainees low on motivation.

Goal orientation also produced the expected pattern

of results in Model 2 (supervisor evaluation), with a

significant positive effect found for learning goal orien-

tation and a significant negative effect for performance

goal orientation. The effect of learning goal orientation

on performance could be accounted for by the desire of

people high on this trait to master new skills and

discover better performance strategies that will ulti-

mately result in better performance attainments. On

the other hand, trainees high on performance goal

orientation would focus attention on how to impress

others, that is, on the outcome of performance rather

than on its actual level. As supervisor evaluations relate

to the quality of attainments, those who have invested

efforts in developing the competencies needed to per-

form better (i.e., learning goal orientation) would be

expected to rate higher than employees driven by the

needs of impression management (i.e., performance

goal orientation), and the two goal orientations should

correlate inversely with performance ratings (Seijts &

Latham, 2005; Seijts et al., 2004).

Although studies relying on the Expectancy Theory

(Lawler & Suttle, 1973; Vroom, 1964) have demon-

strated that the perception of the value of training is

related to success, this was not borne out this study.

Instrumentality did not produce a significant effect

either on the training grade or on supervisor evaluation

of the application of training on the job.

Nor was a significant direct effect found for transfer

of training climate on either of the measures of training

effectiveness, although previous studies have shown

that employees in organizations with a climate that

encourages the application of training invest greater

efforts in applying their newly acquired knowledge and

skills in the workplace (Ford, Quinones, Sego, & Sorra,

1992; Tziner et al., 1991). This study, however, did find

an indirect significant effect for this variable, mediated

by a motivation to learn, on both training grade and

supervisor evaluation. This rather surprising result

might be explained by the fact that variables such as

motivation to learn and goal orientation were not

included in the investigations that reported a positive

effect for transfer of training climate. These variables

may very well capture most of the unique significant

contribution of a positive climate. On the other hand, a

high learning goal orientation and motivation to learn

might shield trainees from an unfavorable, non-suppor-

tive transfer climate, giving them the strength to over-

come the obstacles it places in their path. In both cases,




& 2007 The Authors


the transfer of training climate would exert its effect

on the two measures of training effectiveness through

the mediation of motivation to learn.

In addition to advancing research in the field, the

results of this study may prove useful for improving both

the internal outcomes of training courses (measured by

final grade) and their application in the workplace

(measured by supervisor evaluation). The consistent

findings of the investigation highlight the importance of

promoting learning goal orientation and motivation to

learn in order to attain better training outcomes. This

lends credence to the results of previous studies that

suffered from a restricted framework, as they were

conducted on students and employed fewer variables

(Colquitt & Simmering, 1998; VandeWalle et al., 2001). It

is also worth noting that our findings support Arthur et

al.’s (2003) contention that the estimated effectiveness of

training may vary with the outcome measure used. As

proved to be the case in our study, the variables found

uniquely related to one measure of effectiveness are not

necessarily the same as those uniquely associated with a

different measure of effectiveness (e.g., conscientious-

ness and goal orientation measures predicted supervisor

evaluation but not training grade). Both Alliger et al.

(1997) and Arthur, Tubre, Paul, and Edens (2004) would

attribute this finding to the fact that the training-out-

come measures captured distinct facets of the training-

effectiveness construct.

Certain limitations of this study should be noted, and

might be addressed in future investigations. First, data

regarding the outcome variable of application of training

on the job were obtained from a single source – the

trainee’s immediate supervisor. Research has shown

that such evaluations may be biased in different ways as

a result of a variety of factors associated with the

supervisors themselves, including personality traits,

their personal and professional relationship with the

employee, power struggles in the organization, con-

flicts, differing interests, etc. (Tziner, 2002, pp. 279–

307). Consequently, the supervisor evaluation of the

extent to which the employee applied his newly

acquired knowledge and skills may not have accurately

reflected the true situation in all cases. Future investi-

gations might therefore attempt to include objective

measures of the application of training as well.

Moreover, supervisor evaluations were conducted 3

weeks after completion of training and were captured

only once. It is conceivable that for a short period of

time immediately following the training course, employ-

ees return to work imbued with the motivation to apply

their new skills. Once time has elapsed, however,

circumstances may change: motivation may decline, the

material learned in the course may be forgotten, the

transfer of training climate may become less conducive,

and so on. Indeed, the phenomenon of relapse of training

has been the subject of a considerable number of studies

(Burke & Baldwin, 1999; Haccoun, 1997). It would

therefore be wise to obtain a repeated measure of the

application of training after a longer period has elapsed.

This study focused on seven trainee and work envir-

onment variables previously found to relate to training

outcomes. Nonetheless, a large number of other vari-

ables have also been reported to affect these outcomes,

such as work involvement, organizational commitment,

achievement orientation, locus of control, etc. Future

research would thus do well to include additional

predictors and training effectiveness measures to study

their unique and combined contribution as well.

Given the economic implications of employee train-

ing in terms of its value and cost to the company,

research that serves to promote training effectiveness

is of the utmost importance. We believe this study

takes us one step closer to that goal by identifying,

in a real organizational setting, two factors that appear

to have a stronger impact than others on training

outcomes.

Acknowledgements

The authors are greatly indebted to Gil Sharoni for his

help with the data analysis.

References

Alliger, G.M., Tannenbaum, S.I., Bennett, W. Jr., Traver, H. and

Shotland, A. (1997) A Meta-Analysis of Relations among

Training Criteria. Personnel Psychology, 50, 41–358.

Arthur, W. Jr., Bennett, W. Jr., Edens, P.S. and Bell, S.T. (2003)

Effectiveness Training in Organizations: A meta-analysis of

design and evaluation features. Journal of Applied Psychology,

88, 234–255.

Arthur, W. Jr., Tubre, T.C., Paul, D.S. and Edens, P.S. (2004)

Teaching Effectiveness: The relationship between reaction

and learning criteria. Education Psychology, 23, 275–285.

Barrick, M.R. and Mount, M.K. (1991) The Big Five Personality

Dimensions and Job Performance: A meta-analysis. Person-

nel Psychology, 44, 1–26.

Barrick, M.R., Stewart, G.L. and Piotrowski, M. (2002) Per-

sonality and Job Performance: Test of the mediating effects

of motivation among sales representatives. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 87, 243–245.

Burke, L.A. and Baldwin, T.T. (1999) Workforce Training

Transfer: A Study of the effect of relapse prevention

training and transfer climate. Human Resource Management,

32, 227–242.

Campbell, J.P. and Kuncel, N.R. (2001) Individual and Team

Training. In: Anderson, N., Ones, D.S., Sinangil, H.K. and

Viswesvaran, C. (eds), Handbook of Industrial, Work &

Organizational Psychology, Vol. 2. London: Sage, pp. 278–312.

Colquitt, J.A., LePine, J.A. and Noe, R.A. (2000) Toward an

Integrative Theory of Training Motivation: A meta-analytic


& 2007 The Authors




path analysis of 20 years of research. Journal of Applied


Colquitt, J.A. and Simmering, M.S. (1998) Conscientiousness,

Goal Orientation, and Motivation to Learn during the

Learning Process: A longitudinal study. Journal of Applied


Costa, P.T. and McCrae, R.R. (1992). Revised, NEO Personality

Inventory and the NEO Five-Factor Inventory. Psychological

Assessment Resources, Odessa, FL.

Davis, F.D. and Yi, M.Y. (2004) Improving Computer Skill

Training: Behavior modeling, symbolic mental rehearsal, and

the role of knowledge systems. Journal of Applied Psychology,

89, 509–523.

Fisher, S.L. and Ford, J.K. (1998) Differential Effects of Learner

Effect and Goal Orientation in Two Learning Outcomes.

Personnel Psychology, 51, 397–420.

Ford, J.K., Quinones, M.A., Sego, D.J. and Sorra, J.S. (1992)

Factors Affecting the Opportunity to Perform Trained

Tasks on the Job. Personnel Psychology, 45, 511–527.

Gist, M.E., Stevens, C.K. and Bavetta, A.G. (1991) Effects of

Self-Efficacy and Post-Training Intervention on the Acquisi-

tion and Maintenance of Complex Interpersonal Skills.

Personnel Psychology, 44, 837–861.

Haccoun, R.R. (1997) Transfer and Retention: Let’s do both

and avoid dilemmas. Applied Psychology: An International

Review, 46, 340–344.

Holladay, C.L. and Quinones, M.A. (2003) Practice Variability

and Transfer of Training: The role of self-efficacy generality.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 1094–1103.

Lawler, E.E. and Suttle, J.L. (1973) Expectancy Theory and

Job Behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision

Processes, 9, 482–503.

Mathieu, J.E. and Martineau, J.W. (1997) Individual and Situa-

tional Influences in Training Motivation. In: Ford, J.K.,

Kozlowski, S.W.J., Kraiger, K., Salas, E. and Geachout, M.S.

(eds), Improving Training Effectiveness in Organizations.

Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 193–222.

Mathieu, J.E., Martineau, J.W. and Tannenbaum, S.I. (1993)

Individual and Situational Influences on the Development of

Self-Efficacy: Implications for training effectiveness. Person-

nel Psychology, 46, 125–147.

Mathieu, J.E., Tannenbaum, S.I. and Salas, E. (1992) Influences

of Individual and Situational Characteristics on Measures of

Training Effectiveness. Academy of Management Journal, 35,

828–847.

Maurer, T.J. and Pierce, H.R. (1998) A Comparison of Likert

Scale and Traditional Measures of Self-Efficacy. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 83, 324–329.

McCrae, R.R. and Costa, P.T. Jr. (1987) Validation of the Five-

Factor Model of Personality Across Instruments and Ob-

servers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 81–

90.

Salgado, J.F. (1997) The Five-Factor Model of Personality and

Job Performance in the European Community. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 82, 30–43.

Salgado, J.F., Viswesvaran, C. and Ones, D.S. (2001) Predictors

Used for Personnel Selection: An overview of constructs,

methods and techniques. In: Anderson, N., Ones, D.S.,

Simangil, H.K. and Viswesvaran (eds), Handbook of Industrial,

Work and Organizational Psychology, 1. Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage, pp. 165–199.

Seijts, G.H. and Latham, G.P. (2005) Learning versus Perfor-

mance Goals: When should each be used? Academy of

Management Executive, 19, 124–131.

Seijts, G.H., Latham, G.P., Tasa, K. and Latham, B.W. (2004)

Goal Setting and Goal Orientation: An integration of two

different yet related literatures. Academy of Management

Journal, 47, 227–240.

Stajkovic, A.D. and Luthans, F. (1998) Self-Efficacy and Work-

Related Performance: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin,

124, 240–261.

Stevens, C.K. and Gist, M.E. (1997) Effects of Self-Efficacy and

Goal Orientation Training on Negotiation Skill Maintenance:

What are the mechanisms? Personnel Psychology, 50,

955–978.

Tannenbaum, S.I. (1997) Enhancing Continuous Learning:

Diagnostic findings from multiple companies. Human Re-

source Management, 36, 437–452.

Towler, A.J. and Dipboye, R.L. (2001). Effects of Charismatic

Communication Training on Motivation, Behavior, and

Attitudes. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the

Society of Industrial/Organizational Psychological, San-

Diego.

Tracey, J.B., Tannenbaum, S.I. and Kavangh, J.J. (1995)

Applying Trained Skills on the Job: The importance of

work environment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80,

239–252.

Tziner, A. (2002) Human Resource Management and Organiza-

tion Behavior: Selected perspectives. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.

Tziner, A., Haccoun, R. and Kadish, A. (1991) Personal and

Situational Characteristics Influencing the Effectiveness of

Transfer of Training Improvement Strategies. Journal of

Occupational Psychology, 64, 67–177.

VandeWalle, D., Cron, W. and Slocum, J.W. Jr. (2001) The

Role of Goal Orientation Following Performance Feedback.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 629–640.

Vroom, V.H. (1964) Motivation and Work. New York: Wiley.

Zhas, H. and Seibert, S.E. (2006) The Big Five Personality

Dimensions and Entrepreneurial Status: A meta-analytical

review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 259–271.




& 2007 The Authors


Effects of Trainee Characteristics in Training Effectiveness

Documents

Transcript of Effects of Trainee Characteristics in Training Effectiveness