1998
DOI: 10.1023/a:1004338522505
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Untitled

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

1999
1999
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5
1

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 16 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 3 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…It follows, therefore, that an issue prevalent in this study is that the considered training-retention data set is sparse, because each response from an SME owner/manager could be one of two forms of responses, either that they used the TA and gave a Likert-scale-based score on the level of satisfaction towards it or the SME did not use that TA so no score given. As such, the data are understandably sparse, an issue that can cause problems for the ability to pertinently analyse them using traditional analysis techniques (Huisman et al, 1998;Schafer and Graham, 2002;Olinsky et al, 2003;Di Nuovo, 2011).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It follows, therefore, that an issue prevalent in this study is that the considered training-retention data set is sparse, because each response from an SME owner/manager could be one of two forms of responses, either that they used the TA and gave a Likert-scale-based score on the level of satisfaction towards it or the SME did not use that TA so no score given. As such, the data are understandably sparse, an issue that can cause problems for the ability to pertinently analyse them using traditional analysis techniques (Huisman et al, 1998;Schafer and Graham, 2002;Olinsky et al, 2003;Di Nuovo, 2011).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%