Although organizations invest billions of dollars in training every year, many trained competencies reportedly fail to transfer to the workplace. Researchers have long examined the 'transfer problem', uncovering a wealth of information regarding the transfer of training. Inconsistencies remain, however, and organizations may find it difficult to pinpoint exactly which factors are most critical. Using Baldwin and Ford's model of transfer, we identify the factors relating to trainee characteristics (cognitive ability, self-efficacy, motivation, perceived utility of training), training design (behavioral modeling, error management, realistic training environments) and the work environment (transfer climate, support, opportunity to perform, follow-up) that have exhibited the strongest, most consistent relationships with the transfer of training. We describe our reasoning for extracting such variables from the literature and conclude by discussing potential implications for practice and future research.i jtd_373 103..120

A recent meta-analysis documented a significant statistical association between mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) (Adeyemo et al., 2014), but the direction of this effect was unclear. In this study, we hypothesized that ADHD would be an antecedent risk factor for mTBI. Participants were student athletes ages 12–25 who had sustained a mTBI and Controls of similar age and sex selected from studies of youth with and without ADHD. Subjects were assessed for symptoms of ADHD, concussion severity, and cognitive function. mTBI subjects had a significantly higher rate of ADHD than Controls, and in all cases the age of onset of ADHD was before mTBI onset. mTBI+ADHD subjects also had more severe concussion symptoms (fatigue and poor concentration) than mTBI-ADHD subjects. These results support ADHD as an antecedent risk factor for mTBI in student athletes and that its presence complicates the course of mTBI.

Objective: The aim of this study was to review literature relevant to cohesion measurement, explore developing measurement approaches, and provide theoretical and practical recommendations for optimizing cohesion measurement.Background: Cohesion is essential for team effectiveness and performance, leading researchers to focus attention on understanding how to enhance it. However, cohesion is inconsistently defined and measured, making it difficult to compare findings across studies and limiting the ability to advance science and practice.Method: We reviewed empirical research through which we uncovered specific information about cohesion's conceptualization, measurement, and relationships with performance, culminating in a set of current trends from which we provide suggestions and possible solutions to guide future efforts and help the field converge toward greater consistency.Results: Cohesion demonstrates more significant relationships with performance when conceptualized using social and task (but not other) dimensions and when analyses are performed at the team level. Cohesion is inherently temporal, yet researchers rarely measure cohesion at multiple points during the life of a team. Finally, cohesion matters in large, dynamic collectives, complicating measurement. However, innovative and unobtrusive methodologies are being used, which we highlight.Conclusion: Practitioners and researchers are encouraged to define cohesion with task and social subdimensions and to measure with behavioral and attitudinal operationalizations. Individual and team-oriented items are recommended, though teamlevel analyses are most effective. Innovative/unobtrusive methods should be further researched to enable cohesion measurement longitudinally and in large, dynamic collectives.Application: By applying our findings and conclusions, researchers and practitioners will be more likely to find consistent, reliable, and significant cohesion-to-performance relationships.

No abstract

No abstract