BookPDF Available

Training Transfer Research: A Manager's Guide and Bibliography Training Transfer Research A Manager's Guide and Bibliography

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

Training transfer is more than what was learned during training; it is the evidence that competencies trained are used on the job for which they were intended. Employees undertaking professional training should think, feel, and/or act differently at work. This book includes A) an integrated review on the theoretical and empirical progress on training transfer research of the last decades, and B) annotates 100 scholarly articles to highlight key elements and evidence of the wide research literature relevant to the transfer of training. The bibliography is structured as follows: 1) Training (Transfer) Outcomes and Evaluation contains work about the ultimate impact of training, how to conceptualise these outcomes, and how to measure and evaluate them. 2) The Nature of Training Transfer annotates key work that theorises and models the phenomenon of training transfer so as to understand and integrate the key components, processes, and their relationships. Subsequent sections are based on the main constituents of training which involve 3) The Trainee, 4) The Work Context, and 5) The Training Experience. Section 6) annotates What Works in Practice by linking to literature that may be considered most comprehensive and/or pragmatic when seeking to facilitate the transfer of training. This monograph thus promotes an evidence-based approach to efforts that enhance the transfer of training for both scholars and managers for ensuring that organisations know how to maximise the degree to which valuable new knowledge and skill produced through work training passes back over the organisational boundary and makes a difference at work.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Training Transfer Research
A Manager’s Guide and Bibliography
Ramon Wenzel
John Cordery
Training Transfer Research
A Manager’s Guide and Bibliography
Ramon Wenzel is a Research Assistant Professor in the Business School of the University of Western
Australia from where he also obtained his PhD. His research draws on psychology and organisational
management in an effort to understand and facilitate training effectiveness, holistic training evaluation,
competence development, and self-regulated learning at work. Through integrating the multiple types of
formal and informal learning he seeks to stimulate thinking, build an evidence base, and promote good
quality practice related to the full spectrum of work learning.
John Cordery is a Professor of Management in the Business School at the University of Western
Australia. He obtained his PhD in industrial/organizational psychology from the University of Sheffield.
John’s primary focus in his research is on the ways in which employee behaviour and well-being is
influenced by human resource management practices, particularly as they relate to how work is designed.
John’s research has appeared in leading international journals such as the Academy of Management Journal,
Human Relations, Journal of Applied Psychology, and Journal of Organizational Behaviour.
The Australian Institute of Management Western Australia (AIM-WA) is Australia’s premium
provider of business and management courses. AIM-WA is a private not-for-profit organisation and runs
hundreds of accredited and skills only courses and seeks to give managers the professional edge in an
increasingly competitive landscape. The range of courses is focused squarely on management and
leadership development. It includes courses requested by managers and developed based on their input.
Please cite this publication as: Wenzel, R. & Cordery, J. (2014)
Training Transfer Research: A Manager’s
Guide and Bibliography.
Australian Institute of Management – Western Australia, Perth.
Correspondence concerning the content and article selection of this publication should be addressed to
Dr. Ramon Wenzel at the University of Western Australia: ramon.wenzel@uwa.edu.au
Correspondence concerning the use, replication, and dissemination of this publication should be addressed to
Dr. Shaun Ridley at the Australian Institute of Management – Western Australia: sridley@aimwa.com
This research was supported in part by a grant from the Australian Research Council (LP0991809) and the
Australian Institute of Management – Western Australia, Perth.
Published as a free ebook by the Australian Institute of Management – Western Australia, Perth, Australia.
No part of this ebook may be modified or re-published in any form without the consent of the publisher.
Figures included are reprinted with permission and remain under the copyright of the original publishers.
ISBN: 978-0-646-92863-0 | 1st Edition, v1.0 | Cover Design: Ramon Wenzel via Wordle.net
Contents
INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................................1
ABRIEFOVERVIEWOFTRAININGTRANSFERRESEARCH.................................................................2
CONCEPTUALMODELS.............................................................................................................................3
EMPIRICALEVIDENCE.............................................................................................................................12
ANANNOTATEDBIBLIOGRAPHY...................................................................................................15
TRAINING(TRANSFER)OUTCOMESANDEVALUATION..................................................................................19
THENATUREOFTRAININGTRANSFER.......................................................................................................25
THETRAINEE........................................................................................................................................32
THEWORKCONTEXT.............................................................................................................................45
THETRAININGEXPERIENCE.....................................................................................................................57
WHATWORKSINPRACTICE....................................................................................................................64
EXTENDEDREFERENCELIST...........................................................................................................67
Preface
In organisational contexts, positive transfer of training is generally regarded as the paramount
concern of training efforts – but it has proven to be a formidable challenge. Indeed, there is a widely
recognised ‘transfer problem’ whereby researchers and practitioners consistently conclude that the return
on many training investments is low and organisational investments in training are too often wasted due
to poor transfer. This is of particular concern in today’s rapidly changing business climate where
organisational success often depends on the speed with which people can learn and apply new ideas and
information.
Of course, questions concerning transfer are not new and, in fact, were among the very first
issues considered by early psychologists. Yet, despite a long research history the literature on transfer of
training has remained fragmented and characterized by a variety of ‘mixed’ findings. With that in mind,
Ramon Wenzel and John Cordery have done a great service in researching and crafting this document. It
is an exhaustive piece of scholarship that aggregates all of the important research and writing on transfer
in one place. But the value goes beyond a simple aggregation and summary – they further offer their own
critical review and synthesis and it is a sterling piece of scholarship as well. I plan to keep a copy of their
work handy for my own reference.
If you are new to the transfer of training arena, I would say this would be a fine place to start. If
you are an old hand, I think you will find new insights and a synthesis of the literature that you have not
heretofore encountered. Kudos to Wenzel and Cordery for a timely and important contribution to the
science of training transfer. I commend their work to you.
Timothy T. Baldwin
Bloomington, Indiana
September 2014
1
Introduction
There are many criteria against which the success of training and development activities can be
judged. One of the most important, however, is training transfer. Ultimately, the success of any given
training and/or development program is reflected in whether or not what is learned gets applied on the
job. Organisations, and indeed trainees themselves, invest large amounts of time, effort and resources in
work-related training, and they generally expect to see this manifested in some way back in the work
setting, for example through changes to how work is conducted. However, many organisations and their
people views the likelihood of transfer of training more in hope than expectation. Estimates of how much
learning typically survives the transfer back to the place of work vary widely, but there is widespread
agreement that too much is typically lost in translation. Although the potential benefit of work-related
training to individuals, organisations and society at large is incontestable, the reality is that much of that
potential is being dissipated. This undermines the rationale for investing time and money in training and
professional development activities. It also appears that work organisations, training providers, and
learners blame each other for the lack of positive transfer instead of each embracing their unique role in
maximising the desired impact of training.
However, on the positive side, there is a rapidly growing body of scientific research into training
which, in turn, is producing a wealth of valuable information regarding the factors that contribute to (or
sometimes inhibit) successful training transfer. Over recent decades in particular, a growing consensus has
emerged amongst scholars regarding the right and wrong ways to design, deliver, and implement a
training program (Salas, Tannenbaum, Kraiger, & Smith-Jentsch, 2012). While empirical evidence
suggests that some of the factors affecting training effectiveness are very hard to change, other factors are
highly malleable, and thus susceptible to managerial decisions, policies and practices, and deliberate
interventions.
Meanwhile, technological, social, and economic developments are rapidly changing the world in
which we live and work. New digital technologies are fundamentally transforming the nature of work, the
workforce in developed countries such as Australia is rapidly aging, and global competition is intensifying.
These seismic shifts are affecting all industry sectors in Australia, and are requiring increased investment
in building new knowledge, skills, and abilities. It is timely therefore for both scholars and managers to
renew their efforts to ensure that organisations know how to maximise the degree to which valuable new
knowledge and skill produced through training passes back over the organisational boundary and makes a
difference at work. This short monograph aims to promote an evidence-based approach to such efforts,
providing a reference work for those seeking to maximise the utility of their training and development
investments. We hope that this will assist scholars, practitioners, and policy makers in their endeavours to
make training more successful.
2
A Brief Overview of Training Transfer Research
There has been tremendous growth in training research over the last forty years, and the training
field has grown exponentially in the past decade (for comprehensive and historic reviews see Baldwin,
Ford, & Blume, 2009; Cheng & Hampson, 2008; Leberman, McDonald, & Doyle, 2006). The rise in
scholarly interest in training and development in work organisations is reflected by new
conceptualisations (Segers & Gegenfurtner, 2013a) and regular reviews of the training literature (Aguinis
& Kraiger, 2009; Baldwin & Ford, 1988; Burke & Hutchins, 2007; Campbell, 1971; Cheng & Ho, 2001;
Ford & Weissbein, 1997; Grossman & Salas, 2011; Kozlowski & Salas, 2009; Latham, 1988; Salas &
Cannon-Bowers, 2001; Salas, Tannenbaum, et al., 2012; Salas, Weaver, & Shuffler, 2012; Tannenbaum &
Yukl, 1992; Wexley, 1984). A significant part of this literature is devoted to research and theory relating to
the transfer of training.
For the purposes of this monograph, we define the transfer of training (training transfer is used
synonymously) as the extent to which knowledge, skills, and abilities acquired in a training setting result in
sustained change in the way work is performed. According to Blume, Ford, Baldwin, & Huang (2010:
1067-1068), transfer has historically been seen to involve two main processes:
(a)
Generalization
— the extent to which the knowledge and skill acquired in a
learning setting are applied to different settings, people, and/or situations
from those trained; and
(b)
Maintenance
— the extent to which changes that result from a learning
experience persist over time.
In other words, training transfer is more than what was learned during training; it is the evidence
that competencies trained are used on the job for which they were intended. Employees undertaking
professional training should think, feel, and/or act differently at work.
For organisations this transfer of training is thus a crucial leverage point by which development
activities will affect relevant outcomes. Accordingly, resources devoted to developing a person’s
competencies are largely wasted to the extent that this person doesn’t subsequently make use of those
competencies in the course of performing their work (Latham, 2007). There have been various attempts
to estimate how much, on average, gets transferred from training to the workplace. The figure of 10% as
an average transfer rate, originally a speculation by Georgenson (1982), has become the “sticky idea”
(Ford, Yelon, & Billington, 2011) in the scholarly and practitioner literature, albeit not based on any
scientific evidence (Saks, 2001). Wexley and Latham (2001) and Saks (2001) respectively estimated that 40
and 62 per cent of content is transferred immediately after a training intervention, while 25 - 44 per cent
remains transferred after six months, falling to 15 - 34 per cent after one year. Although these estimates
suggest that average transfer rates are variable, and not as weak as has been traditionally thought, they
3
nevertheless reinforce the commonly held belief that much training fails to result in full and sustained
transfer of new competencies to the workplace.
The apparent problem of poor training transfer has motivated many researchers over the years to
investigate factors that support or hinder the effective transfer of knowledge, skills and abilities acquired
through training and development activities. This has resulted in a number of conceptual models of the
transfer process that have been extensively used by both practitioners and researchers.
Conceptual Models
Baldwin and Ford’s (1988) model of the processes underlying transfer is the earliest, and arguably
most influential, conceptual framework dealing with training transfer. Developed as a simple framework
to guide future research, this model (see Figure 1) incorporates three main elements: A) Training inputs,
including trainee characteristics, training design, and work environment; B) Training outputs, defined as
the amount of original learning which occurs during the training program and the retention of that
material after the program is completed; and C) Conditions of transfer, which account for the
generalisation of knowledge and skills acquired in training to the job context and the maintenance of that
learning over time on the job. The various direct and indirect effects between these factors and elements
highlight the fact that the transfer of training is a complex multi-faceted phenomenon.
4
Figure 1. Baldwin & Ford’s (1988) model of training transfer
Baldwin & Ford’s model has spawned a large volume of research over the ensuing 25 years (see
Blume, et al., 2010 for a comprehensive review). There have also been a number of variants produced of
this basic tripartite framework, and some of these are now briefly described.
Expanding Baldwin & Ford’s approach, Broad and Newstrom (1992) argued that it was also
necessary to explicitly consider the role of (a) key stakeholders and (b) time in affecting training transfer.
Three key time periods were identified: pre- training, training, and post-training. Key stakeholders
included executives, supervisors, performers, performance consultants, evaluators, performance partners,
co-workers, subject matter experts, etc. (Broad, 2005). By incorporating time and stakeholder elements,
Broad & Newstrom (1992) laid the foundation for the more systemic view that characterizes subsequent
models of training transfer.
Focusing on the individual in the transfer process, Russ-Eft (2002) presented a training transfer
typology focusing on situational elements that directly affect the trainee, rather than on a trainee’s
dispositional and personality characteristics. In this typology, elements are categorised along the time-
dimension into pre-training elements, in-training elements, and post-training. This stage view is flanked by
situational elements of the transfer environment (i.e., work environment), which are likely to affect an
individual throughout the entirety of a given learning experience.
5
Table 1. A transfer typology (Russ-Eft, 2002)
Pre-training Elements In-training Elements Post-training Elements
Realistic training previews Advance organizers Relapse prevention
Voluntary versus involuntary Guided discovery Self-management
Persuasive message linking
mastery and job survival
Error-based learning versus distal Goal setting: proximal
Metacognitive instruction Training in self-talk
Learner control Visualization
Mastery orientation versus
performance orientation
Post-training follow-up
Coaching/feedback/scaffolding
Practice:
behavioural practice versus
symbolic practice;
spaced practice;
variable examples/practice;
random practice;
overlearning
Situational Elements / Transfer Context
Supervisor and peer support/sanction; Workload; Opportunity to use
Kontoghiorghes (2004) argued that most factors addressed by earlier conceptual transfer
frameworks focus too narrowly on trainee characteristics and attributes that are directly related to the
training context or training-related outcomes. Such approaches, he argued, treat training as a non-systemic
phenomenon, operating independently of other variables that affect work performance. Highlighting the
central role of motivational processes in effective transfer, Kontoghiorghes (2004) described traditional
approaches to thinking about training transfer (e.g. Baldwin & Ford, 1988) in Figure 3 as follows:
Kontog
h
which s
u
more s
y
perform
a
been gi
v
concept
u
individu
a
design
fa
should
n
Figure 3.
K
h
iorghes (20
0
u
ch process
e
y
stemic app
r
ance, and li
k
v
en insuffic
alized
he
t
a
l learning a
n
fa
ctors that s
n
ot be seen a
s
K
ontoghiorghe
s
0
4) argued t
h
e
s are embe
d
r
oach, asser
t
k
ely a trainee
ient attenti
o
t
ransfer pro
c
n
d transfer
b
erve to sha
p
s
an isolated
c
’s
(2004) illus
tr
h
at such tra
d
d
ded in, and
t
ing that or
g
’s belief that
o
n by resea
c
ess one in
b
oth influen
c
p
e overall pe
c
oncept but
a
6
t
ration of tradi
t
d
itional mod
e
dependent
o
r
ganisa
t
i
onal
t
training ca
n
a
rchers in t
h
which the
c
c
e and are i
n
rformance (
s
a
s an integra
l
ti
onal approach
e
e
ls are overl
y
o
n an organ
i
factors tha
t
n
actually res
u
h
e training
c
ore motiva
t
n
fluenced by
s
ee Figure 4
)
l
part of wor
k
e
s to model tra
i
y
simplistic; i
g
i
sa
t
i
onal co
n
t
directly o
r
u
lt in enhan
c
transfer ar
e
t
ional proce
s
a range of
o
)
. That is, t
h
k
.
i
ning transfer
i
gnoring the
n
text. He ad
v
r
indirectly
c
ed perform
a
e
a. Consequ
e
s
ses which
d
o
rganisationa
h
e transfer o
f
extent to
v
ocated a
influence
a
nce, had
e
ntly, he
d
etermine
l
and job
f
training
A
Learnin
g
factors
g
that
j
oi
n
diagnos
t
environ
m
A
systemic a
p
g
Transfer S
y
g
rouped int
o
n
tly affect lea
t
ic tool, ad
m
m
ent (Holto
n
Fig
u
p
proach to
t
y
stem Inven
t
o
motivation
a
rning, indivi
d
m
inistered p
o
n
, et al., 2000
)
u
re 4. Kontog
h
t
raining tra
n
t
ory (LTSI).
T
a
l, environm
e
d
ual perfor
m
o
s
t
-training t
o
)
, and its un
d
7
h
iorghes’s (200
4
n
sfer also c
h
T
he LTSI is
e
ntal, and a
b
m
ance, and o
r
o
assess in
d
d
erlying conc
e
4
) systemic app
h
aracterizes
H
a measure
m
b
ility elemen
t
r
ganisational
ividual train
e
e
ptual ration
a
r
oac
h
H
olton, Bat
e
m
ent framew
o
t
s as well as
results. The
L
e
es’ percepti
a
le is outline
d
e
s, & Ruon
a
o
rk that co
m
secondary i
n
LTSI is inte
n
i
ons and th
e
d
in Figure 5
a
’s (2000)
m
prises 16
n
fluences
n
ded as a
e
transfer
below.
O
integrat
e
to integ
r
Holton,
include
t
team is
b
(Holton
Il
l
dimensi
o
environ
m
individu
a
after sta
g
the lear
n
represe
n
term re
s
framew
o
central
fe
Figure 5.
H
O
ver the last
e
the elemen
t
r
ate the thre
e
et al. (2000)
.
t
eams of le
a
b
oth an inp
u
III & Baldw
i
l
ustrated as
o
n into five
m
ent, encaps
u
a
l difference
s
g
es of traini
n
n
ing event an
n
ts transfer
a
s
ults) and
f
o
rk is helpf
u
fe
ature under
g
H
olton et al. (
2
decade, two
t
s of these e
a
e
models ge
n
.
The author
s
a
rners. Adop
t
u
t to the pro
i
n, 2003, p.
9
a process (
F
time period
s
u
lating the f
o
s
, and prior
n
g, respectiv
e
d process, a
n
a
t work or
p
f
ar transfer
u
l for under
s
g
oing the lea
r
2
000) Learnin
g
further atte
m
a
rlier models
n
erated by B
a
s
reconceptu
a
t
ing a syste
m
c
ess [...] and
).
F
igure 6),
H
s
. Time 1 re
p
o
ur input va
r
experience.
T
e
ly, and thou
g
n
d the learne
r
erformance
(i.e. longer-
t
tanding trai
n
r
ning experi
e
8
g
Transfer Sys
t
m
pts have b
of transfer.
a
ldwin and
F
alised Baldw
i
m
s perspecti
v
a unit in th
e
H
olton & B
a
p
resents the
r
iables identi
f
T
imes 2, 3,
a
g
ht to be m
o
r
(s) themsel
v
outcomes,
d
t
erm results
n
ing transfer
e
nce and bei
n
t
em Inventory
:
U
e
en made t
o
The first, by
F
ord (1988),
i
n and Ford’
v
e, they furt
h
e
model tha
t
a
ldwin’s (20
0
point at wh
i
f
ied by Holt
o
a
nd 4 are an
a
o
st susceptib
l
v
es. Ultimatel
y
d
istinguishin
g
and gener
a
as a proce
s
n
g affected b
y
U
nderlying con
c
synthesise
e
Holton & B
B
road and
N
s original ‘tr
a
h
er recognis
e
may be sha
p
0
3) framewo
i
ch the learn
e
o
n et al. (200
0
a
logous to t
h
e to influen
c
y
, this leads
t
between n
e
a
lisation to
n
s
s in which
t
y
a range of
f
c
eptual model
e
xtant know
l
B
aldwin
(
200
3
N
ewstrom (1
9
a
inee’ catego
r
e
“that the l
e
p
ed by inter
v
o
rk expands
er enters th
e
0): ability, m
o
h
e before, d
u
c
e by the org
a
t
o time poin
t
e
ar transfer
(
new situati
o
the learner(
s
f
actors.
l
edge and
3
), sought
9
92), and
r
y to also
e
arner or
v
entions”
the time
e
learning
o
tivation,
u
ring and
a
nisa
t
ion,
t
5, which
(
i.e. short
o
ns). The
s
) are the
9
Figure 6. Holton & Baldwin’s (2003) conceptual model of the transfer process
These same basic elements provide the essential core of a second recent model, developed by
Burke & Hutchins (2008). This model (Figure 7) presents a systems view in which work design and job
content, training content, and organisation size and structure all affect training transfer and ultimately job
performance. The model depicts five major influences on learning, transfer, and subsequent performance,
adding trainer characteristics and training evaluation to the original three training inputs (learner
characteristic, design and delivery, and work environment) suggested by Baldwin and Ford (1988).
To reflect the notion that transfer strategies can work across all phases, temporal dimensions in the
proposed model now include a “not time bound” category alongside the before, during, and after phases
introduced by Broad and Newstrom (1992). Lastly, the model identifies five key stakeholders, adding a
learner’s peers and limiting those listed in Broad (2005) to a more manageable set: peers, trainer, trainee,
supervisor, and the organisation. The resulting model may be considered the most comprehensive
representation of transfer processes and associated influences and outcomes to date.
10
Figure 7. Burke & Hutchins’ (2008) model of transfer
Finally, these conceptual developments brought about a large number of more specific constructs
that have been researched. Through an extensive literature review De Rijdt and colleagues (2013)
compiled and annotated these variables influencing the transfer of training. While their summary does not
give an indication about the strength of the influence, it organises and concisely explains the conceptual
meaning of those factors. In table 2 they distinguish three groups of influencing variables: learner
characteristics, intervention design, and work environment. In table 3 they summarise and annotate
moderating effects (i.e. conditions) that can affect the strength of a relationship between a given
influencing variable (listed in table 2) and training transfer.
To make an accurate assessment of training initiatives and facilitate subsequent transfer it remains
to be reviewed what works for whom and under what conditions. In the next section, we thus summarise
the main findings of empirical research into the antecedents of effective training transfer.
Table 2.
V
Table 3.
M
V
ariables Infl
u
M
oderators in
t
u
encing Transf
e
t
he relationshi
p
e
r (De Rijdt et
p
between In
f
lu
e
11
al., 2013)
e
ncing variable
s
s
and transfer
(
D
D
e Rijd
t
et al.,
,
2013)
12
Empirical Evidence
Stimulated by the conceptual work reviewed earlier, many empirical studies have sought to assess
the individual, situational and contextual influences on training transfer effectiveness. A recent meta-
analysis by Blume, et al. (2010), which identified 89 studies in which predictor variables were linked to
training transfer outcomes, provides the most comprehensive and rigorous summation of these empirical
findings in respect of the variables linked to transfer effectiveness.
Although Blume et al.’s meta-analysis is not the only recent review of the transfer literature (see
also the recent qualitative review by Grossman & Salas, 2011), it is the only one that systematically weighs
up the actual evidence for the validity of the sorts of predictors of transfer effectiveness that have been
identified within conceptual models of the process. A brief summary of the findings of this meta-analysis
is presented below, categorised in terms of the contributions made to effective training transfer by
characteristics of the learning experience, the work environment, and of the individual being trained.
Learning experience. Blume et al. (2010) do not focus directly on whether the design of training
(e.g., content, pedagogy) predicts transfer. Instead, they examine how the proximal outcomes achieved by
training design, that is to say (1) learning outcomes, (2) training reactions, (3) learning objectives, and (4)
transfer-oriented training interventions affect subsequent transfer.
Learning outcomes. Levels of post-training knowledge achieved by trainees and post-training self-
efficacy (confidence in one’s mastery of the training material) were found to have small to moderate
associations with subsequent transfer, with mean population correlations of 0.24 and 0.20 respectively.
Training reactions. Utility reactions (i.e., perceptions of how useful the training might be) were found
to have a moderate influence on transfer outcomes (0.17). Affective reactions to the training (e.g., how
satisfied people were with the training they received) were only weakly related to transfer effectiveness.
Learning objectives. Blume et al. (2010) also observed a ‘pattern’ in their results that suggested that the
relationship between predictors and training transfer was stronger when the content of the training
focused on ‘open’ rather than ‘closed’ skills. They state: “Training objectives tied to learning specific skills
that are to be produced identically in the transfer environment as in the learning context are labelled
closed skills, whereas training objectives tied to learning principles are labeled open skills (Yelon & Ford,
1999). Yelon and Ford (1999) noted that with closed skills, trainees are to respond in one particular way
on the job according to a set of rules implemented in a precise fashion. With highly variable open skills,
there is not a single correct way to act but rather freedom to perform.” (p. 1072).
Training interventions. The meta-analysis also examined the effects of interventions/treatments
designed to enhance future transfer, and applied at different stages of the learning experience.
Interventions examined were optimistic previews, goal setting and relapse prevention. With the exception
of optimistic previews of training (0.20), the impact of such interventions on transfer outcomes was
negligible.
Work environment. The meta-analytic results reveal that support (e.g., supportive behaviour
towards the trainee by supervisors and peers) is a moderately strong and consistent predictor of transfer
13
effectiveness, as is transfer climate. However, organisational constraints (e.g., lack of autonomy and other
situational constraints) were found to have a minimal relationship with transfer outcomes.
Trainee characteristics. For factors that reside with the individual trainee, Blume et al. (2010)
identified a number of factors that were associated with increased transfer effectiveness. They concluded
that: “cognitive ability (.37), conscientiousness (.28), and voluntary participation (.34) had moderate
relationships with training transfer. [...] Neuroticism (.19), pretraining self-efficacy (.22), and motivation
(.23), had small to moderate relationships with transfer. Small correlations were found between training
transfer and Big Five personality dimensions agreeableness (.03), extraversion (.04), and openness to
experience (.08). In addition, small correlations were found between training transfer and trainees’ age
(.04), education (.07), male gender (.12), experience (.09), external locus of control (.06), and job
involvement (.04). Small correlations were also found for learning goal orientation (.14), prove-
performance goal orientation (.03), and avoid-performance goal orientation (.12).” (p. 1079).
Based on their meta-analytic study, Blume, et al. (2010) raise a number of critical observations
regarding the body of empirical research that has been conducted in this domain. First, they argue that the
advancement of knowledge in this area has been impeded by the prevalence of studies where data on the
antecedents and outcomes of training transfer are gathered using self-report measures obtained from the
same source at the same time. Such studies tend to distort (and often inflate) associations between
predictor and outcome variables.
Second, they call for greater precision in how transfer is conceptualized and measured, suggesting
that it matters both how and when it is measured. For example, measures of training use behave
differently to measures of training effectiveness. Finally, reflecting their findings in respect of the transfer
of open vs. closed skills, they argue that there is a need for researchers to be more specific in respect of
the nature and objectives of the training in question.
In terms of their relationship to the conceptual frameworks discussed previously, the empirical
research findings confirm the salience of the three categories of inputs originally identified over two
decades ago by Baldwin & Ford (1988) as predictors of training transfer: work environment, trainee
characteristics, and training design. A recent qualitative review by Grossman & Salas (2012) confirms
many of the conclusions made by Blume, et al. (2010). Table 4 highlights points of similarity (and
difference) between the two recent reviews.
14
Table 4. Overview of review evidence on factors influencing transfer (Wenzel, 2014)
Factors identified through meta-analysis Factors identified through qualitative review
Blume, Ford, Baldwin & Huang (2010) Grossman & Salas (2011)
Characteristics of the learning experience
(i.e. the setting and events that constitute the learning experience)
optimistic preview (.20)
goal-setting (.08)
behavioural modelling
error management
realistic training environment
Characteristics of the trainee
(i.e. the protagonist expected to learn and apply new competencies)
utility reactions (.46*) utility reactions
job involvement (.38*)
cognitive ability (.37) cognitive ability
voluntary participation (.34)
motivation (.29) motivation
conscientiousness (.28)
post-training knowledge (.24)
pre-training self-efficacy (.22) pre-training self-efficacy
post-training self-efficacy (.20) post-training self-efficacy
neuroticism (-.19)
learning goal orientation (.16),
gender (male; .12)
avoid-performance goal orientation (-.12)
locus of control (-.12)
Characteristics of the work environment
(i.e. the setting and events in which the trained competencies shall be used)
supervisor support (.31) supervisor support
transfer climate (.27) transfer climate
peer support (.14) peer support
opportunity to perform
follow-up
Note. Factors with meta-analytic effect sizes of <.1 have not been listed.
Figures in brackets represent meta-analytic mean population correlation (corrected for unreliability in predictor and criterion).
*denotes values that are substantially inflated through same-source and same-measurement-context (Blume et al., 2010)
15
An Annotated Bibliography
This annotated bibliography highlights key elements of the research literature relevant to the
transfer of training. It is mostly intended for those directly and indirectly responsible for training and
developing people so they can meet current and future demands at work. This includes training providers,
trainers, and human resource managers. However, we also believe that it may prove useful for line
managers, and supervisors. Ultimately, the annotated bibliography may also be useful to the person being
trained, as s/he seeks to apply new knowledge, skills, and abilities on the job. Finally, this work may also
provide a helpful starting point for students and researchers interested in training transfer, and training
effectiveness more generally.
Based on the premise that the transfer of training is a necessary condition for training to be
effective, we searched and screened for literature comprising the words ‘‘transfer’’ as well as ‘‘training’’.
We also searched the literature for related key terms and constructs, consulted the key journals, followed
the reference sections of the literature we read, identified renowned scholars, took recommendations
from colleagues, and consulted with experts in the field.
There is a burgeoning volume of literature on the transfer of training. To illustrate, a recent review
analysed the development of the scholarly training transfer literature and found that 178 publications
appeared from 1980 to 1990, 205 from 1990 to 2000, and 278 from 2000 to 2010 (Segers &
Gegenfurtner, 2013b). Similarly, we estimated the attention training transfer received over time by using
the Google Ngram Viewer which charts the yearly count of selected words and phrases (n-grams) as they
are found in over 5.2 million digitised books. The findings suggest that the transfer of training has been
increasingly discussed over recent decades in scholarly and practitioner outlets. Clearly, training transfer
has become and remains a growing area of intensive inquiry.
Figure 8. An illustration of increasing attention of ‘Training Transfer’ based on Google Ngram
16
Our annotated bibliography does not attempt to provide a comprehensive list of all research
published in this area. Rather, we seek to provide an overview of those works that we consider seminal,
critical, practical, summative, and/or current. The present selection of 100 publications is thus filtered
through the lens of our own knowledge and interpretation of the field of training transfer.
As a result we may even exclude some of the ‘classic’ publications, because they have been
incorporated into, and elaborated by, more recent work. We have also selected some publications that we
believe have not received the attention that they deserve, or that identify important aspects of training
transfer that are under-investigated. In this way, we hope to provide a useful source of evidence, ideas,
trends, and suggestions that can inform, stimulate, and change how people go about managing and
researching training transfer.
All research cited in this annotated bibliography is readily accessible through normal library sources
and, often, via the Web. For instance, useful resources include Google Scholar and VOCEDplus. The
former represents a powerful full text index of scholarly literature and the latter represents a free research
database especially relating to skills development. Both may be useful as they can lead to free versions of
discussed articles as well as they can direct to further literature across an array of topics and publishing
formats.
Assumptions and Definitions
Our selection and annotations are based on a few criteria, assumptions, and definitions. First,
training and professional development are terms we use interchangeably, and this also covers more specific
labels such as executive education or leadership development. This reflects the fact that it is often
difficult, if not arbitrary, to determine whether a specific intervention or research study addresses a)
training which traditionally seeks to build specific competencies for the job that an individual currently
holds, b) development activities which typically aim to cultivate personal growth focusing on future
responsibilities, or c) both.
Second, training refers to any deliberate and organised approach for affecting individuals’
competence in order to improve individual, team, and organisational effectiveness (Baldwin & Ford,
1988; Goldstein & Ford, 2002; Litwinska, 2006). ‘Deliberate’ signifies the intention to acquire new
knowledge, skills, and abilities through a learning experience. ‘Organised’ implies a planned pattern or
sequence with particular aims, involving a person, body, or institution which sets up the learning
experience. Together, these inclusion criteria describe a vast range of formal learning activities, activities
that may be provided in-house or by an external training provider, set up as an extensive program or a
condensed burst, delivered in a classroom or online, lead to a recognised qualification or not. Of course, a
number of activities whose main purpose is not learning may also produce learning. In fact, accidental,
random, or informal learning experiences occur frequently and can be extremely valuable to individuals
and organisation (Watkins & Marsick, 1992), but they are not our principal focus here.
17
Third, we distinguish between transfer of training and transfer of learning. While these terms are often
used interchangeably in practice, others may associate them with distinct paradigms. Transfer of learning
has its origin in the educational context and describes when previous learning supports new learning or
even is a hindrance (e.g. Cree & Macaulay 2000; Thorndike, 1932). Although this literature on the science
of human learning and instruction is relevant to training effectiveness, it is considered less important for
the transfer of training to work. The lens we mainly adopt here assumes that trainees indeed understand
the new competencies delivered through the training. What follows is thus less concerned with the
pedagogy and delivery of training activities but rather reviews what can be done to facilitate the utilisation
of what has been learned so it is applied, generalised and maintained at work.
Finally, from a human capital perspective, training transfer is – though crucial – only one element
in overall training success. For work training to be ultimately considered effective, it must generate
competencies that are strategically aligned with an organisation’s goals (Noe & Tews, 2012). In other
words, training may be transferred but not effective if it is disconnected from organisational needs, or if
the work organisation is dysfunctional in other areas (Aguinis & Kraiger, 2009). Very useful literature
exists on these matters elsewhere and so the research selected here focuses on the transfer of training.
Approach and Structure
Given the boundaries outlined above we recognise that several factors that have been linked to
training transfer will not be covered here, and so the interested reader may consult other resources that
more specifically address, for instance, needs analysis, instructional design and delivery, and program
evaluation. Yet, we considered it prudent to include some literature on these topics where it was felt that
this would help to locate training transfer within an overall framework of training effectiveness.
To our minds, the transfer of training is best understood as a function of a system of influences.
Those influences comprise stakeholders and processes nested in the work and learning environment, as
well as in the learner him- or herself. Each of these elements is thought to carry a range of characteristics
with interactions between them taking place before, on entry, during, on exit, and/or after a training
activity.
On the basis of this systems perspective, and to help readers make sense of the information, we
have therefore organised the annotated bibliography into six sections reflecting key influences within a
system of training transfer. That being said, we recognise that a particular publication will often address
multiple aspects and so arguing for an exclusive association with one section is not sensible. Still, by
considering the central premise of a given publication we positioned it where we hope the reader will
expect it so as to gain the most useful contextual and deep-level insights.
Also, for those seeking to rapidly become acquainted with the subject matter we identify
20 publications that we think together collectively cover some of the most important aspects relating to
training transfer. We acknowledge that others might select a different set of publications; those that we
consider in conjunction are flagged with an asterisk. Overall, we suggest absorbing all six sections for an
18
interconnected view that more closely reflects the reality of what constitutes, challenges, and facilitates
training transfer.
We begin with the end in mind; Section 1) Training (Transfer) Outcomes and Evaluation contains work
about the ultimate impact of training, how to conceptualise these outcomes, and how to measure and
evaluate them. In Section 2) The Nature of Training Transfer we annotate key work that theorises and models
the phenomenon of training transfer so as to understand and integrate the key components, processes,
and their relationships. Subsequent sections are based on the main constituents of training which involve
Sections 3) The Trainee, 4) The Work Context, and 5) The Training Experience. To assist with sense making,
where possible, we have attempted to order the publications within these sections in accordance with the
sequence of before, during, and after training. Finally, Section 6) What Works in Practice annotates some
literature that may be considered most comprehensive and/or pragmatic when seeking to facilitate the
transfer of training.
19
Training (Transfer) Outcomes and Evaluation
*Benefits of training and development for individuals and teams, organisations, and society.
(2009). Aguinis, H., & Kraiger, K. Annual Review of Psychology, 60(1), 451–474.
This comprehensive and scholarly review adopts a multilevel, multidisciplinary, and global perspective on
work training. The authors outline evidence on the impact of training and conclude that, by and large,
training generates important benefits for individuals, teams, organisations, and society. However, certain
boundary conditions for training effectiveness and efficiency are identified, and so the review also covers
selected literature on how to maximise the benefits of training. A plethora of training literature that was
published during the first decade of the new millennium is reviewed, organised around training stages of
needs assessment, pre-training states, training design and delivery, training evaluation, and the transfer of
training. A number of directions for future research are outlined, though the discussion on the practical
implications is negligible. Overall, this major review represents a timely introduction to the role, benefits,
and key challenges associated with work training.
Effectiveness of training in organisations: A meta-analysis of Design and Evaluation Features.
(2003). Arthur W., Bennett, W., Edens, P. S., & Bell, S. T. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(2), 234–
245.
This meta-analytic study assesses the empirical evidence linking training design and evaluation features to
the effectiveness of training in organisations. From 162 studies it was estimated that in comparison with
no-training or pre-training states, training had an overall positive effect on job-related behaviours or
performance (mean effect size or d = 0.62). Moreover, the analysis of 397 independent data points
suggests that the training method used, the skill or task characteristic addressed, and the choice of training
evaluation criteria also affect the observed effectiveness of training programs. Contrary to theory, the
degree of implementation of training needs assessment was not found to affect training effectiveness,
though the authors considered this to be the result of very few available data points and caution against
false interpretation. The paper offers and discusses more specific relationships, and so both researchers
and practitioners may find the information presented valuable for making informed choices and decisions
in the design, implementation, and evaluation of organisational training programs.
A review and critique of research on training and organisational-level outcomes. (2007).
Tharenou, P., Saks, A. M., & Moore, C. Human Resource Management Review, 17(3), 251–273.
This paper addresses specifically the effects of training on organisational-level outcomes. Findings from a
meta-analysis of 67 studies suggest that training is positively related to human resource outcomes and
20
organisational performance. The authors further infer that a) training is only very weakly related to
financial outcomes; b) the relationship between training and firm performance is mediated by employee
attitudes and human capital; c) training is more strongly related to organisational outcomes when it is
matched with key contextual factors such as organisation capital intensity and business strategy; and d)
training is related to organisational outcomes, independent of other human resource practices and
processes. With respect to the relationship between training and organisational-level outcomes, this paper
also offers 1) theoretical models explaining the relationship; 2) three perspectives of strategic human
resource management and their implications; 3) descriptions for measuring training and outcome; 4) a
review of extant research studies; and 5) a critique and recommendations for future research. In sum, this
paper goes beyond the more common individual-level perspective and integrates evidence and theory in
support of training’s role in enhancing organisational effectiveness.
Is transfer of training related to firm performance? (2014). Saks, A. M., & Burke-Smalley, L. A.
International Journal of Training and Development, 18(2), 104–115.
In this paper the authors amalgamate two independent but related streams of training research: a) micro-
training research which explains and predicts individuals’ training transfer performance, and b) macro-
training research which examines the relationship between training efforts and organisational
performance. Specifically, this study investigates the relationship between transfer of training and firm
performance to test whether the former is indeed a key driver of the latter. It was found that
organisations that use training to a greater extent report higher perceived organisational performance.
Most importantly, those organisations reporting a higher rate of transfer of training also report higher
firm performance. Additionally, training transfer mediated the relationship between training methods and
firm performance. Specifically, on-the-job training was identified as the strongest predictor of training
transfer, and on-the-job training and computer-based training predicted perceived organisational
performance. In sum, this study bridges the micro-macro training research gap. The section reviewing the
two research levels may be helpful to better understand training effectiveness more generally. Foremost
evidence is presented that supports that the transfer of training is indeed a necessary condition for
training to impact organisational outcomes. As the study is based on single-source, perceptional data only,
this paper may be used to stimulate a more robust research design using objective data on training
transfer and firm performance.
21
How much Is transferred from training to the job? The 10% delusion as a catalyst for thinking
about transfer. (2011). Ford, J. K., Yelon, S. L., & Billington, Q. A. Performance Improvement
Quarterly, 24(2), 7–24.
There is a commonly held belief that only a small amount of what is trained is subsequently transferred to
the job. A figure often referred to suggests that only 10% of training transfers. The paper examines the
origins of, and evidence for, this ‘sticky idea’ and points out five questionable assumptions. The paper
also reviews another ‘cautionary tale’, namely that 62%, 44%, and 34% of a given training are transferred
immediately after, six months after, and one year after the intervention. Overall the authors conclude a
lack of empirical behavioural evidence supporting both these notions. While practitioners and researchers
likely agree the transfer of training need to be improved, this paper requires them to be wary of and to
question all-encompassing statements that represent conventional wisdom. To move closer to the true
nature and magnitude, four practical strategies for planning, assessing, and reporting training transfer are
proposed: 1) identify the factors likely to influence transfer; 2) define realistic transfer goals and create
meaningful measures of performance; 3) determine the evidence that would convince you that an
adequate amount of transfer is taking place; and 4) the report contains the complete transfer story. Taken
together, this is a timely reading for everyone tasked to evaluate process, outcome, and impact of training
and transfer.
Transferring more than learned in training: Employees’ and managers' (over)generalization of
skills. (2010). Chiaburu, D. S., Sawyer, K.B., & Thoroughgood, C.N. International Journal of Selection
and Assessment 18 (4), 380–393.
Assessing training effectiveness requires accurate judgements about the extent of learning and transfer
that has taken place, and so this paper investigated how ‘trustworthy’ such reports may be. The first study
examined employees’ and supervisors’ estimations of training transfer, 6–12 weeks after employees
attended training. The study compared supervisors’ and employees’ ratings of skills unrelated to training
programs attended, and so determined the extent to which respondents report skill overgeneralization. It
was found that subordinates, particularly those high on the personality traits of conscientiousness,
agreeableness, and emotional stability, were more likely to report transfer in areas not covered in training.
Contrariwise, when managers rated competencies, which are used in their subordinates’ day-to-day
activities (more observable, visible, or transparent skills), training transfer estimates were more accurate.
Also, those trainees who were in more transparent jobs – with more visible and observable sets of skills –
were less likely to receive inflated transfer ratings from their managers. The second study determined that
the traits of conscientiousness, insecurity and perfectionism lead raters to overgeneralise their self-ratings.
Consequently, researchers need to be aware of the existence of biased estimates of transfer, and models
need to be designed to capture for instance overgeneralization. The findings also call for renewed
investigations into the potentially counterintuitive effects of personality on training effectiveness. From
practical standpoint, when evaluating training transfer, employers and training providers need to be aware
22
of potential for biases in training transfer ratings, particularly for individuals with specific personality
characteristics and for those who are in jobs with low skill visibility.
Transfer of management training from alternative perspectives. (2009). Taylor, P.J., Russ-Eft,
D.F., & Taylor, H. Journal of Applied Psychology 94(1), 104–21.
Determining the extent to which trainees have applied newly learned skills on the job is crucial. For
practitioners it provides some of the most convincing evidence of training effectiveness in organisational
settings. For scholars it is a necessity when seeking to establish robust relationships between training
transfer and its antecedents, correlates and consequences. This meta-analytic study (107 studies) examines
differences in training transfer effects across different rating sources. Given the widespread concerns
about potential bias in different forms of ratings of training transfer this is an important aspect. At the
same time, different rating sources may also have different perspectives on the effect of a training, and
differences may also arise because of differences in the opportunities to observe transfer. The meta-
analysis suggested that the effectiveness of training in achieving transfer to the job varies across different
studies as a function of some study, training, and rater characteristics. This it is argued that ratings of job
behaviour from different sources do not represent interchangeable measures of a single training transfer
construct. Recommendations for the use of multiple rating sources in the evaluation of training transfer
are discussed. In addition, given that the meta-analysis is based on studies of managerial training, this is a
good reference for such research and publications relating to the development of managerial skills.
Another look at evaluating training programs (1998). Kirkpatrick, D. L. Alexandria, VA: American
Society for Training & Development.
Kirkpatrick's four-level model of training evaluation was first developed in 1959 and, despite divergent
opinions relating to its theoretical adequacy and practicality, the model is still considered something of a
gold standard in the human resource development industry. This book is a compilation of 50 selected
articles, many with a practitioner focus, that relate to measuring training effectiveness in four key areas:
reaction, learning, behaviour, and results. The articles cover a myriad of rationales, perspectives,
approaches, instruments, and results. Illustrative case studies are used to show how the approach may be
used in a variety of programs and institutions. The author acknowledges that evaluating the return on
training investment may be considered as an extension of the original model. While there are many and
more recent publications on the same topic and model, this article compilation provides a comprehensive
and informative source for understanding and making use of the four-level model.
23
Predicting three levels of training outcome. (1999). Warr, P., Allan, C., & Birdi, K. Journal of
Occupational and Organisational Psychology, 72(3), 351–375.
This study represents a good example of training transfer research and training evaluation. Use is made of
a longitudinal design that considers the different outcome levels proposed by Kirkpatrick. This article is
unusually rich, very comprehensive across time, and with regards to measurement. The study examines
not just post-training attainment scores but also changes in attainment, taking into account pre-training
levels. Three issues are discussed: relationships between evaluation levels, individual and organisational
predictors of each level of evaluation, and the differential prediction of attainment vs. change scores. For
both practitioners and researchers this paper is a good source to follow when evaluating training.
Are we doing the right thing?: Food for thought on training evaluation and its context. (2010)
Giangreco, A., Carugati, A., & Sebastiano, A. Personnel Review, 39(2), 162–177.
Given the abundance of literature that prescribes methods for training evaluation, meaningfully assessing
the rate of transfer and ultimate impact of training remain some of the field’s biggest challenges. This
article presents a conceptual discussion of training evaluation and its challenges for researchers and
practitioners today. It begins with an extensive review of the literature on the ‘classic’ Kirkpatrick model,
focusing on the criticisms that this model (a) is incomplete and oversimplified, (b) has failed to produce
evidence of a cause and effect relationship between its various levels, and (c) fails to demonstrate the
progressive importance of each of the levels. . The authors acknowledge such limitations, and argue there
is the need to design new evaluation tools that align better with modern organisational realities. The paper
also presents some practical advice about the use of existing evaluation techniques, and suggestions for
researchers about providing better evaluation solutions.
*Application of cognitive, skill-based, and affective theories of learning outcomes to new
methods of training evaluation. (1993). Kraiger, K., Ford, J. K., & Salas, E. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 78(2), 311–328.
This paper proposes a conceptually-based classification scheme of learning outcomes for use in evaluating
training outcomes for individuals. The three major categories of learning outcome are: cognitive, skill
based, and affective. For each of these three categories, the authors review relevant theory and research
from a variety of disciplines to identify key outcome constructs. Cognitive learning outcomes include
verbal knowledge, knowledge organisation, and cognitive strategies. Skill-based outcomes include
compilation and automaticity. Affective outcomes include attitude change as well as motivational shifts in
terms of mastery goals, self-efficacy, and goal direction. The paper describes measurement issues relevant
to each of these learning outcomes and discusses methods for training evaluation. This universal
24
framework can be used to plan, assess, and report training transfer, and helps researchers and
practitioners specify and measure the desired and real outcomes of a training intervention.
An updated review of the multidimensionality of training outcomes: New directions for training
evaluation research. (2009). Ford, J. K., Kraiger, K., & Merritt, S. M. In S. W. J. Kozlowski & E. Salas
(Eds.), Learning, Training, and Development in Organizations (pp. 135–165). Routledge Academic.
This chapter is a follow-up to the paper discussed above. On the basis of more recent research the
authors seek to complement the original Kraiger, Ford & Salas (1993) framework of training outcomes.
Specifically they focus on evaluation methodologies as they relate to 1) cognitive outcomes, involving
mental models and metacognition; and 2) affective outcomes, involving goal orientation and attitude
strength. The elaborate review that the authors provide of these constructs serves as a guide for
constructing more specific training evaluations, as well as identifying particularly useful areas in which
future research efforts could be directed
The effect of training on productivity: The transfer of on-the-job training from the perspective
of economics. De Grip, A., & Sauermann, J. (2012). Educational Research Review, 8, 28–36.
The authors review the economic literature on the returns to training transfer, focusing on two questions:
1) How does economic literature deal with the transfer of training to the workplace?; 2) What is the scope
for multi-disciplinary research projects on the transfer of training that link economic and educational
perspectives? The discussion focuses on the economic returns in terms of value-added or productivity-
related key performance indicators of firms. This results in an informative overview of the underlying
theoretical paradigm in economics, and the challenges faced in empirical research. The paper is also a
useful reference for empirical studies – for research and practice – measuring the productivity increase
due to training transfer. Finally, despite substantial progress in the economic literature the authors
contend that the underlying processes through which training generates higher productivity remain
unclear. Consequently they argue that this dilemma offers opportunities for multi-disciplinary research
projects on the transfer of training. Scholars may be stimulated by the discussion and varied literature
cited to instigate renewed efforts for modelling and estimating the training-productivity connection.
25
The Nature of Training Transfer
Transfer of training: A review and directions for future research. (1988). Baldwin, T. T., & Ford,
J. K. Personnel Psychology, 41(1), 63–105.
This seminal paper was the first to provide an integrated model of the processes leading to the transfer of
training. The authors review 63 empirical studies on this topic, identify fundamental issues, and present a
heuristic model of the training transfer phenomenon that links three domains: 1) Training inputs,
including trainee characteristics, training design, and work environment; 2) Training outputs, defined as
the amount of original learning which occurs during the training program and the retention of that
material after the program is completed; and 3) Conditions of transfer, which account for the
generalisation of knowledge and skills acquired in training to the job context and the maintenance of that
learning over time on the job. The various direct and indirect effects between these domains and elements
are discussed. This paper is among the most commonly cited in relation to training effectiveness and the
tripartite model has stimulated a number of subsequent theoretical refinements and re-conceptualisations.
Consequently the article may be considered a useful ‘classic’ for both scholars and practitioners.
Transfer of training 1988-2008: An updated review and agenda for future research. (2009).
Baldwin, T. T., Ford, J. K., & Blume, D. B. In G. P. Hodgkinson & J. K. Ford (Eds.), International
Review of Industrial and Organisational Psychology (Volume 24., pp. 41–70). Hoboken: John Wiley &
Sons, Ltd.
This review chapter serves as the sequel to the seminal review discussed above. Two decades later the
authors take stock of the knowledge relating to training transfer and offer an updated agenda for moving
forward. Specifically, a) 140 articles are reviewed with respect to the progress research and practice made;
b) the increasing multi-dimensional nature of training transfer is discussed; and c) a renewed agenda for
research into the transfer of training is proposed. The authors note that much progress has been made in
examining transfer from a broader and more dynamic perspective, and so are optimistic about future
research which they consider imperative to further the effectiveness of training. In conjunction with the
earlier Baldwin & Ford (1988) article, this chapter is valuable for understanding how knowledge, research,
and practice relating to training transfer has evolved, where the field is now, and what needs to be done to
keep up with the changing reality of professional development and work. It also points to some practical
approaches for facilitating training transfer.
26
*Training transfer: An integrative literature review. (2007). Burke, L. A., & Hutchins, H. M. Human
Resource Development Review, 6(3), 263–296.
This review explains and discusses a large range of factors thought to typically impact the transfer of
training. The factors are organised into three primary categories: a) learner characteristics, including
cognitive ability, self-efficacy, motivation, personality, perceived utility/value, career/job variables, and
locus of control; b) intervention design and delivery, including needs analysis, learning goals, content
relevance, instructional strategies and methods, self-management strategies, and technological support;
and c) work environment influences incl. strategic link, transfer climate, supervisor/peer support perhaps,
opportunity to perform, and accountability. For each category the authors provide a useful table that
summarises whether a given factor displays a moderate or strong relationship with transfer or rather
shows mixed support. The same tables are used to highlight which factors require urgent attention due to
the inconsistency of findings or the lack of empirical research. Scholars can draw on this paper as a good
reference to systematically identify research gaps. Practitioners may consult this paper to understand the
role and reliability of the different factors that typically affect training transfer.
*A study of best practices in training transfer and proposed model of transfer. (2008). Burke, L.
A., & Hutchins, H. M. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 19(2), 107–128.
This paper offers the most recent and most comprehensive conceptual proposition regarding the transfer
of training. The authors synthesise elements provided by previous models, draw on empirical research,
and integrate findings from their own qualitative survey of training professionals. The resultant heuristic
model describes a system in which work design and job content, training content, and organisation size
and structure all affect training transfer and ultimately job performance. The model depicts five major
influences on learning, transfer and subsequent performance: learner characteristic, design and delivery,
work environment, trainer characteristics and training evaluation. To reflect the notion that transfer
strategies must work across different phases, the model includes the temporal dimensions: before, during,
and after training, as well as a ‘not time bound’ category. The model further identifies five key
stakeholders: peers, trainer, trainee, supervisor, and the organisation. Overall this paper argues that
support for transfer should be an iterative and pervasive process throughout the entire learning,
application, and work process. Additionally, the qualitative research component of this paper offers an
overview of most frequent best practices to support transfer. Together this makes this paper quite useful
for practitioners in their efforts to enhance training effectiveness. Similarly, researchers are provided with
a framework that while complex, represents a good initial source to develop transfer theory and studies.
27
Pursuing a multidimensional view of transfer. (1999). Yelon, S. L., & Ford, J. K. Performance
Improvement Quarterly, 12(3), 58–78.
This paper presents a multi-dimensional perspective on the transfer of training. The first dimension
proposed concerns the adaptability of the trained task: a continuum from relatively closed tasks, where
task steps are highly prescribed; to relatively open tasks, where the task steps can be adapted varying
circumstances of the job. The second dimension proposed concerns the autonomy at work of the
individual trained: a continuum from heavily supervised to highly independent work. Together these
dimensions reflect the reality that training transfer must be understood in context, wherein the nature of
the skill trained and features of the work environment differ. The authors combine the two dimensions
into a 2x2 model from which they derive a range of managerial principles for facilitating training transfer.
The discussion relating to open and closed tasks may be particularly informative for scholars seeking to
conceptualise and measure actual training transfer.
The differences between hard and soft skills and their relative impact on training transfer.
Laker, D. R., & Powell, J.L. (2011). Human Resource Development Quarterly 22 (1): 111–122.
This paper focuses on the nature of the skill being trained and how this affects transfer.
It is asserted that most research and theorising assumes that the content of the training is irrelevant in
determining subsequent levels of training transfer. The authors argue that a singular perspective in which
all training is the same is misguided when seeking to research and facilitate transfer. This article discusses
differences that are hypothesised to exist between what is traditionally referred to as hard- (technical) and
soft- (intrapersonal and interpersonal) skills training - these differences are believed to impact the degree
of training transfer achieved. For practitioners the discussion adds to the understanding of training
transfer and additional ways of its facilitation. Scholars are asked to develop a more robust and
comprehensive model of training transfer which considers the nature of the skill trained and transferred.
The influence of motivation to transfer, action planning, and manager support on the transfer
process. (1997). Foxon, M. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 10(2), 42–63.
This is an empirical study based on the author’s earlier (less accessible) work that conceptualises training
transfer as a process. It is argued that transfer proceeds gradually, commencing with the first attempts to
try out the new skills, through integrating those skills into the learner's work behaviour, to the stage where
the skill use has become second nature, or to the stage where the learner abandons attempts to use the
skills and transfer fails. This process-view has implications for measuring and evaluating transfer, as the
point at which the measure of transfer is taken can influence the perception of how much of the training
has transferred. This study assessed transfer in terms of initiation of transfer, frequency of transfer, and
28
overall transfer, all as potential consequences of motivation to transfer, action planning, and perceptions
of manager support. Perceived manager support was found to have a significant positive effect on all
stages of transfer. This article is helpful in highlighting the need to focus on different drivers of transfer at
different stages in the transfer process.
Moving beyond the metaphor of transfer of learning. (2009). Hager, P. & Hodgkinson, P. British
Educational Research Journal, 35(4), 619–638.
This paper argues that ‘transfer’ is an inappropriate and too simplistic metaphor for thinking about
learning new skills which subsequently and straightforwardly would need to be applied at work. The
authors thus contest and integrate the transfer of learning and the transfer of training – viewed as an
ongoing process than as a series of discrete events. A critical review is followed by proposing four
conceptual lenses for understanding learning and, by implication, transfer: 1) the propositional learning
lens, 2) the skill learning lens, 3) the learning through participation in human practices lens, 4) the learning
as transformation or reconstruction lens. Other extant theorising may map onto the proposed lenses, yet
the combination and comparison of possible explanations makes this article a valuable resource to reflect
on how individuals may become competent at work through acquiring and processing new knowledge
and skills.
Recasting transfer as a socio-personal process of adaptable learning. (2013). Billett, S.
Educational Research Review, 8, 5–13.
Similar to the paper discussed above, this contribution to a special issue elaborates on what is meant by
training transfer. The author refers to transfer as an adaptation process in which learners 1) interpret what
they experience, 2) align and reconcile that interpretation with what they know, and 3) enact responses.
This process thus amalgamates the learning of skills and application of skills. Given that much of today’s
work on training focuses on cognition and the synthesis of knowledge, this view warrants more
consideration. The arguments are based on a sociological perspective and epistemology. The authors
discuss how societal and cultural factors act as mediators of the learning-application relationship and
shape associated tasks, goals and solutions, taking into account individuals’ capacities and interest, as
shaped by their life histories.
Transfer of leadership skills. (2012). Franke, F., & Felfe, J. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 11(3),
138–147.
29
This longitudinal study examined the transfer of managerial training and its lagged effect on job
performance. 69 managers, drawn from different industries, companies, and occupations, provided data
immediately after training and then again one year later. The study found that motivation to transfer and
organisational support significantly enhanced transfer of ‘open’ leadership skills, both in the short and
long term. They also found that the leadership skills that were transferred immediately after training had a
lagged effect on job performance one year later. Whilst scholars have often been pessimistic about the
degree at which transfer and its effects decay over time, this study provides evidence that positive effects
can indeed be found.
Transfer over time: Stories. (2013). Yelon, S. L., Ford, J. K., & Golden, S. Performance
Improvement Quarterly, 25(4), 43–66.
This qualitative study investigates the transfer process from the perspective of the individual trainee, years
after training occurred. The researchers interviewed eight physicians to explore if, 2-10 years later, they
had implemented what they were taught in a faculty development training program. Indeed, these
autonomous professionals continued to apply the teaching concepts they once learned. Each, in a
personal way, opted to make use of varied ideas, in different ways, and in several contexts. The physicians
applied ideas using intellectual skills such as planning and analysing, and continued their applications
because they perceived supportive work conditions and positive consequences. The authors reason that,
over the long term, the professionals acquired knowledge and mental skill, chose to use them, and
attempted application. They reflected on outcomes, decided to reuse or revise, and tried again. Thus, the
process of long-term transfer is described as complex, dynamic, and emerging, and framed as ‘learning to
use and learning from use’. This paper is a valuable source when seeking to understand the richness and
diversity of the transfer process. Scholars can see the value in using qualitative data when assessing
training and its transfer; mixed method approaches for holistic training evaluation offer untapped
potential. Implications for practitioners include planning for long-term transfer, for instance by setting
multiple transfer goals over time and employing cycles of trial and feedback.
A multilevel approach to training effectiveness: enhancing horizontal and vertical transfer.
(2000). Kozlowski, S. W. J., Brown, K. G., Weissbein, D. A., Cannon-Bowers, J. A., & Salas, E. In K.
J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations:
Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 157–210). San Francisco, CA, US: Jossey-Bass.
As other authors have discussed previously, training activities are inevitably embedded within an
organisational context. The authors of this chapter elaborate more fully on this view on the basis that
organisations are dynamic, multilevel systems. They outline a multilevel model that bridges the gap
between a) conceptions of training needs assessment, design, and evaluation, and b) the higher levels at
which training needs to have an impact if it is to contribute to organisational effectiveness. The chapter
30
discusses the distinction between horizontal transfer and vertical transfer as well as top-down contextual
effects and bottom-up emergent processes. The authors highlight the challenges of identifying how
training effects at one level (e.g. the individual trainee and his/her own performance) may aggregate to
accomplish objectives at another level (e.g. group or organizational performance).
Dilemmas in Training for Transfer and Retention. (1997). Hesketh, B. Applied Psychology, 46(4),
317–339.
First, this paper discusses three key dilemmas about transfer and argues: 1) adaptive expertise need to be
deliberately developed to help individuals’ transfer knowledge that is very domain-specific, 2) training that
is designed and delivered to rnaximise immediate outcomes potentially impairs longer-term benefits of
developing transferable competencies, and 3) training interventions designed to transfer require
substantial effort from the trainee/employee and this may decrease motivation. The author reviews
research relevant to these dilemmas and provides possible resolutions. Second, this is also the lead article
in an issue of the journal Applied Psychology, and so there are eight commentaries that react to the points
raised by means of critique, additional research reviewed, and further possible solutions. What is more,
the author of the lead article ultimately responds to those commentaries and through this conversation
scholars and practitioners gain a rich understanding of the complexity that underpins the transfer of
training. Indeed, the dilemmas discussed are as relevant today as when they were originally published.
Professional involved in training design and delivery may benefit by identifying and trailing some of the
proposed solutions. Given these various viewpoints scholars may think of the issue as a source of implicit
theory that can be used for developing and testing new theory, and foremost provide clarity on very real
challenges.
*Transfer of training: A meta-analytic review. (2010), Blume, D. B., Ford, J. K., Baldwin, T. T., &
Huang, J. L., Journal of Management, 36(4), 1065–1105.
This important study presents the findings of a meta-analysis, and is the most comprehensive summary of
the empirical research findings in respect of the variables linked to transfer effectiveness. It integrates the
results of 89 studies (total N=12,496) and is elaborated in our overview section under Empirical
Evidence. The substantial relationships found between transfer and predictors include the trainee’s
cognitive ability, conscientiousness, motivation, and a supportive work environment. Most of these
predictor variables appear to be more important when the focus of training is on open as opposed to
closed skills. In addition, whether participation in training is voluntary or not was found to affect
subsequent training transfer.A further finding was that the probability that trained competencies will
transfer is promoted by learning experiences that are realistic and encompass characteristics of the actual
31
work environment. For scholars this seminal study is a good source for generalised estimated effect sizes
about what affects training transfer. Practitioners may use these findings as evidence-base for informing
training planning, design, delivery, evaluation, and the management of transfer.
*Learning in the Twenty-First-Century Workplace. (2014). Noe, R. A., Clarke, A. D. M., & Klein, H.
J. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1(4), 31.
This review considers learning in relation to recent trends as they relate to work, technology, and society.
Discussed are wide-ranging influences on the development of human capital resources and the resulting
implications for research and practice. 1) Considerations about the workplace include sections on culture
and climate, teams, task characteristics, job crafting, social networks, development networks and
mentoring, supervisor support, and trust and fairness. 2) The form and design of learning is reviewed
through the evolution of learning design, self-regulation and self-directed learning, social learning and
communities of practice, instructor-led learning, blended learning, the role of the instructor, informal
learning, experiential learning, pre-learning interventions and transfer of training, e-learning gaming as it
relates to simulations, massive open online courses, and social media. 3) Discussed are also factors for
facilitating learning including sections on big five traits and proactive personality, goal orientation, and
affect and emotion. The review further considers 4) organisational-level outcomes of learning that are
considered critical for competitive advantage including cross-level perspectives, strategic learning and
financial performance, creativity and innovation, employment branding and social Responsibility,
engagement, and well-being. Finally, 5) methodological issues are discussed to stimulate research about
this broad strategic perspective. Taken together this paper provides a timely integration of the significant
developments that affect learning at, from, and for work. Much, if not all, of what is discussed is thus
relevant to the training effectiveness including the transfer of training. The paper provides both a useful
introduction to current trends affecting work-related learning and a resource for stimulating research and
practical decisions.
32
The Trainee
Trainee perceptions of training transfer: An empirical analysis. (2009). Nikandrou, I., Brinia, V. &
Bereri, E. (2009). Journal of European Industrial Training 33 (3): 255–270.
A key strength of this paper is that it adopts the perspective of the trainee as s/he experiences training
and transfer. The paper is based on a systemic approach whereby the individual is understood as the basic
input to the training system comprised of the work and training. A qualitative study is described that
seeks to explore and integrate the various factors affecting trainees’ motivation to learn and transfer.
Some 44 individuals from different organisations, jobs, and educational backgrounds were interviewed
about their experiences and views relating to a general management training course that had taken place
one year earlier. To assess what are here termed direct and indirect training transfer the authors discuss
participants’ experiences and insights relating to pre- and post-training, and the complex interactions
during training between the trainer, the trainees and the content and method used. Also examined are
factors associated with returning to the work environment, including organisational factors affecting both
the training transfer process and the trainee as person. While there is a wealth of literature that connects
the various factors affecting training effectiveness more precisely, the rich information presented by this
study provides a unique perspective on the challenge of transfer and renders it more accessible.
Examination of Relationships Among Trait-Like Individual Differences, State-Like Individual
Differences, and Learning Performance. (2000). Chen, G., Gully, S. M., Whiteman, J. A., &
Kilcullen, R. N. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(6), 835.
This study examined the relationships between more stable or trait-like individual differences and more
dynamic or state-like individual differences, as well as their effect on learning performance. The authors
theoretically delineate a model in which the trait-like variables cognitive ability, general self-efficacy,
learning goal-orientation, and performance goal-orientation affect learning performance by mediation of
the state-like variables goals, specific self-efficacy, and state anxiety. By means of two studies (N = 316; N
= 323) these hypotheses were largely supported. Most noteworthy, it was found that goals and specific
self-efficacy are significant proximal mediators for the effect of the trait-like individual differences on
learning performance, which suggests a key role for self-regulatory processes in learning. Cognitive ability
and general self-efficacy also had a significant impact on learning performance. More and some mixed
findings are also discussed. Taken together this paper provides evidence that training effectiveness is a
function of both dispositional and malleable individual differences, which then may has implication on
both selection and managerial decisions as they relate to work and training.
33
Toward an integrative theory of training motivation: A meta-analytic path analysis of 20 years
of research. (2000). Colquitt, J. A., LePine, J. A., & Noe, R. A. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(5),
678.
Trainee motivation is considered a key factor in promoting successful training transfer, and this paper
summarises the results of two decades of research on this topic. This is approached by proposing an
integrative theory of training motivation which makes it useful literature for understanding the complex
mechanisms underpinning transfer. A model then specifies a number of linked stages: 1) personality traits
(e.g. locus of control) and situational variables (e.g. peer support); 2) pre-training self-efficacy and valence
(i.e. individuals’ beliefs), and job variables (e.g. career exploration, job involvement); 3) motivation to
learn; 4) training outcomes (i.e. declarative knowledge, skill acquisition, post-training self-efficacy, and
reactions); and 5) training transfer (i.e. transfer behaviour, job performance). The authors establish two
versions of their theory, represented by a completely mediated model and a partially mediated model. As a
result of integrating findings from 104 studies the path model based on the partially mediated theory
fitted the data best, suggesting that individual and situational characteristics directly affect all stages
instead of being completely mediated by pre-training self-efficacy, valence and job variables. This paper is
a key resource for people interested in training motivation, its antecedents and its implications for both
transfer and training effectiveness.
*Motivation in training and development: A phase perspective. (2009). Beier, M. E., & Kanfer, R.
In S. W. J. Kozlowski & E. Salas (Eds.), Learning, Training, and Development in Organisations (pp.
65–97). Hoboken: Routledge Academic.
This chapter on motivation as it relates to training makes several important contributions to our
understanding of training transfer. A model is presented that comprises three qualitatively different, yet
interrelated, motivational stages in training. The first of these, the motivation for participating in training,
is portrayed as having a flow-on effect to the motivation during the learning process, which subsequently
affects the final motivational stage, motivation to transfer the training to the work situation. This phase
depiction about what influences an individual’s decision to participate, learn, and ultimately transfer is of
great potential assistance to researchers and practitioners in considering how to go about enhancing
training effectiveness. The key message here is that just attending training is not sufficient to ensure
training transfer – individuals are motivated for different things at different times. The paper then
discusses how each stage in training motivation is influenced by a range of factors, including trainee
characteristics, voluntary vs. mandated training, framing of training, and organisational climate training
metacognition and goal orientation, and post- training self-efficacy and organisational climate.
34
The impact of personality on training-related aspects of motivation: test of a longitudinal
model. (2007). Rowold, J. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 18(1), 9–31.
This paper uses the Five-Factor Model of personality to develop a model of personality influences on
training-related aspects of motivation. The authors explicate the differentiated role of introversion,
instability, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness to experience on motivation to learn and
motivation to transfer. In a study using a sample of call centre agents (N = 94), the author found that
extraversion and agreeableness predict motivation to learn; and motivation to learn, extraversion, and
emotional stability predict transfer motivation. The impact of extraversion on transfer motivation was
partially mediated by motivation to learn. Although this study was unable to find support for several of its
hypotheses, the paper is valuable for demonstrating the importance of dispositional factors for training
effectiveness.
Age-related differences in the relation between motivation to learn and transfer of training in
adult continuing education. (2012). Gegenfurtner, A., & Vauras, M. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 37(1), 33–46.
This meta-analysis based on 38 studies (N = 6977) two views on motivational change over the trajectory
of a working life: 1) the view that motivation declines with age, 2) and the view of age-related
motivational maintenance. It was found that age positively correlated with the motivation to learn, and
that age moderated the strength of the relationship between motivation to learn and transfer of training.
In other words, motivation to learn and transfer do not decline over the trajectory of a working life, but
remain at a high level and may even increase with age. Significant boundary conditions affecting the
impact of age on motivation to learn and training transfer were identified, and these include training
design (social training vs. individual training), study characteristics (publication source, study setting,
SS/SMC bias, use of control groups, survey modality, instrument), and participant characteristics (level of
education, attendance policy, work context). The authors note that much more theory is needed to
explain age-related motivational change. It is suggested that practitioners need to design learning
experiences so they offer more social interaction and networking opportunities for older employees, and
increase accountability for younger staff.
Extending a transfer of training framework to include the role of national-culture. (2001).
Sarkar-Barney, S. T. Bowling Green State University.
This doctoral thesis examines an otherwise under investigated topic. Using a multi-national sample (N =
5327, 40 countries) and multi-level analysis it tests the influence of national culture on training transfer.
At the culture-level training content and managerial support were significant predictors of transfer
behaviour. For instance, country level scores on intentions to transfer product-oriented training were
35
highest for respondents from Japan and lowest for respondents from Canada. The intention to transfer
process-oriented training was greatest for respondents from Brazil and lowest for respondents from
China. Co-worker support and advancement opportunity was not found to influence training transfer at
the culture-level. Surprisingly, findings suggested that cultures that have higher levels of managerial
support tend to have lower intentions to transfer training. Also, in testing the premises of the classic
Baldwin and Ford model (1988) the author concludes that it was most predictive cross-culturally when
cultural values were aligned with the western assumptions under which the model was developed. That is,
more individualistic cultures that generally value hierarchy showed the greatest interest in training transfer,
arguably when it is tied to opportunity for advancement within the organisation. On the contrary,
egalitarian cultures showed opposite effects. In sum, cultural values appear to be a critical factor in
determining the transfer of training. While cross-cultural research is widely conducted in relation to e.g.
leadership, management, and performance, for training effectiveness this is clearly not the case and this
study is one of the very few addressing this topic. The importance for understanding the role of cultural
values for training effectiveness is immense given that large multi-national organisations role out identical
learning experiences on a global scale, and training providers are tasked to train an increasingly multi-
cultural workforce. Organisations and managers may also consider the cultural composition of a given
work group in which training need to be transferred. This thesis may be used as a starting point for
practitioners to get sensitised on the topic, and for scholars to set out on future research about cross-
cultural effects in the transfer of training.
The effects of personality, affectivity, and work commitment on motivation to improve work
through learning. (2002). Naquin, S. S., & Holton III, E. F. Human Resource Development Quarterly,
13(4), 357–376.
The authors describe the motivation to improve work through learning (MTIWL) as the desire to learn
and to apply what was learned. As antecedents to MTIWL, the study examines affectivity, work
commitment (work ethic, job involvement, affective commitment, and continuance commitment), and
the dimensions from the Five-Factor Model of personality. Findings indicated that MTIWL was strongly
affected by a person’s positive affectivity, work commitment, and extraversion. Similar to Gegenfurther
and Vauras (2012), this paper makes a case for considering stable individual differences as drivers of
training effectiveness. It also suggests that personality characteristics affect training outcomes to a
substantial degree through trainee motivation. The dispositional profile of both employees and candidates
for employment is therefore an important aspect for organisations to be aware and to respond when
seeking to maximise the benefits of training. The authors offer advice on how to go about selecting and
working with individuals who are not predisposed to be motivated to improve work through learning.
36
The relationship of training motivation to participation in training and development. (2001).
Tharenou, P. Journal of Occupational and Organisational Psychology, 74(5), 599–621.
This longitudinal study examined predictors of participation in training and development activities.
Specifically, motivation through expectation and motivation to learn, as well as a range of work
environment variables, were defined as antecedents for participation in formal learning experiences.
Employees (N = 1705) from various industries were asked to provide data on above variables, and 12
months later provided an estimate of how much they participated in training and development activities
since. The author found that training participation is greater if employees expect that the skills and
knowledge gained will be instrumental for gaining extrinsic rewards (e.g. pay increase). Moreover, the
value of those rewards (valence) and how likely training is to provide skills and knowledge (expectancy)
are not as predictive as their instrumentality. Motivation to learn was found to have indeed a unique
predictive effect on training participation. Among the other influences found on training participation are
job and organisational factors, such as support from the supervisor, job requirements and organisation
size. To increase motivation for, and thus participation in, training, organisations may use these results to
reconsider how they link extrinsic outcomes such as pay, promotion, and job security to professional
development. They may also reflect on how the support available may help promote training
participation.
Public sector training participation: An empirical investigation. (2001). Bates, R. A. International
Journal of Training and Development, 5(2), 136–152.
This study examines training participation as a function of basic workplace literacy skills. Basic workplace
literacy skills describe those skills individuals need to effectively respond to the literacy demands of the
workplace. That is, to successfully perform minimal job duties, learn, and apply learning on the job, an
individual must be skilled in reading, writing, mathematics, and listening. The study (N = 1079) found no
support for motivation as a mediator between workplace literacy skills and training participation.
However, two ability-related antecedents (job-related reading and math proficiency) were found to be
direct predictors of training participation. Furthermore, three perceptual variables (staffing strategy,
continuous learning culture, and previous transfer success) were found to predict training-related
motivation. This suggests that employees who meet the basic workplace literacy requirements of their
jobs are more likely to participate in more training than do employees who do not.
37
The perils of participation: Effects of choice of training on trainee motivation and learning.
(1991). Baldwin, T. T., Magjuka, R. J., & Loher, B. T., Personnel Psychology, 44(1), 51–65.
To examine the impact of trainee choice of training on subsequent motivation and learning this study (N
= 207) assigned trainees to one of three conditions: a) no choice of training; b) choice of training-but
choice not received; c) choice of training- with choice received. Findings suggest that those trainees
having a choice of training did have greater motivation to learn, provided they were ultimately given the
training of their choice. In contrast, trainees allowed to choose but whose choice was not the training
module subsequently delivered were less motivated and learned less than those not asked to participate in
the choice of training at all. Practitioners need to acknowledge that there are downstream effects of the
provision of choice and subsequent reception or rejection of that choice on trainee motivation to learn
and learning outcomes. In other words, while the notion of choice may be generally a good thing, there
are risks if individuals do not receive what they choose.
Influencing learning states to enhance trainee motivation and improve training transfer. (2010).
Weissbein, D. A., Huang, J. L., Ford, J. K., & Schmidt, A. M. Journal of Business and Psychology, 26,
423–435.
This study (N = 119) tested a pre-training intervention designed to enhance post-training transfer. Using
an experimental design with a control group the pre-training intervention addressed individuals’ internal,
controllable attributions: the belief that success is due to effort and strategy. This improved attributional
state had a positive impact on the motivation to learn. This, in turn, affected knowledge acquisition
during training, as well as amount of practice after training, and both subsequently had favourable effects
on transfer. The pre-training intervention also had an effect on transfer above and beyond that accounted
for by motivation to learn and post-training practice. This study is useful because it adds to the repertoire
of methods training providers and supervisors can employ prior to the training to facilitate eventual
transfer.
Does positive perception of oneself boost learning motivation and performance? (2012). Kim,
K., Oh, I.,S. Chiaburu, D.S., & Brown, K.G. International Journal of Selection and Assessment 20 (3):
257–271.
This study makes use of self-regulation theory in examining whether core self-evaluations (CSEs) affect
learning motivation and performance, beyond established individual-level predictors of general mental
ability and conscientiousness. Using a longitudinal design (N = 631) learning motivation was found to
mediate the impact of CSEs on performance. The study conceptualised learning motivation as
multidimensional construct, comprising self-efficacy, goal setting, and goal commitment. The results
indicate the advantage of this multi-dimensional model over a uni-dimensional model of learning
38
motivation, and offer a more complete picture of how learners’ self-regulation intervenes in the
relationship with performance. It is reasoned that CSE influences learning performance by boosting
context-specific self-efficacy, setting of challenging goals, and commitment to goal fulfilment. Although it
does not examine transfer per se, this paper introduces CSE as an important antecedent for learning, and
therefore for training effectiveness. Given that CSE is considered a more stable trait-like characteristic,
this suggests that supervisors and instructors will have to engage in long-term approaches to enhance
learners’ positive self-views. The paper suggests some intervention strategies that may assist with this.
Conscientiousness, goal orientation, and motivation to learn during the learning process: A
longitudinal study. (1998). Colquitt, J. A., & Simmering, M. J. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(4),
654.
This longitudinal study (N = 103) examined the effect of trait-like individual differences on the learning
motivation of trainees as they progress through a training episode. Theoretically the research was
anchored in an expectancy-valence framework stating that individuals are motivated to learn when a) they
perceive a relationship between effort and progress, and b) the attainable outcomes from this progress are
valued. Learners were assigned to a challenging yet achievable learning goal and performance measures
were taken at the onset of the course, and three weeks later halfway through when performance feedback
was given to potentially also alter subsequent motivation levels. As theorised it was found that
conscientiousness and learning orientation were positively correlated with expectancy, valence, and
motivation to learn; while performance orientation was negatively correlated with expectancy and
motivation to learn. Yet, no significant relationship between performance orientation and valence was
found. Further analysis showed that those individuals with a more positive profile (i.e. high in both
conscientiousness and learning goal orientation, and low in performance orientation) were around 40%
more motivated and performed about 30% better than those with a contrasting profile. Moderation
analysis also indicates that those high in learning goal orientation remain motivated to learn also when
receiving critical feedback. Taken together these findings highlight the importance of dispositional
variables for training outcomes. It appears that an individual’s goal orientation is particularly crucial and
practitioners may want to understand and perhaps facilitate such profiles. For researchers it remains a task
to understand whether goal orientation as it relates to training is a dispositional factor (as theorised in this
paper) or a malleable individual difference (as theorised in other research) that can be managed.
39
Motivation To Learn and Course Outcomes: The Impact of Delivery Mode, Learning Goal
Orientation, and Perceived Barriers and Enablers. (2006). Klein, H. J., Noe, R. A., & Wang, C.
Personnel Psychology, 59(3), 665–702.
This quasi-experimental study with students (N = 600) investigated how course delivery mode, learning
goal orientation, and perceptions of barriers and enablers affect the motivation to learn as mediating
factor on course outcomes. Delivery mode was either a classroom or a blended learning experience.
Those individuals enrolled in the blended learning condition, with high learning goal orientation, and who
perceived the features of the environment and context rather as enablers rather than barriers had a higher
motivation to learn. This motivation to learn then significantly related to course outcomes including
higher satisfaction, metacognition, and grades. Motivation to learn was further supported as a partial
mediator between delivery mode and metacognition and between perceived barriers/enablers and course
satisfaction. Exploratory interaction analysis further revealed effects for learning goal orientation,
barriers/enablers, and learning mode. For instance, those in the blended learning condition were more
motivated to learn, engaged in more metacognition, and achieved higher grades. The authors attribute this
to these learners having both greater accountability for and more control over their learning experience.
More research is needed to understand the mechanisms by which technology enhances the delivery of
instruction, the motivation to learn, and ultimate outcomes. Researchers should also replicate these
findings in an organisational environment and clarify the stability of the learning goal orientation
construct. Yet, the findings suggest a range of practical implications. To enhance course outcomes via
higher learning motivation individuals may be steered toward blended learning experiences, their
perceptions of enablers need be enhanced while concerns about potential barriers are addressed.
*A meta-analysis of self-regulated learning in work-related training and educational attainment:
What we know and where we need to go. (2011). Sitzmann, T., & Ely, K. Psychological Bulletin,
137(3), 421–442.
This paper presents a theoretical and meta-analytical review of the literature on self-regulated learning: the
processes that enable individuals to guide their goal-directed activities throughout a learning experience to
reach a desired level of achievement, including the modulation of affect, cognition, and behaviour. The
goal of the authors was to clarify the fundamental constructs that constitute self-regulated learning, how
these constructs are interrelated, and how they work in concert to predict knowledge acquisition. The
authors identify 16 fundamental constructs that constitute self-regulated learning, and meta-analytic
findings from 430 studies (N = 90,380) suggest that they are interrelated. The self-regulation constructs
goal level, persistence, effort, and self-efficacy were found to be the strongest predictors of learning;
accounting for 17% of the variance in learning, after controlling for cognitive ability and pre-training
knowledge. Surprisingly, the self-regulatory processes of planning, monitoring, help seeking, and emotion
control were not found to exhibit significant relationships with learning. The authors propose a
40
framework of self-regulated learning that includes goal level, self-efficacy, attributions, effort, motivation,
environmental structuring, time management, attention, and metacognitive strategies. The paper helps to
advance a more parsimonious theory about how learning occurs in the modern work and higher
education environments. The authors end by arguing for more research into self-regulation theory as it
applies to training transfer.
Self-regulation, self-control, and management training transfer. (1999). Kehr, H. M., Bles, P. &
von Rosenstiel, L. International Journal of Educational Research 31 (6): 487–498.
The aim of this study was to investigate the relevance of two modes of action control for the transfer of
management training: self-regulation and self-control. Three hypotheses were derived and tested in a
longitudinal field study (N = 82) that assessed individuals’ intention memory, emotions, intention
realization, and criteria fulfilment. The study found that self-regulators remember intentions better than
self-controllers. It was also found that self-regulation is associated with positive emotions, whereas self-
control is associated with negative emotions. Finally, some support was found for the prediction that self-
regulation increases the success of training transfer, whereas self-control impedes the success of training
transfer. This is one of the few papers that specifically examine the role of self-regulation for training
transfer. It also assists practitioners by discussing several ways for improving managers’ self-regulation.
Individual and situational influences on the development of self-efficacy: Implications for
training effectiveness. (1993). Mathieu, J. E., Martineau, J.W. & Tannenbaum, S.I. Personnel
Psychology 46 (1): 125–147.
Given that research in other domains established that higher individual self-efficacy favourably affects a
variety of outcomes, this paper focuses on the role of trainee’s self-efficacy: the perceived capability to
perform a specific task. It is predicted that self-efficacy may affect an individual’s self-regulatory
behaviours, which in turn shape behaviours that impact the ultimate effectiveness of a training program.
A longitudinal study (N = 215) was carried out, examining situational antecedents of self-efficacy
development during training, and the subsequent influence of self-efficacy on trainees’ reactions and
performance improvement. It was found that a trainee’s initial performance, achievement motivation, and
choice, as well as a range of constraints affect the development of self-efficacy. For practitioners this
highlights the importance of identifying and minimizing different types of constraints within the entire
training system, not just in the training program itself. The study further finds support for the central role
that self-efficacy plays in enhancing training effectiveness and performance, and so scholars interested in
the role of confidence beliefs in facilitating training transfer may find this paper helpful in suggesting
further avenues for research.
41
Can do or will do? The importance of self-efficacy and instrumentality for training transfer.
(2008). Chiaburu, D. S., & Lindsay, D. R. Human Resource Development International, 11(2), 199–
206.
The purpose of this study (N = 254) was 1) examining how both training self-efficacy and instrumentality
perceptions predict ultimate training transfer; and 2) to clarify the intervening role of motivation to learn
and motivation to transfer. While a general case is made for the important role of trainees’ cognitions on
their motivation, the authors take an exploratory approach. The best structural model identified would
suggest that training self-efficacy is a main predictor or motivation to learn, while the perceived training
instrumentality is the main predictor for motivation to transfer. Also, learning motivation predicts transfer
motivation and only the latter has a significant relationship with actual training transfer. Perceived training
instrumentality also directly predicts training transfer. These differential effects suggest that individuals
need first to believe they ‘can do’ before they ‘will do’. That is, learners should be provided with
confidence in their abilities so their learning motivation rises. Then, a good understanding of the utility of
what was learned should be facilitated so they are motivated to transfer the training. This study
demonstrates the complexity of the cognitive-motivational processes underpinning training transfer. Yet,
future research should provide a stronger theoretical rationale, discern the various dimensions of training
instrumentality, and replicate this study using a longitudinal design.
*Motivation to transfer training: An integrative literature review. (2009). Gegenfurtner, A.,
Veermans, K., Festner, D., & Gruber, H. Human Resource Development Review, 8(3), 403–423.
This review focuses specifically on motivation as it relates to transfer. The authors summarise, critique,
and synthesize past transfer motivation research. It is concluded that: 1) individuals may be already
motivated to transfer what they learn even before attending the training; 2) the way a training is framed
determines the extent an individual is motivated to transfer it to the workplace; 3) the organisational
normative context promotes or hinders the development of transfer motivation at any time; 4) during
training transfer motivation is affected by factors associated with training instruction, its conditions, and
consequences; 5) individual factors in response to the training program determine if and how individuals
are motivated to initiate and to execute transfer actions; 6) perceptions of the work environment facilitate
or inhibit the motivation to transfer learning on the job; 7) the motivation to transfer is a necessary
condition for transferring training to the workplace. The paper then discusses some alternative views that
complement and extend current theory on transfer motivation, including multidimensionality, dynamic
nature, position in the nomological net, and level of analysis. For practitioners this review is an important
resource to better understand the role and mechanisms of transfer motivation.
42
Motivation and transfer in professional training: A meta-analysis of the moderating effects of
knowledge type, instruction, and assessment conditions. (2011). Gegenfurtner, A. Educational
Research Review, 6(3), 153–168.
This meta-analysis used findings from 148 studies (N = 31,718) to examine the relationship between
motivation and transfer in professional training. Given the heterogeneity in the ways in which previous
researchers have conceptualised training-related motivation, the authors identified nine dimensions. Eight
of them showed positive correlations with transfer: motivation to learn (p = .28), motivation to transfer (p
= .44), pre-training self-efficacy (p = .29), post-training self-efficacy (p = .33), mastery orientation (p =
.27), performance orientation (p = .04), avoidance orientation (p = -.11), expectancy (p = .52), and
instrumentality (p = .40). These estimates indicate that cognitive factors may be strong predictors of
transfer. Knowledge type, instruction, and assessment conditions were found to moderate the size of the
relationships for all nine of the motivation dimensions with transfer. First, correlations were higher when
the training focused on declarative and self-regulatory, rather than on procedural, knowledge. Second,
learner-centred environments tended to show greater numbers of positive correlations than did
knowledge-centred environments. Third, when compared with external, supervisory, or peer assessment,
self-assessment of transfer produced upwardly biased population estimates irrespective of the transfer
criterion. In sum, various dimensions of motivation and boundary conditions are identified which are
important for transfer. Future theory needs to include these, while practitioners also need to consider
them when evaluating and facilitating training transfer.
Intention to transfer: How do autonomous professionals become motivated to use new ideas?
(2004). Yelon, S. L., Sheppard, L., Sleight, D., & Ford, J. K. (2004) Performance Improvement
Quarterly, 17(2), 82–103.
This paper investigated how professionals, who typically have considerable autonomy in determining how
they will operate in some or all of their tasks, decide if and when they will apply new ways to act that they
have learned in training. To understand the formation of training transfer intentions, 180 stories of
transfer were collected and analysed. The qualitative data was sourced from 73 physicians who initially
attended a faculty development fellowship. The authors describe these self-governing individuals as
‘application minded’. The authors note that most individuals formed their intentions to transfer during
training sessions. More generally it was concluded that, in forming transfer intentions, individuals 1)
weighed their experiences in training against job requirements, task experiences, self-evaluations, and
goals and values against 2) what they see, hear, feel and do during training, to ultimately consider 3) a new
idea’s credibility, practicality and need. The paper finishes with a practical discussion about and an
overview of approaches that promote the formation of transfer intentions and commitment.
43
Assessing the antecedents of transfer intentions in a training context. (2004). Machin, A. M., &
Fogarty, G. J. International Journal of Training and Development, 8(3), 222–236.
This longitudinal study (N = 49-104) examined transfer climate as an antecedent to training transfer.
What makes this study particularly interesting, however, is its investigation of positive and negative
affectivity in relation to trainees’ perceptions of transfer climate and other training-related variables such
as pre-training self-efficacy, pre-training motivation, and post-training transfer implementation intentions.
The argument made is that positive and negative affectivity shape individuals’ sensitivity for the signals of
the work environment and so may act as moderating and confounding factors. Albeit providing only little
theoretical explanation it was expected that both positive and negative affectivity relate to perceptions of
transfer climate and affect the relationship between transfer climate and implementation intentions.
Findings indicate that the two measures of affectivity are related differently to the positive and negative
transfer climate. Yet, negative affectivity was the only significant predictor of post-training transfer
implementation intentions, lowering individuals’ goals to apply what was learned. Factor analysis further
indicates that affectivity may confound measures of perceived transfer climate. However, given its design
this study cannot determine whether levels of affectivity are contributing to their perceptions of the
transfer climate or are a product of the transfer climate. Those results suggest that future theory and
models of training motivation and transfer should consider affectivity. To enhance the chance of training
transfer practitioners may seek to reduce negative affectivity in learners and build their positive affectivity.
*Learner Engagement: A New Perspective for Enhancing Our Understanding of Learner
Motivation and Workplace Learning. (2010). Noe, R. A., Tews, M. J., & McConnell Dachner, A. The
Academy of Management Annals, 4(1), 279–315.
In this conceptual paper the case is made to approach motivation as it relates to learning via psychological
engagement theory. The authors focus on the concept and use the term ‘learning’ deliberately as
employees are typically engaged in a plethora of in/formal learning experiences that improve knowledge,
skills, and abilities. Accordingly, they propose to shift from instructor-centric models to a learner-centric
view. As a result the individual is not seen in a passive role but understood to be an active agent at work
and for learning. Consequently, motivation for training and transfer need be understood through the
psychological states affected by the work and learning context the individual is part of. To highlight the
potential utility of such a view learner engagement is discussed in relation to a number of learning
methods, organisational climate, interpersonal dynamics, and individual differences. It is also illustrated
how the construct of learner engagement may be further developed and operationalised, including a rich
discussion about directions for future research. Given how the world of work and learning has changed
this paper provides a timely proposal and potentially useful lens for advancing theory, research, and
practice for training effectiveness, and foremost for learning and performing.
44
45
The Work Context
*An investigation of training activities and transfer of training in organisations. (2006). Saks, A.
M., & Belcourt, M. Human Resource Management, 45(4), 629–648.
This study investigated the extent to which organisations implement specific activities for facilitating the
transfer of training before, during, and after training, and the relationship between these activities and the
transfer of training across organisations. Reports from training professionals from 150 organisations
suggest that for training transfer the following activities matter: 1) for pre-training, trainee input and
involvement (.27) and supervisor involvement (.24); 2) for the training itself, identical elements (.35); and
3) for post-training organisation support (.32) and supervisor support (.17). Given the range of activities
discussed is quite varied; this paper represents a good source for practitioners who need to consider
possible activities to facilitate transfer. Moreover, the research also found that facilitating activities that
take place in the work environment before and after training are more strongly related to transfer than
facilitating activities during training. Even so, the study suggests that organisations rarely incorporate such
activities into their training approaches to improve the transfer of training. When they do, it is most likely
to occur during training rather than before or after training. Taken together the findings indicate that
organisations are not making the most of available research when it comes to the transfer of training and
that they have much to gain by applying what the science of training offers.
Reconceptualising the learning transfer conceptual framework: Empirical validation of a new
systemic model. (2004). Kontoghiorghes, C. International Journal of Training and Development,
8(3), 210–221.
This paper highlights the importance of organisational factors for the investigation and facilitation of
training effectiveness. Most factors studied under the traditional conceptual transfer frameworks pertain
to trainee characteristics and attributes that are directly related to the training context or training-related
outcomes. Under such view, the work environment is defined in terms of characteristics that mainly
describe the training transfer climate and therefore treat training as a non-systemic phenomenon,
independent of the variables that affect work performance. The model proposed here suggests that
training transfer is affected by the following organisational aspects: sociotechnical system design, job
design, quality management, and continuous learning environment. The model was tested using survey
data supplied by a sample of employees (N = 198) of one organisation. The study found that motivation
to learn, the motivation to transfer, and training transfer were significantly related to a positive learning
transfer climate, and/or awareness of how one’s job contributes to the organisation’s quality mission,
rewards for recognition for new ideas and performance, risk taking and innovation driven culture,
organisational commitment, a high performance team environment, job motivation and satisfaction, a
quality driven culture. Collectively these influences portray a high performance work system and make
46
evident that the transfer of training should be studied in isolation. Given the desired ultimate outcome of
any training intervention is to improve performance, for practitioners this paper helps create the holistic
awareness that work environments characterised by high performance and commitment are also
conducive to the transfer of training.
Training as an organisational episode: Pretraining influences on trainee motivation. (1997).
Baldwin, T. T., & Magjuka, R. J. In K. J. Ford & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Improving Training
Effectiveness in Work Organisations (pp. 99–127). Mawah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Similar to Kontoghiorghes (2004), the authors of this chapter argue that much of training research and
practice tends to oversimplify the complexity of managing contextual factors in work organisations. They
make the case that training experiences should not be considered as isolated events, but rather as episodes
in peoples’ organisational and working lives. This draws attention to events that occur prior to the
delivery of a training intervention, as salient influences on employee/trainee cognitions and motivation
will affect the degree of training success independent of the actual learning experience. A framework of
those pre-training contextual factors is proposed with variables categorised under a) training introduction,
b) training cohort, and c) transfer climate. Individuals synthesise and interpret information from these
contextual domains which, in turn, determine an episode’s boundaries including in/voluntary
participation, training goals, and purpose.
Organisational training and signals of importance: Linking pretraining perceptions to
intentions to transfer. (1991). Baldwin, T. T., & Magjuka, R. J. Human Resource Development
Quarterly, 2(1), 25–36.
This study tests the proposition that contextual factors – here management actions - send signals to
employees that affect perceptions and influence behaviour as they relate to training. The study (N = 193)
investigated how intentions to transfer training are affected by three pre-training signals: a) course
information provided to trainees, b) accountability to supervisor, and c) program status (i.e. mandatory or
voluntary). The findings suggest that trainees report greater intentions to transfer learning to the
workplace when they a) received information prior to the training program, b) recognised that they would
have some accountability for the training with their supervisor, and c) perceived a program as mandatory.
47
Managing transfer before learning begins: The transfer-ready learner. (2003). Naquin, S. S., &
Baldwin, T. T. In Holton III, E.F., & Baldwin, T.T. (Eds.), Improving Learning Transfer in Organisations
(pp. 80–96). John Wiley & Sons.
This chapter reviews evidence on what constitutes transfer-ready employees. Two characteristics are
discussed 1) motivation to improve work through learning and 2) learning agility. The latter describes four
‘agility’ aspects needed to continuously improve from experience. People agility involves mechanisms of
seeking and getting feedback. Results agility describes mechanisms of achieving results under tough
conditions. Mental agility describes mechanisms of thinking through problems. Change agility involves
curiosity, passion for ideas, willingness to experiment, and proactive engaging in skill-building. Based on
these constructs the authors propose four principles for shaping an individual’s state and capacity for
maximising benefit and transfer from a training program.
Entry into training programs and its effects on training outcomes: A field experiment. (1987).
Hicks, W. D., & Klimoski, R. J. Academy of Management Journal, 30(3), 542–552.
This study (N = 101) examines employees expectations, attitudes, and decisions to select training
programs. The research examined how training outcomes differ as a result of a) the type of
announcement or prior information individuals receive about a training program, and b) the amount of
freedom they have to participate in the program. Trainees who received a realistic training preview and
those who had a high degree of choice over whether or not to attend were found to believe the workshop
is a good fit, profit more from the training, and commit more to their decisions to attend the workshop
when compared to trainees who received the traditional announcement and those who had a low degree
of choice. It was also found that degree of choice had a stronger effect on the training outcomes than
type of prior information; it affected not only trainees' initial perceptions and their receptivity to training
but also the amount of learning that took place. Thus, organisations and training providers should give
employees a realistic and balanced point of view so they can see in what ways a training fits into their self-
development plans, and how it is relevant to the demands of their work. This in turn heightens the desire
to learn, a precondition for the effectiveness of training programs.
The influence of general perceptions of the training environment on pretraining motivation and
perceived training transfer. (1995). Facteau, J. D., Dobbins, G. H., Russell, J. E. A., Ladd, R. T., &
Kudisch, J. D. Journal of Management, 21(1), 1–25.
This study (N = 967) examined the extent to which employees’ attitudes and general beliefs about
training influence their pre-training motivation, and their perceptions of the extent to which they are able
to transfer training back to their job. 14 predictors were tested and it was found that the overall
reputation of training, intrinsic and compliance incentives, organisational commitment, and three social
48
support variables (subordinate, supervisor, and top management support) were predictive of pre-training
motivation. In addition, pre-training motivation and subordinate, peer, and supervisor support were
predictive of perceived training transfer. Some hypothesised predictors, such as extrinsic incentives, were
not supported. The key finding for practitioners relates to supervisors who, it is suggested, should actively
support employees’ training efforts by providing a) opportunities to use skills learned in training, b)
feedback about transfer attempts, c) reward for successful skill transfer, and d) a climate in which
employees’ training efforts are supported by their peers and subordinates.
Effects of training framing, general self-efficacy and training motivation on trainees’ training
effectiveness. (2006). Tai, W.-T. Personnel Review, 35(1), 51–65.
The purpose of this longitudinal study (N = 126) was to investigate the effect of framing a training
episode. The model tested hypothesised that training framing shapes learners’ self-efficacy, which in turn
affects their motivation for training, and both these variables determine subsequent training outcomes
(utility reactions, learning, transfer motivation). Findings indeed suggest that supervisors who frame an
upcoming training as important and realistic can increase employees’ self-efficacy for the training and
their motivation for training. That is, motivation for training had a direct effect on training outcomes and
so self-efficacy acted as a partial mediator while also directly affecting training outcomes. For managers
the overall finding is important as it suggests communicating about an upcoming training episode
promotes psychological readiness states needed so subordinate are more likely to subsequently transfer
the training. However, the study has several methodological limitations and scholars should extend this
line of research by employing quasi-experimental designs and by theorising and testing different training
framing options.
Conceptualising participation in formal training and development activities: A planned
behaviour approach. (2011). Carbery, R., & Garavan, T. N. In R. F. Poell & M. van Woerkom (Eds.),
Supporting Workplace Learning: Towards Evidence-based Practice (Vol. 5, pp. 27–45). Springer
Netherlands.
This chapter seeks to explain participation in formal training and development activities by using a
planned behaviour approach. It is argued that employees are most valuable to their organisations when
they are participating in on-going training and development and when this development is proactive or
self-motivated. A central argument made is that participation in formal training and development is
essential if employees are to enhance their generic competencies and thus employability, and so can be
viewed as a precondition for career success. The authors argue that employees need to be viewed as
agents of their own development. They discussed how individuals may influence and exploit their
personal learning best by being aware of and taking responsibility for their own learning.
49
Convergent and divergent validity of the Learning Transfer System Inventory. (2007). Holton III,
E. F., Bates, R. A., Bookter, A. I., & Yamkovenko, V. B. Human Resource Development Quarterly,
18(3), 385–419.
In prior publications the authors developed the Learning Transfer System Inventory (LTSI), which may
be best understood as a) a framework for understanding training transfer and b) an analytical instrument
for measuring an organisation’s capacity for successfully transferring learning and training. This paper
represents perhaps the most useful and first to consult when seeking to understand the conceptual,
psychometrical, and empirical basis of the LTSI. That is because the set of factors argued to substantially
enhance or inhibit transfer of learning to the work environment is systematically discussed. 16 factors,
grouped into motivational, environmental, and ability elements, are thought to jointly affect learning,
individual performance, and organisational results. The paper also studies the convergent and divergent
validity of the associated measures in relation to 28 comparison measures. The results indicate mostly
divergent relationships, demonstrating a certain uniqueness of the LTSI as a framework and usefulness as
an analytical tool for both practitioners and scholars. However, the LTSI is meant as a diagnostic tool
administered post-training to assess individual trainees’ perceptions and the transfer environment. As a
result it can be used to provide information to organisations about what factors to target for enhancing
training transfer. Conversely, as the instrument is designed to be administered after the training, the
underlying model neglects the time-dimension, and falls short of covering sufficient details about factors
that influence transfer before and during training. It should be noted that the measurement instrument of
the LTSI is proprietary.
The relationship between job dissatisfaction and training transfer. (2012). Jodlbauer, S.,
Selenko, E., Batinic, B., & Stiglbauer, B. International Journal of Training and Development, 16(1),
39–53.
This study sets out to examine the potential influence of job dissatisfaction on the process of training
transfer. Specifically, the study (N = 220) tested whether job dissatisfaction would have a negative effect
on transfer. Also examined was whether expectation of positive transfer consequences and motivation to
transfer would buffer this effect. The researchers found that job dissatisfaction has a detrimental effect on
training transfer. However, motivation to transfer and the expectation of positive transfer consequences
buffered that effect. That is, the more motivated a person is towards transfer, the less negative is the
effect of job dissatisfaction on actual transfer. However, this is only the case if a person expects positive
outcomes from transferring the training, for instance acknowledgment or rewards. For practitioners these
findings underscore the detrimental effect of job dissatisfaction, such as negatively affecting work-related
attitudes and work-relevant behaviour, and also training transfer. However, action can be taken to
mitigate this negative effect. Dissatisfied employees may be motivated to transfer through organisational
50
recognition. This study contributes to a more complete picture of the conditions underlying the failure to
transfer.
Social support in the workplace and training transfer: A longitudinal analysis. (2010). Chiaburu,
D. S., Van Dam, K., & Hutchins, H. M. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 18(2), 187–
200.
This study examined the extent to which two forms of social support predict training transfer: 1)
supervisor support, which involves asking questions about training, holding trainees accountable, use of
participative goal-setting etc.; and 2) perceived organisational support (POS) which describes employees’
belief about how much the organisation cares about them and values their contributions to the
organisation. Testing both organisation- and supervisor-based types of support is thought to offer more
information on each factor’s unique contribution to training transfer and to aspects leading to it. It was
found that both supervisory support and POS were positively related to trainee self-efficacy and
motivation to learn, so influences on these individual factors could stem from either support source.
However, supervisor support was positively related to learning goal orientation and organisational
support was not. For scholars, this paper clarifies several important mechanisms. For practitioners this
study suggests trainees’ goal orientation originates from a more proximal source such as the supervisor.
This is indicated by the finding that supervisor support also positively influences motivation to transfer
and does so to a greater extent than organisational support.
The social context of training: coworker, supervisor, or organisational support? (2010).
Chiaburu, D. S. Industrial and Commercial Training, 42(1), 53–56.
Complementary to the article above this short paper describes a study (N = 440) which examines three
potential sources of social support for training transfer: 1) co-workers, 2) supervisor, and 3) the wider
organisation. Co-workers emerge as important, yet neglected, resources employees can draw on as
support for both maintaining skills and transferring them to a workplace setting. These findings should
direct attention to study the mechanism by which peers can systematically assist in the transfer of training.
For practitioners the findings may stimulate the development of transfer-enhancing interventions situated
at the co-worker level.
Leader influences on training effectiveness: motivation and outcome expectation processes.
(2008). Scaduto, A., Lindsay, D., & Chiaburu, D. S. International Journal of Training and
Development, 12(3), 158–170.
This paper extends prior work on the role of the supervisor at work in promoting training effectiveness.
Specifically, it uses Leader-Member-Exchange theory (LMX) to investigate the relationship between the
individual worker and his or her direct manager/leader as it affects training outcomes. The study (N =
51
495) investigates the extent to which leaders (through their relationships and exchanges with followers)
influence the transfer, maintenance and generalisation of new skills at work. The study also examines
several aspects of followers’ perspective (the resulting training motivation and outcome expectancy of the
individual involved in training), which are theorised as mediators of the link from LMX to training
transfer. The hypothesised relationships are supported and this paper is one of the first to connect LMX
with training interventions. Consequently, supervisors and line managers may use this paper to better
understand their powerful role in motivating subordinates’ transfer behaviour. For trainees it becomes
important to gauge the relationship with the leader about receiving support in solving work issues more
generally, including those relating to training transfer.
Translating training science into practice: A study of managers’ reactions to posttraining
transfer interventions. (2003). Huint, P., & Saks, A. M. Human Resource Development Quarterly,
14(2), 181–198.
Research has shown that interventions post training can favourably affect the transfer of training,
especially those that originate at the transfer environment, the workplace. This study thus examined the
willingness of managers (N = 174) to adopt training research innovations in order to support
subordinates in transferring training. Specifically, it was tested whether managers react more positively to
1) relapse prevention or supervisor support as potential intervention to facilitate transfer; and 2) utility
analysis or research information describing the effectiveness of the intervention. No significant
differences were found between the transfer interventions or information conditions, though there was a
positive trend toward supervisor support and research information. Interestingly and concerning for
practice, findings suggest that managers are unlikely to adopt either intervention and so would not boost
transfer for their subordinates who return from training. Supervisors and line managers as well as human
resource executives may consider this paper to stimulate reflection about organisational and managerial
practices as they relate to training transfer support. Scholars should seek to understand what underpins
this disregard of new knowledge and how the adoption of research into practice may be better facilitated.
*Supervisor behaviours that facilitate training transfer. (2012). Lancaster, S., & Milia, L. Di.
Journal of Workplace Learning, 25(1), 6-22.
This study provides rich qualitative information about supervisor behaviours that employees find helpful
and unhelpful in transferring training. Semi-structured interviews (N = 24) were analysed and the results
suggest that what supervisors’ behaviours prior to, during and after course attendance are critical to
training transfer. 1) Prior to the course supervisors motivated, encouraged, and set expectations. 2)
During the course supervisors signalled the value placed on the course. 3) After the course supervisors
held meetings to support transfer. Generally, transfer was maximised when participants experienced a
52
positive role model and when supervisors showed interest in their experience of the course, encouraged
and sponsored new initiatives, and involved them in decision-making. The main perceived hindrances to
training transfer identified included culture, policies and a lack of encouragement. From a scholarly point
of view this study may be used to develop better theory about what supervisors may do to help transfer,
currently an under researched topic. The rich qualitative data also gives meaningful insights from an
employee’s perspective, and this makes this study particularly useful to practitioners.
The influence of training and training transfer factors on organisational learning and
performance. (2013). Dermol, V., & Cater, T. Personnel Review, 42(3), 324–348.
This organisational study (N = 247) investigated the effects of 1) training and training transfer factors, 2)
company-level training outcomes, and 3) the relationship between the latter and company performance.
Specifically, the model tested relates the 1a) volume and quality of training, 1b) supervisor support, 1c)
peer support, and 1d) organisational incentives to constructs about company-level training outcomes 2a)
the acquisition and interpretation of information, and 2b) cognitive and behavioural changes to 3)
company performance. The proposed structural model had an acceptable fit, yet not all hypotheses were
supported. Findings suggest that the volume and quality of training is a function of supervisor support,
the latter also enabling organisational incentives for training transfer. Organisational incentives were then
directly related to both company-level training outcomes and cognitive and behavioural changes; and
indirectly related to company performance through encouraging cognitive and behavioural changes. The
volume and quality of training were related only to the acquisition and interpretation of information,
while no direct relationship with company performance was found. Taken together it may be interpreted
that organisations benefit most by rewarding the application of training, and supervisors appear to have a
key role in this process. For organisational leaders this study suggests that the most leverage for training
investments is generated by providing an organisational support system for training transfer. Scholars may
employ a similar methodological approach yet test for the relative importance of several leveraging factors
for transfer.
Making transfer climate visible: Utilizing social network analysis to facilitate the transfer of
training. (2007). Hatala, J.-P., & Fleming, P. R. Human Resource Development Review, 6(1), 33–63.
This paper examines the role of the social context at work in relation to training transfer. The authors
propose social network analysis (SNA) as a methodology for analysing transfer climate prior to training.
In brief, SNA focuses on the interpersonal mechanisms and social structures that exist among interacting
units such as people within an organisation, and outcomes are affected by how those people are tied into
the larger web of social connections. SNA is introduced as a tool for analysing an employee’s
organisational network relationships prior to training to help the facilitator, the supervisor, and the
53
individual learning gain an accurate picture of the transfer climate. The transfer climate encompasses an
individual’s perceptions of supervisor support, opportunity to use new training, level of peer support,
supervisor sanctions, and positive or negative personal outcomes resulting from application of training on
the job. SNA is thus put forward as a technique to analyse the interpersonal mechanisms and social
structures that exist within a unit the learning individual is nested in. An actual study is not reported but a
hypothetical case and the process of conducting SNA is described and illustrated for scholars and
advanced practitioners. Training transfer researchers may gain a lot by studying why individuals act and
respond to social pressures that exist within the social context. Proposed future research may address e.g.
the optimal level of connectedness (density) within a work group so as to transfer training back to the job.
In practice SNA could be a vehicle for mapping out the social structure of an organisation to identify
relational barriers affecting the transfer climate. SNA is also proposed as an assessment tool prior to the
planning of a training to identify the opinion leaders within the organisational climate so as to include
them in the development and implementation of the training program.
Transfer of training: Adding insight through social network analysis. (2013). Bossche, P. Van
Den, & Segers, M. Educational Research Review, 8, 37–47.
This article complements the one above, by reviewing those studies which apply a social network analysis
(SNA) to the transfer of training. Three groups of studies using SNA are identified and they address: 1)
the role of the social network within the organisation for transfer of training, 2) the network outside the
organisation, hereby stretching the traditional idea of social support; and 3) the social network as an
important outcome of training itself. The insights reviewed and the potential perspectives offered through
SNA are promising, and help unravel aspects which were hereto disguised by more general constructs of
social support. Of benefit to practitioners and scholars, the paper discusses how SNA can provide a fine-
grained way of looking into social processes in the workplace that support learning and transfer.
Swimming against the current: Understanding how a positive organisational training climate
can enhance training participation and transfer in the public sector. (2012). McCracken, M.,
Brown, T. C., & O’Kane, P. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 25(4), 301–316.
Through ten in-depth interviews with managers participating in leadership development programmes this
study sought to better understand the personal and organisational factors that affect 1) participation in
such training, and 2) their ability to transfer what is learned to the workplace. The qualitative data was
coded, discussed, and findings are linked to existing theory and summarised in tables. A main finding
relates to the uncertain environment throughout the public sector from which the study participants were
drawn. This context is described as the greatest inhibitor to training participation and transfer. For
instance, continuous structural change makes individuals uncertain about choosing a learning experience
54
that would benefit them most in the future. Other themes identified relate to goal setting and self-
preservation/expectancies. A theme identified and previously not discussed in the literature relates to the
impact of a supportive home environment upon participation, thereby calling for targeted research on the
side effects of professional development in the domain of work-life. Further themes discussed in relation
to participation relate to an ageing workforce, available resources or lack thereof, and poor managerial
planning. Emerging themes about training transfer included diminishing transfer motivation, time and
opportunities to apply, training integration and reward for transfer in the organisation, and organisational
reticence to new knowledge and skills. The paper provides rich insights that help grasp the challenges for
effective training as they relate to extant theory as well as potentially new concepts that demand scholarly
attention. A discussion for practitioners on mitigating some of the identified challenges relates to e.g.
shorter sessions which cater for a better work-life-training balance, and employing trainers with a practical
understanding of the (public sector) context.
Training failure as a consequence of organisational culture. (2007). Bunch, K. J. Human
Resource Development Review 6(2): 142–163.
Culture is an important concept as it applies to organizations, and may be understood as the basic
assumptions and beliefs that are shared by members of a particular group, that operate unconsciously,
and that define an entities view of itself. This article forwards a model of the relationship between training
failure and the manifestations of various levels of an organisation’s culture: 1) dominant culture, 2)
subculture, and 3) human resource development culture. Consequently, factors relating to ineffective
training are integrated within this organisational culture framework. The author then considers the socio-
political context of organisational subcultures, and argues that the characteristics of the human resource
development profession form a weak subculture that must defer to more powerful subcultures. This
article is unique in that it specifically examines the importance and role of distinct cultures as a contextual
variable for training effectiveness. Understanding the cultural beliefs and assumptions about the function
and the profession of human resource development more generally is crucial to developing new strategies
for improving training transfer.
The relevance of organisational subculture for motivation to transfer learning. (2008). Egan,
T.M. Human Resource Development Quarterly 19 (4): 299–322.
This empirical study addresses the role of organisational culture as a major contributor to employee
learning and development. The scenario examined does not involve a formal training episode but the
design and measures employed make it relevant for understanding the transfer of training. Findings from
a survey of 1,255 employees associated with 354 organisations indicated that organisational subculture
was highly associated with employee motivation to transfer learning, far higher than organisational culture
55
overall. More specifically, supportive and innovative subcultures have clear positive relationships, while
bureaucratic subcultures have negative relationships, with motivation to transfer learning. Also, a
considerate leadership style had a stronger relationship to motivation to transfer learning than did a
structuring leadership style. For practitioners these findings suggest that organisations need to focus
efforts on shaping organisational subunits which most strongly affect the motivation to transfer learning
from training.
Factors affecting the opportunity to perform trained tasks on the job. (1992). Ford, J. K.,
Quiñones, M. A., Sego, D. J., & Sorra, J. S. Personnel Psychology, 45(3), 511–527.
This study (N = 180) investigates the extent to which the opportunity to perform trained tasks on the job
affects the transfer of technical skills to the job. This opportunity to perform trained tasks was
conceptualized as consisting of three dimensions: 1) breadth, 2) activity level, and 3) type of tasks
performed. The results indicated that trainees obtain differential opportunities to perform trained tasks as
a result of supervisory attitudes and workgroup support, as well as the trainee's self-efficacy and cognitive
ability. The findings also suggest that individuals who are given both greater breadth and a higher activity
level will be more likely to retain and possibly improve proficiency on trained skills. Although this may
sound common-sensical to supervisors, peers, and learners, it may not be commonly practiced,
particularly in respect of complex tasks which require more repetition in order to automatize skills.
Improving positive transfer: A test of relapse prevention training on transfer outcomes. (1997).
Burke, L. A. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 8(2), 115–128.
This study examined the effect of relapse prevention (RP) training on training transfer. Relapse
prevention (RP) training is based on clinical psychology research into addition, and its primary goal is to
teach individuals how to self-manage in ways that help them avoid relapsing into earlier behaviours. In a
quasi-experimental study, trainees were randomly assigned to three treatment conditions: a group
provided with 14 RP strategies, a group provided with 3 RP strategies, and a control group with no RP
strategies provided. The results showed that the trainees' ability and desire to transfer was improved both
of the RP conditions, although in completely counter-intuitive ways. That is, the control group showed
the highest transfer motivation. Neither of the RP condition significantly affected retention of course
content, use of transfer strategies, or use of trained skills. However, several cognitive and behavioural
transfer strategies significantly affected the use of trained skills. For practitioners this paper represents a
reminder that systematic research is needed to understand and before deciding on interventions to
enhance transfer.
56
Accountability in training transfer: Adapting Schlenker’s model of responsibility to a
persistent but solvable problem. (2009). Burke, L. A., & Saks, A. M. Human Resource
Development Review, 8(3), 382–402.
This conceptual article gives attention to the crucial role of accountability in managing the transfer
problem by applying the theoretical lens of Schlenker’s pyramid of accountability. That is, accountability
for transfer is applied to the role of the trainee, trainer, immediate supervisor, and top management
throughout the training process. A theoretical framework is advanced. For practitioners this framework
may be helpful to help establish the appropriate degree of accountability, which is comprised of three key
components. 1) The prescriptions or expectations that guide a person’s behaviour: pre-training transfer
expectations, requirements for transfer briefings, reports, or specific action plans. 2) The event or action
that occurs or is anticipated: the use of new knowledge and skills on the job post-training. 3)
Characteristics of a person’s identity or role, qualities, and convictions: the role of transfer in a trainer’s
job description or a trainee’s sense of dedication to using skills provided by the firm. Recommendations
for practice given comprise conducting a training transfer accountability audit to determine where and for
whom accountability lapses exist in an organisation, developing and clearly communicating prescriptions
and expectations for training transfer for each stakeholder group, and evaluating training transfer
outcomes across training programs.
57
The Training Experience
Identifying trainers’ knowledge of training transfer research findings – closing the gap
between research and practice. (2007). Hutchins, H. M., & Burke, L. A. International Journal of
Training and Development, 11(4), 236–264.
This study explores the extent to which practitioners’ knowledge and beliefs about training transfer are
consistent with findings in the research literature. A survey was developed that captured the views of
training professionals (N = 139) as they relate to typical components of training transfer. It was found
that practitioners by and large agree with standing findings in the areas of training design and the work
environment. However, they agreed less with evidence relating to individual differences that affect
transfer success and about evaluation practices used to measure transfer outcomes. More specifically, the
results suggest trainers may be neglecting extant knowledge relating to pre-training periods such as needs
analysis which may then bolster transfer for certain learners. Similarly, it appears that practitioners stop
short of comprehensively evaluating the learning experiences they set up. This paper demonstrates well
how the transfer of training may be impaired by a research-to-practice gap. Interestingly, it was found that
those practitioners with higher education and/or an association with a relevant peak body are more likely
to possess knowledge and beliefs that are consistent with evidence based knowledge on training transfer.
This paper benefits the discussion on the training transfer challenge. For scholars it highlights a crucial
element in the training effectiveness chain that can be considered under-investigated. For practitioners it
may serve as a trigger to reflect on their own beliefs and practices about training transfer.
*A missing link in the transfer problem? Examining how trainers learn about training transfer.
(2010). Hutchins, H. M., Burke, L. A., & Berthelsen, A. M. Human Resource Management, 49(4), 599–
618.
As a logical extension to the article above this paper reports a study that examines the methods training
professionals use to learn about training transfer. Using quantitative survey data and follow-up interviews
the authors sought to understand trainers’ use and perceived utility of the existing literature for
developing their own competence about facilitating training transfer. Findings indicate that training
professionals seek information about training transfer mainly by means of informal learning which
includes discussions with other training professionals, reading books, searching the Web, and the
experiences made on the job. The trainers’ own learning behaviour is driven by the accessibility of
information, the quality of the source, and their own motivation (to learn). It also emerged that trainers
would seek to learn more about training transfer through discussions with experts and academics. Yet,
limited opportunities to engage with formal learning experiences about training transfer appear to hinder
systematic development of training transfer competence. Also, trainers read practitioner journals
significantly more often than research journals. Somewhat concerning, the consumption of any such
58
literature is rare and perceived to be of little use in remaining current on training practices. While the
study does not offer clear evidence on the underlying rationale, this finding may be either interpreted as a)
the transfer research conducted and/or training literature available is of little use to real world scenarios,
or b) the training professionals neglect evidence-based transfer guidelines and do (too) little to improve
their practices. Given its rich discussion this paper may be used by practitioners as a wake-up call to
reflect on their own professional learning practices and what informs their actions when training others.
Scholars may be stimulated to extend this line of inquiry so as to better understand different types of
training professionals, their motivation to develop, and potentially some idiosyncratic skill sets that help
trainers learn for themselves.
*A typology of training design and work environment factors affecting workplace learning and
transfer. (2002). Russ-Eft, D. F. Human Resource Development Review, 1(1), 45–65.
Based on previous research, this article develops a typology of situational elements that affect learning
and its transfer. The author compiled and organised constructs which can be manipulated by researchers
or practitioners as part of a training intervention or its implementation at work. Elements are categorised
along the time-dimension into pre-training, training design, and post-training elements. This stage view is
flanked by situational elements of the transfer or work environment which likely affect an individual
throughout the entirety of a given learning experience. This paper may be particularly useful to
practitioners as it draws attention to malleable factors that reside in the individual or the environment and
which can influence training transfer. It also discusses how these factors can be managed.
Active learning: Effects of core training design elements on self-regulatory processes,
learning, and adaptability. (2008). Bell, B. S., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. Journal of Applied Psychology,
93(2), 296–316.
This paper presents a model that provides an integration of three relatively distinct process pathways
through which training design elements are thought to influence trainees’ learning and transfer. It was
found that exploratory learning, as opposed to proceduralised instruction, demonstrated significantly
higher levels of both analogical and adaptive transfer. Moreover, trainees who were encouraged to make
errors while learning demonstrated higher levels of adaptive transfer than did trainees exposed to an
error-avoidance frame. Taken together the findings suggest that a) active learning approaches produce
superior transfer relative to more traditional, proceduralised instruction, and b) trainees that make and
learn from their errors are aided in their development of adaptive expertise. The model also specifies that
intrinsic motivation and self-efficacy are key predictors of trainees’ basic knowledge and analogical
transfer. Also, those trainees reporting higher levels of state anxiety early in training had lower levels of
self-efficacy at the end of training, though an emotion-control strategy has been identified as effective
59
tool for lowering trainees’ state anxiety. Taken together this is a very comprehensive model of active
learning and its impact on training transfer.
Feedback specificity, information processing, and transfer of training. (2011). Goodman, J. S.,
Wood, R. E., & Chen, Z. Organisational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 115(2), 253-267.
This study examines the effects of feedback specificity on the transfer of training, seeking to illuminate
the processes by which feedback affects transfer. The experimental study of trainees (N = 48) working on
a computer simulation used a technique called ‘concurrent verbal protocol methodology’ to identify
explicit information processing activities employed by the trainees. The findings suggest that increasing
feedback specificity helped participants identify which actions were correct and incorrect, which actions
caused specific errors, and what the correct responses were. Conversely, trainees receiving less specific
feedback relied more heavily on explicit information processing and had more exposure to the
challenging aspects of the task than those who received more specific feedback, which differentially
affected what they learned about the task. This paper helps highlight the importance of feedback in
promoting learning and transfer.
Effectiveness of error management training: a meta-analysis. (2008). Keith, N., & Frese, M.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(1), 59–69.
Error management training (EMT) is a method that may be applied during training to enhance learning
and subsequent transfer. EMT creates a learning environment which provides explicit encouragement for
learners to engage in active exploration, to make errors during training and to try to learn from those
errors. This meta-analysis of 24 studies (N=2,183) finds that EMT leads to better training outcomes than
do alternative training methods. Importantly, EMT was found to be effective only when post-training
performance and not within-training performance was considered, highlighting its significance for
training transfer. Also, EMT was found to work best for performance tasks that were dissimilar to
training. Given that both active exploration and error encouragement were identified as approaches with
favourable outcomes, EMT appears to be an effective training method compared with learning
experiences that do not encourage errors, such as purely exploratory and proceduralised training. Given
that EMT can be implemented using simple and easy-to-administer instructions it would be desirable to
identify the most effective and efficient class-room dynamics practitioners can facilitate.
Getting the most of management training: the role of identical elements for training transfer.
(2013). Van der Locht, M., van Dam, K., & Chiaburu, D.S. Personnel Review, 42(4), 422–439.
On the basis that management training typically occurs off-the-job in external training environments, this
study (N = 595) examined whether designing aspects of training to resemble participants’ work situation
60
can improve subsequent training transfer. The role of identical elements was examined in its utility above
and beyond motivation to learn and expected utility of the training. Indeed, identical elements were found
to have a unique and direct contribution to the prediction of training transfer. Consequently, especially
when developing open as opposed to closed skills training, training providers should consider designing
learning experiences that trigger cognitive, emotional and behavioural processes and responses that
closely resemble those activated in the actual work environment.
‘Don’t forget to write’: how reflective learning journals can help to facilitate, assess and
evaluate training transfer. (2011). Brown, T. C., McCcracken, M., & O’Kane, P. Human Resource
Development International, 14(4), 465–481.
Reflective learning journals (RLJs) are thought to encourage learners to engage with the content of
training by examining their experiences in applying the learned material. This qualitative study sought to
1) evaluate the role of RLJs in encouraging trainees to transfer the programme content, 2) assess the
extent, from the learners’ perspective, that the RJLs facilitated transfer, and 3) examine the RLJs as a
training evaluation tool. Over the course of a 11.5 day leadership program participants (N = 75) were
encouraged to keep a daily learning diary to record key observations surrounding each module. Three
months post-training, participants were asked to finalise and submit their individual RLJ using their notes,
diaries and post- training experience. It was found that many participants engaged in deep reflection,
showing honest self-critique regarding application of the material. This in turn enabled them to think
critically about their transfer behaviour. The authors also discuss how organisations may utilize
employees’ reflections to understand ways to enhance transfer by improving work environment factors.
The authors also comment very positively on using RLJs as an evaluation tool for training providers due
to the very personal insights they gained. For instance, they received detailed reports about how
participants reflected deeply on their current use of the material, their motivations, development plans,
and concerns. The authors recommend using critical reflection as engaging methodology for researching
and facilitating training transfer.
Distal goal and proximal goal transfer of training interventions in an executive education
program. (2009). Brown, T. C, & Warren, A.M. Human Resource Development Quarterly 20(3), 265–
284.
This longitudinal field study is noteworthy for testing how the transfer of training and trainee self-efficacy
may benefit from different goal-setting interventions during the learning experience. The 89 participants
were randomly assigned to 1) a distal outcome goal group; 2) a proximal plus distal outcome goal group;
or 3) a ‘do-your-best’ (DYB) goal group. The findings suggest that the use of proximal plus distal goals
increased training transfer maintenance relative to distal goals or DYB. However, they had no effect on
61
skill generalisation or self-efficacy. Instead, distal goals were found to increase these latter two measures
relative to being urged to DYB and increase self-efficacy relative to proximal and distal goals. The results
demonstrate that different forms of goals (i.e., learning, behavioural outcome, proximal plus distal) can be
more effective for training transfer than simply urging learners to do their best when they are faced with
novel tasks. Given the authors also note a range of inconsistencies between other findings and extant
literature, scholars may consult this paper for future research on goal-setting as it relates to training
transfer.
A meta-analytic review of behavior modeling training. (2005). Taylor, P. J., Russ-Eft, D. F., &
Chan, D. W. L. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(4), 692–709.
This meta-analysis of 117 studies (N = 2,509) estimated the effects of behaviour modelling training
(BMT). If BMT is fully implemented it emphasises a) describing to trainees a set of well-defined
behaviours to be learned, b) providing models displaying the effective use of those behaviours, c)
providing opportunities for trainees to practice using those behaviours, d) providing feedback and social
reinforcement to trainees following practice, and e) taking steps to maximize the transfer of those
behaviours to the job. Training transfer was greatest when mixed (negative and positive) BMT models
were presented, when practice included trainee-generated scenarios, when learners were instructed to set
goals, when trainees’ superiors were also trained, and when rewards and sanctions were instituted in
trainees’ work environments. This confirms findings discussed in the work cited above, for instance the
positive effects of goal setting and accountability. More generally, BMT effects were largest for learning
outcomes, smaller for job behaviour, and smaller still for results outcomes. Also, BMT effects on
declarative knowledge decayed over time, training effects on skills and job behaviour remained stable or
even increased. Finally, skill development was greatest when learning points were used and presented as
rule codes and when training time was longest. A number of boundary conditions to effective use of
BMT are discussed that may inform both practitioner and scholars in refining their approaches to
facilitating and researching training transfer.
Transforming Our Models of Learning and Development: Web-Based Instruction as Enabler of
Third-Generation Instruction. (2008). Kraiger, K. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1(4),
454–467.
This conceptual paper argues that the typical methods employed for training people are based on how
learning is historically understood. As a result it concludes that many methods currently employed may
not be as effective as those related to the proposed third-generation instructional model. It is argued that
technological and societal change foster a new paradigm that places greater emphasis on the learner who
socially constructs his/her own knowledge through shared meaning arising from interactions among
62
instructors and learners. This is enabled by learning designs that define broad content areas and provide
tools and strategies for collaborative learning among instructors and learners. Ultimately, as a result this
knowledge can be more easily transferred back to an applied context while social skills are built and
transferred alongside. Consequently, this paper and the scholarly reactions in the same journal issue can
inform future research about how employees may be guided through developing and applying new
competencies either in training and/or on the job. The article also reviews the history of first- and
second-generational instructional design models. Practitioners may find this useful to reflect on the beliefs
underlying current and future practices.
Meta-analysis of the relations among training criteria. (1997). Alliger, G.M., Tannenbaum, S.I.,
Winston Bennett, W. , Traver, H., &.Shotland, A. Personnel Psychology 50(2), 341–358.
Trainee reactions – learners’ subjective evaluations, usually post-training – remain the most used source
or method of evaluation in the training domain. The authors divided trainee reaction measures into two
categories: 1) affective reaction describe general satisfaction with the training, and 2) utility reaction
describe judgements of usefulness of the training content for the work situation. They then carried out a
meta-analysis of 34 studies involving these measures. They found that utility reactions were more strongly
related to transfer than were affective reactions. Moreover, utility reactions were also stronger correlates
of transfer than were measures of immediate or retained learning. In other words, just because a trainee
comprehends a new skill does not mean it will be applied on the job, unless there is a perceived utility in
doing so. What is more, in examining the data on all four levels of training evaluations derived from
Kirkpatrick’s well-known model they found only modest intercorrelations, questioning the central
premise of the Kirkpatrick model whereby the different levels are causally linked. Consequently, utility
measures are not simply substitutes for measures of learning or transfer.
*A review and meta-analysis of the nomological network of trainee reactions. (2008). Sitzmann,
T., Brown, K. G., Casper, W. J., Ely, K., & Zimmerman, R. D. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(2),
280–295.
This article provides a conceptual and quantitative review (k = 136; N = 27,020) of the nomological
network of trainee reactions; it integrates the literature on antecedents and outcomes of reactions and
proposes theory-driven moderators of the antecedents–reactions–outcomes relationships. It thus updates
and extends Bennett, et al. (1997), albeit it exclusively focuses on the first evaluation level linked to
reactions. The meta-analytic findings suggest reactions primarily capture characteristics of the training
course, mainly instructional style (p = .66) and human interaction (p = .56). Pre-training motivation,
trainees’ personalities, anxiety, and perceived organisational support had weaker effects. More, reactions
predicted pre-to-post changes in motivation (p = .51) and self-efficacy (p = .24) and were more sensitive
63
than affective and cognitive learning outcomes to trainees’ perceptions of characteristics of the training
course. Affective and utility reactions did not differ in their relationships with learning outcomes. And
outcomes correlations tended to be stronger in courses that utilised a high level rather than a low level of
technology. The study advances knowledge about the nomological network of reactions, which are found
to play a significant role in training transfer.
Reactions to skill assessment: The forgotten factor in explaining motivation to learn. (2007).
Bell, B. S., & Ford, J. K. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 18(1), 33–62.
The authors of this empirical study (N = 152) developed and tested a model of reactions to assessment
and their implications for training motivation. Two dimensions of reaction linked to a pre-training
assessment were examined: utility and distributive justice were found to equally affect trainees’ motivation
to learn. Individuals who had more positive perceptions of both the utility of the assessment process as
well as distributive justice were more motivated to learn in the subsequent training program.
Consequently, work organisations and training providers should promote both dimensions as reactions to
the skill assessment process have a significant impact on individuals’ motivation to learn, which in turn
drives important learning outcomes. The findings also suggest that employees are likely to react
differently to skill assessments depending on their individual characteristics, such as goal orientation. This
suggests that training practitioners may not be able to treat all learners identically; instead it is proposed to
focus on tailoring the process to different trainees.
*Examining the factor structure of participant reactions to training: A multidimensional
approach. (2000). Morgan, R. B., & Casper, W. J. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 11(3),
301–317.
The authors set out to determine the factor structure underlying reactions to training by analysing learner
reaction forms (N = 9,128). As a result of an exploratory factor analysis six factors emerged: 1) a
dominant factor on the utility of training, and several others relating to 2) the instructor satisfaction, 3)
testing satisfaction, 4) materials satisfaction, 5) course structure satisfaction, and 6) overall satisfaction.
This set of factors lends itself to improving the ‘smile sheets’ being used in practice. Organisational
researchers may also find this article helpful in developing their own ideas around training reactions and
transfer.
64
What Works in Practice
*The science of training and development in organisations: What matters in practice. (2012).
Salas, E., Tannenbaum, S. I., Kraiger, K., & Smith-Jentsch, K. A. Psychological Science in the Public
Interest, 13(2), 74–101.
This comprehensive and compact article begins by explaining why training is important and proceeds to a
discussion on how to use training appropriately. The authors integrate a wealth of important research and
systematically provide recommendations for implementing a training program in an organisation. They
argue that training is a systematic process, and so they logically explain what matters before, during, and
after training. For ease of use the article provides checklists with steps to take at each of these three time
periods. The article then discusses implications for both leaders and policymakers and an exploration of
issues that may come up when deciding to implement a training program. In addition they include a range
of key questions that executives and policymakers may ask about the design, delivery, or implementation
of a training program. The article finally considers future areas of research, provides a number of still
unanswered questions, and thus gives rise to the development of new and important work in this evolving
field. Very useful.
The transfer of training: What really matters. (2011). Grossman, R., & Salas, E. International
Journal of Training and Development, 15(2), 103–120.
In this relatively short article the authors take the position that in practice not all available information is
essential for those simply seeking some straightforward recommendations on training transfer. They thus
provide a qualitative review that that identifies only those factors that have shown the strongest, most
consistent relationships with training transfer. Factors discussed relate to 1) trainee characteristics
involving cognitive ability, self-efficacy, motivation, and perceived utility of training; 2) training design
involving behavioural modelling, error management, realistic training environments; and 3) the work
environment involving transfer climate, support, opportunity to perform, follow-up. This simplified
review may serve as a basic guideline for those interested in determining what really matters in regard to
the transfer of training. The authors also advocate their construct selection to researchers with the intent
to stimulate systematic investigations about boundary conditions.
Collaborative planning for training impact. (2004). Kraiger, K., McLinden, D., & Casper, W. J.
Human Resource Management, 43(4), 337–351.
In this paper the authors suggest a practical approach to planning training interventions so they more
likely will have a significant impact on organisational goals and objectives. They begin with a brief review
65
of relevant models and soon provide guidance for training with business goals and planning the
evaluation of impact. They offer and discuss four guidelines relating to: 1) developing a theory of impact,
2) reframing the point of evaluation from proof to evidence, 3) isolating the effects of training, and 4)
establishing accountability for training. Although already published about a decade ago this brief paper
offers practitioners systematic assistance for planning a training intervention.
Improving training impact through effective follow-up: techniques and their application. (2010).
Martin, H. J. Journal of Management Development, 29(6), 520–534.
This paper describes cost-effective methods post training that create a more favourable environment for
transfer. Briefly explained are 1) action plans, 2) performance assessment, 3) peer meetings, 4) supervisory
consultations, and 5) technical support. The paper then goes on and illustrates the implementation of
these techniques in two case studies: one case relates to a training program for managers of a
manufacturing company, and the other case relates to supervisory training of a firm that supplies
engineered products globally. A straight-forward narrative makes this paper an easy yet rich reading
experience for practitioners who may benefits through the real world illustrations including sets of readily
applicable questions that prompt processes and behaviours for transferring training.
The six disciplines of breakthrough learning: How to turn training and development into
business results (2010). Wick, C. W., Pollock, R. V. H., & Jefferson, A. M. New York: John Wiley &
Sons.
This is one of the most well-known practitioner-oriented books about training effectiveness. For
practitioners it brings together many of the most important principles, including the transfer of training.
It goes about this via six key steps: 1) define the business outcomes, 2) design the complete experience, 3)
deliver for application, 4) drive learning transfer, 5) deploy performance support, and 6) document results.
Not every element discussed is based on evidence, though much reflects the state if research. While it
does not go into enormous psychological depth, it explains most central mechanisms in perhaps a more
accessible language. Consequently, this book may be considered the most comprehensive practical guide
to improve training and ultimate transfer. Online resources and additional workshops complete the book.
Transfer of Learning in Organizations. (2014). Schneider, K. Springer.
Many of the established concepts in the literature on training transfer and discussed in this annotated
bibliography above are summarised in this book. In relation to training transfer the ten chapters address
case studies; enablers and inhibitors; the development of self-regulation; a systemic perspective;
66
technology and culture; measurement and evaluation; and return on investment analysis. While not a
comprehensive handbook, this book may be both a good as an introduction to the transfer challenge and
a timely collection that some practitioners may consider useful.
Making learning stick: 20 easy and effective techniques for training transfer. (2010). Carnes, B.
American Society for Training & Development.
This book adopts a facilitator approach to training transfer. The author suggests 20 exercises, all
organised in a step-by-step fashion. Each technique is briefly introduced, a conceptual rationale may be
given though little or no underpinning evidence is discussed, and foremost the sequence of actions is
presented. To illustrate, techniques suggested include ‘Boss Briefing/Debriefing: Use Manager to
Encourage Application on the Job’; ‘Can-Do Attitude: Support Success and Positive Outcomes’; and
‘Apples: Minimize the Influence of Some Participants’. Each of these exercises also contains commentary
on potential downsides, variations, or how to combine it with another exercise. The book may be used as
a stimulating source for what to do in regards to training transfer.
Enhance the transfer of training: Tips, tools, and intelligence for trainers. (2010). Coates, D. E.
American Society for Training & Development.
This 20 page brochure contains some information on training transfer. For the most part it seeks to tell
the reader what to without fully explaining the why, and some references may also considered dated.
Nevertheless, it considers different stages and stakeholder, some common pitfalls, and provides a few
checklists that might be helpful for practitioners.
67
Extended Reference List
*Aguinis, H., & Kraiger, K. (2009). Benefits of training and development for individuals and teams,
organizations, and society. Annual Review of Psychology, 60(1), 451–474.
Alliger, G. M., Tannenbaum, S. I., Bennett Jr., W., Traver, H., & Shotland, A. (1997). A meta-analysis of
the relations among training criteria. Personnel Psychology, 50(2), 341–358.
Arthur Jr., W., Bennett Jr., W., Edens, P. S., & Bell, S. T. (2003). Effectiveness of training in
organizations: A meta-analysis of design and evaluation features. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(2), 234–
245.
Axtell, C. M., Maitlis, S., & Yearta, S. K. (1997). Predicting immediate and longer-term transfer of
training. Personnel Review, 26(3), 201–213.
Baldwin, T. T., & Ford, J. K. (1988). Transfer of training: A review and directions for future research.
Personnel Psychology, 41(1), 63–105.
Baldwin, T. T., & Magjuka, R. J. (1991). Organisational training and signals of importance: Linking
pretraining perceptions to intentions to transfer. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 2(1), 25–36.
Baldwin, T. T., & Magjuka, R. J. (1997). Training as an organizational episode: Pretraining influences on
trainee motivation. In K. J. Ford & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Improving training effectiveness in work
organizations (pp. 99–127). Mawah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Baldwin, T. T., Ford, J. K., & Blume, D. B. (2009). Transfer of training 1988- 2008: An updated review
and agenda for future research. In G. P. Hodgkinson & J. K. Ford (Eds.), International review of industrial and
organizational psychology (Volume 24., pp. 41–70). Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Baldwin, T. T., Ford, J. K., & Naquin, S. S. (2000). Managing transfer before learning begins: Enhancing
the motivation to improve work through learning. In Advances in developing human resources (Vol. 8, pp. 23–
35). San Francisco: Berett-Koehler Communications.
Baldwin, T. T., Magjuka, R. J., & Loher, B. T. (1991). The perils of participation: Effects of choice of
training on trainee motivation and learning. Personnel Psychology, 44(1), 51–65.
Barnett, S. M., & Ceci, S. J. (2002). When and where do we apply what we learn?: A taxonomy for far
transfer. Psychological Bulletin, 128(4), 612– 637.
Bates, R. A. (2001). Public sector training participation: An empirical investigation. International Journal of
Training and Development, 5(2), 136–152.
*Beier, M. E., & Kanfer, R. (2009). Motivation in training and development: A phase perspective. In S.
W. J. Kozlowski & E. Salas (Eds.), Learning, Training, and Development in Organisations (pp. 65–97).
Hoboken: Routledge Academic.
Bell, B. S., & Ford, J. K. (2007). Reactions to skill assessment: The forgotten factor in explaining
motivation to learn. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 18(1), 33–62.
68
Bell, B. S., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (2008). Active learning: Effects of core training design elements on self-
regulatory processes, learning, and adaptability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(2), 296–316.
Bertolino, M., Truxillo, D. M., & Fraccaroli, F. (2011). Age as moderator of the relationship of proactive
personality with training motivation, perceived career development from training, and training behavioral
intentions. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 263(January), 248–263.
Billett, S. (2013). Recasting transfer as a socio-personal process of adaptable learning. Educational Research
Review, 8, 5–13.
*Blume, D. B., Ford, J. K., Baldwin, T. T., & Huang, J. L. (2010). Transfer of Training: A meta-analytic
review. Journal of Management, 36(4), 1065– 1105.
Bossche, P. Van Den, & Segers, M. (2013). Transfer of training: Adding insight through social network
analysis. Educational Research Review, 8, 37–47.
Boyatzis, R. (2008). Competencies in the 21st century. Journal of Management Development, 21(1), 5–12.
Broad, M. L. (2005). Beyond transfer of training: Engaging systems to improve performance. New York: Pfeiffer.
Broad, M. L., & Newstrom, J. W. (1992). Transfer of training: Action-packed strategies to ensure high payoff from
training investments. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison- Wesley. Perseus Publishing.
Brown, K. G. (2001). Using computers to deliver training: Which employees learn and why? Personnel
Psychology, 54(2), 271–296.
Brown, T. C, & Warren, A.M. (2009). Distal goal and proximal goal transfer of training interventions in
an executive education program. Human Resource Development Quarterly 20(3), 265–284.
Brown, T. C., McCcracken, M., & O’Kane, P. (2011). Don’t forget to write’: how reflective learning
journals can help to facilitate, assess and evaluate training transfer. Human Resource Development International,
14(4), 465–481.
Bryson, J., Pajo, K., Ward, R., & Mallon, M. (2006). Learning at work: Organisational affordances and
individual engagement. Journal of Workplace Learning, 18(5), 279–297.
Bunch, K. J. (2007). Training failure as a consequence of organisational culture. Human Resource
Development Review 6(2): 142–163.
Burke, L. A. (1997). Improving positive transfer: A test of relapse prevention training on transfer
outcomes. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 8(2), 115–128.
*Burke, L. A., & Hutchins, H. M. (2007). Training transfer: An integrative literature review. Human
Resource Development Review, 6(3), 263– 296.
*Burke, L. A., & Hutchins, H. M. (2008). A study of best practices in training transfer and proposed
model of transfer. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 19(2), 107–128.
Burke, L. A., & Saks, A. M. (2009). Accountability in training transfer: Adapting Schlenker’s model of
responsibility to a persistent but solvable problem. Human Resource Development Review, 8(3), 382–402.
69
Campbell, J. P. (1971). Personnel training and development. Annual Review of Psychology, 22, 565–602.
Cannon-Bowers, J. A., Rhodenizer, L., Salas, E., & Bowers, C. A. (1998). A framework for understanding
pre-practice conditions and their impact on learning. Personnel Psychology, 51(2), 291–320.
Carbery, R., & Garavan, T. N. (2011). Conceptualising participation in formal training and development
activities: A planned behaviour approach. In R. F. Poell & M. van Woerkom (Eds.), Supporting workplace
learning: Towards evidence-based practice (Vol. 5, pp. 27–45). Springer Netherlands.
Carlson, D., & Bozeman, D. (2000). Training motivation in organizations: An analysis of individual-level
antecedents. Journal of Managerial Issues, 12(3), 271–287.
Carnes, B. (2010). Making learning stick: 20 easy and effective techniques for training transfer. American Society for
Training & Development.
Chen, G., Gully, S. M., Whiteman, J. A., & Kilcullen, R. N. (2000). Examination of Relationships Among
Trait-Like Individual Differences, State-Like Individual Differences, and Learning Performance. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 85(6), 835.
Chen, H.-C., Holton III, E. F., & Bates, R. A. (2005). Development and validation of the Learning
Transfer System Inventory in Taiwan. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 16(1), 55–84.
Cheng, E. W. L., & Hampson, I. (2008). Transfer of training: A review and new insights. International
Journal of Management Reviews, 10(4), 327–341.
Cheng, E. W. L., & Ho, D. C. K. (2001). A review of transfer of training studies in the past decade.
Personnel Review, 30(1), 102–118.
Chiaburu, D. S. (2010). The social context of training: coworker, supervisor, or organisational support?
Industrial and Commercial Training, 42(1), 53–56.
Chiaburu, D. S., & Lindsay, D. R. (2008). Can do or will do? The importance of self-efficacy and
instrumentality for training transfer. Human Resource Development International, 11(2), 199–206.
Chiaburu, D. S., & Tekleab, A. G. (2005). Individual and contextual influences on multiple dimensions of
training effectiveness. Journal of European Industrial Training, 29(8), 604–626.
Chiaburu, D. S., Sawyer, K. B., & Thoroughgood, C. N. (2010). Transferring more than learned in
training: Employees’ and managers' (over)generalization of skills. International Journal of Selection and
Assessment, 18(4), 380–393.
Chiaburu, D. S., Van Dam, K., & Hutchins, H. M. (2010). Social support in the workplace and training
transfer: A longitudinal analysis. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 18(2), 187–200.
Coates, D. E. (2010). Enhance the transfer of training: Tips, tools, and intelligence for trainers. American Society for
Training & Development.
Cohen, D. J. (1990). What motivates trainees? Training and Development Journal, 44(11), 91–93.
Colquitt, J. A., & Simmering, M. J. (1998). Conscientiousness, goal orientation, and motivation to learn
during the learning process: A longitudinal study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(4), 654.
70
Colquitt, J. A., LePine, J. A., & Noe, R. A. (2000). Toward an integrative theory of training motivation: A
meta-analytic path analysis of 20 years of research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(5), 678.
Combs, G. M., Luthans, F., & Griffith, J. (2009). Learning motivation and transfer of human capital
development: Implications from psychological capital. In R. J. Burke & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), The Peak
Performing Organization (pp. 73–91). London & New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis.
Coultas, C. W., Grossman, R., & Salas, E. (2012). Design, delivery, evaluation, and transfer of training
systems. In G. Salvendy (Ed.), Handbook of human factors and ergonomics (pp. 490–533). Hoboken: John
Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Cromwell, S. E., & Kolb, J. a. (2004). An examination of work-environment support factors affecting
transfer of supervisory skills training to the workplace. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 15(4), 449–
471.
De Grip, A., & Sauermann, J. (2012). The effect of training on productivity: The transfer of on-the-job
training from the perspective of economics. Educational Research Review, 8, 28–36.
De Rijdt, C., Stes, A., van der Vleuten, C., & Dochy, F. (2013). Influencing variables and moderators of
transfer of learning to the workplace within the area of staff development in higher education: Research
review. Educational Research Review, 8, 48–74.
Dermol, V., & Cater, T. (2013). The influence of training and training transfer factors on organisational
learning and performance. Personnel Review, 42(3), 324–348.
Egan, T. M. (2008). The relevance of organizational subculture for motivation to transfer learning. Human
Resource Development Quarterly, 19(4), 299–322.
Egan, T. M., Yang, B., & Bartlett, K. R. (2004). The effects of organizational learning culture and job
satisfaction on motivation to transfer learning and turnover intention. Human Resource Development
Quarterly, 15(3), 279–301.
Eraut, M., & Hirsh, W. (2007). The significance of workplace learning for individuals, groups and organisations.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Everly, G. S., Smith, K. J., & Lating, J. M. (2009). A rationale for cognitively- based resilience and
psychological first aid (PFA) training: A structural modeling analysis. International Journal of Emergency
Mental Health, 11(4), 249–62.
Facteau, J. D., Dobbins, G. H., Russell, J. E. A., Ladd, R. T., & Kudisch, J. D. (1995). The influence of
general perceptions of the training environment on pretraining motivation and perceived training transfer.
Journal of Management, 21(1), 1–25.
Fishbein, M., & Stasson, M. (1990). The role of desires, self-predictions, and perceived control in the
prediction of training session attendance. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 20(3), 173–198.
Ford, J. K., & Weissbein, D. A. (1997). Transfer of training: An updated review and analysis. Performance
Improvement Quarterly, 10(2), 22– 41.
Ford, J. K., Kraiger, K., & Merritt, S. M. (2009). An updated review of the multidimensionality of training
outcomes: New directions for training evaluation research. In S. W. J. Kozlowski & E. Salas (Eds.),
Learning, Training, and Development in Organizations (pp. 135–165). Routledge Academic.
71
Ford, J. K., Quiñones, M. A., Sego, D. J., & Sorra, J. S. (1992). Factors affecting the opportunity to
perform trained tasks on the job. Personnel Psychology, 45(3), 511–527.
Ford, J. K., Yelon, S. L., & Billington, Q. A. (2011). How much is transferred from training to the job?
The 10% delusion as a catalyst for thinking about transfer. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 24(2), 7–24.
Foxon, M. (1993). A process approach to the transfer of training. Part 1: The impact of motivation and
supervisor support on transfer maintenance. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 9(2), 130–143.
Foxon, M. (1994). A process approach to transfer of training. Part 2: Using action planning to facilitate
the transfer of training. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 10(1), 1–18.
Foxon, M. (1997). The influence of motivation to transfer, action planning, and manager support on the
transfer process. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 10(2), 42–63.
Franke, F., & Felfe, J. (2012). Transfer of leadership skills. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 11(3), 138–147.
Gaudine, A. P., & Saks, A. M. (2004). A longitudinal quasi-experiment on the effects of posttraining
transfer interventions. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 15(1), 57–76.
Gegenfurtner, A. (2011). Motivation and transfer in professional training: A meta-analysis of the
moderating effects of knowledge type, instruction, and assessment conditions. Educational Research Review,
6(3), 153–168.
Gegenfurtner, A., & Vauras, M. (2012). Age-related differences in the relation between motivation to
learn and transfer of training in adult continuing education. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 37(1), 33–
46.
Gegenfurtner, A., Festner, D., Gallenberger, W., Lehtinen, E., & Gruber, H. (2009). Predicting
autonomous and controlled motivation to transfer training. International Journal of Training and Development,
13(2), 124–138.
Gegenfurtner, A., Vauras, M., Gruber, H., & Festner, D. (2010). Motivation to transfer revisited. In
Proceedings of the 9th International Conference of the Learning Sciences (Vol. 1, pp. 452–459). International Society
of the Learning Sciences.
*Gegenfurtner, A., Veermans, K., Festner, D., & Gruber, H. (2009). Motivation to transfer training: An
integrative literature review. Human Resource Development Review, 8(3), 403–423.
Georgenson, D. L. (1982). The problem of transfer calls for partnership. Training & Development Journal,
36(10), 75–78.
Giangreco, A., Carugati, A., & Sebastiano, A. (2010). Are we doing the right thing?: Food for thought on
training evaluation and its context. Personnel Review, 39(2), 162–177.
Goldstein, I. L. (1993). Training in organizations: Needs assessment, development, and evaluation (3rd ed., p. 364).
Belmont: Thomson Brooks/Cole Publishing Co.
Goldstein, I. L., & Ford, J. K. (2002). Training in organizations: Needs assessment, development, and evaluation (p.
410). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Goodman, J. S., Wood, R. E., & Chen, Z. (2011). Feedback specificity, information processing, and
transfer of training. Organisational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 115(2), 253-267.
72
Griffith, J. (2010). The influence of pre-training positive psychological capital development on training motivation.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Nebraska.
Grossman, R., & Salas, E. (2011). The transfer of training: What really matters. International Journal of
Training and Development, 15(2), 103–120.
Guthrie, J. P., & Schwoerer, C. E. (1994). Individual and contextual influences on self-assessed training
needs. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15(5), 405–422.
Hager, P., & Hodkinson, P. (2009). Moving beyond the metaphor of transfer of learning. British
Educational Research Journal, 35(4), 619–638.
Haskell, R. E. (2000a). Transfer of learning: Cognition and instruction. San Diego: Academic Press.
Haskell, R. E. (2000b). Transfer of learning: What it is and why it’s important. In Transfer of learning:
Cognition and instruction (pp. 23– 37). San Diego: Academic Press.
Hatala, J.-P., & Fleming, P. R. (2007). Making transfer climate visible: Utilizing social network analysis to
facilitate the transfer of training. Human Resource Development Review, 6(1), 33–63.
Hesketh, B. (1997). Dilemmas in Training for Transfer and Retention. Applied Psychology, 46(4), 317–339.
Hicks, W. D., & Klimoski, R. J. (1987). Entry into training programs and its effects on training outcomes:
A field experiment. Academy of Management Journal, 30(3), 542–552.
Holton III, E. F. (1996). New employee development: A review and reconceptualization. Human Resource
Development Quarterly, 7(3), 233–252.
Holton III, E. F., & Baldwin, T. T. (2003). Improving learning transfer in organizations. John Wiley & Sons.
Holton III, E. F., Bates, R. A., & Ruona, W. E. A. (2000). Development of a generalized learning transfer
system inventory. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 11(4), 333–360.
Holton III, E. F., Bates, R. A., Bookter, A. I., & Yamkovenko, V. B. (2007). Convergent and divergent
validity of the Learning Transfer System Inventory. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 18(3), 385–419.
Holton III, E. F., Bates, R. A., Seyler, D. L., & Segerstrom, S. C. (1997). Toward construct validation of a
transfer climate instrument. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 8(2), 95–113.
Huint, P., & Saks, A. M. (2003). Translating training science into practice: A study of managers’ reactions
to posttraining transfer interventions. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 14(2), 181–198.
Hurtz, G. M., & Williams, K. J. (2009). Attitudinal and motivational antecedents of participation in
voluntary employee development activities. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(3), 635–653.
Hutchins, H. M., & Burke, L. A. (2007). Identifying trainers’ knowledge of training transfer research
findings – closing the gap between research and practice. International Journal of Training and Development,
11(4), 236–264.
*Hutchins, H. M., Burke, L. A., & Berthelsen, A. M. (2010). A missing link in the transfer problem?
Examining how trainers learn about training transfer. Human Resource Management, 49(4), 599–618.
73
Jodlbauer, S., Selenko, E., Batinic, B., & Stiglbauer, B. (2012). The relationship between job dissatisfaction
and training transfer. International Journal of Training and Development, 16(1), 39–53.
Johnson, S., Garrison, L., Hernez-Broome, G., Fleenor, J., & Steed, J. (2012). Go for the goal(s):
Relationship between goal setting and transfer of training following leadership development. Academy of
Management Learning and Education, 11(3), 555–569.
Kanfer, R., & Ackerman, P. L. P. (1989). Motivation and cognitive abilities: An integrative aptitude-
treatment interaction approach to skill acquisition. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(4), 657–690.
Karl, K. A., & Ungsrithong, D. (1992). Effects of optimistic versus realistic previews of training programs
on self-reported transfer of training. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 3(4), 373–384.
Kehr, H. M., Bles, P. & von Rosenstiel, L. (1999). Self-regulation, self-control, and management training
transfer. International Journal of Educational Research 31 (6): 487–498.
Keith, N., & Frese, M. (2008). Effectiveness of error management training: a meta-analysis. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 93(1), 59–69.
Kim, K., Oh, I.,S. Chiaburu, D.S., & Brown, K.G. (2012). Does positive perception of oneself boost
learning motivation and performance? International Journal of Selection and Assessment 20 (3): 257–271.
Kirkpatrick, D. L. (1998). Another look at evaluating training programs. Alexandria, VA: American Society for
Training & Development.
Klein, H. J., Noe, R. A., & Wang, C. (2006). Motivation to learn and course outcomes: The impact of
delivery mode, learning goal orientation, and perceived barriers and enablers. Personnel Psychology, 59(3),
665–702.
Konradt, U., Filip, R., & Hoffmann, S. (2003). Flow experience and positive affect during hypermedia
learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 34(3), 309–327.
Kontoghiorghes, C. (2002). Predicting motivation to learn and motivation to transfer learning back to the
job in a service organization: A new systemic model for training effectiveness. Performance Improvement
Quarterly, 15(3), 114–129.
Kontoghiorghes, C. (2004). Reconceptualizing the learning transfer conceptual framework: Empirical
validation of a new systemic model. International Journal of Training and Development, 8(3), 210–221.
Kossek, E., & Roberts, K. (1998). Career self-management: A quasi- experimental assessment of the
effects of a training intervention. Personnel Psychology, 51(4), 935–960.
Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Brown, K. G. (2000). A multilevel approach to training effectiveness: enhancing
horizontal and vertical transfer. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and
methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 157–210). San Francisco, CA, US:
Jossey-Bass.
Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Salas, E. (1997). A multilevel organizational systems approach for the
implementation and transfer of training. In K. J. Ford (Ed.), Improving training effectiveness in work
organizations (pp. 247– 287). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
74
Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Salas, E. (2009). Learning, training, and development in organizations. New York:
Psychology Press.
Kraiger, K. (2008). Transforming Our Models of Learning and Development: Web-Based Instruction as
Enabler of Third-Generation Instruction. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1(4), 454–467.
Kraiger, K., McLinden, D., & Casper, W. J. (2004). Collaborative planning for training impact. Human
Resource Management, 43(4), 337–351.
*Kraiger, K., Ford, J. K., & Salas, E. (1993). Application of cognitive, skill-based, and affective theories of
learning outcomes to new methods of training evaluation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(2), 311–328.
Laker, D. R. (1990). Dual dimensionality of training transfer. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 1(3), <