Collaborative planning for training impact

Kraiger, Kurt; McLinden, Daniel; Casper, Wendy J.

doi:10.1002/hrm.20028

Cited by 103 publications

(86 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The literature provides support to the first two components of this model, i.e., reaction and learning, as most of the TEs have focused primarily on them (Ban and Faerman, 1990) because these are usually assessed within the training setting and are easy to measure (Collins, 2008). In the beginning of this decade, empirical evidence revealed that among organizations participating in the American Society for Training Development's (ASTD) benchmarking service, 75% measured 'reaction' and 41% measured 'learning' (Kraiger et al, 2004). The other researches also endorse its popularity.…”

Section: Training Evaluationmentioning

confidence: 92%

See 1 more Smart Citation

An Empirical Analysis of the Relationship between Characteristics and Formative Evaluation of Training

Iqbal¹

2010

IBR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper attempted to signify the use of formative training evaluation. The authors carried out a study at three public-sector training institutions to empirically test the predicted relationship between training characteristics and formative training evaluation under the Kirkpatrick model i.e. reaction and learning. In addition, to study the causal linkage between components of formative training evaluation, the mediating role of reaction in the relationships between training characteristics and learning was also investigated. The principal finding revealed that a set of seven training characteristics explained 59% and 61% variance in reaction and learning respectively. All training characteristics were found to have positive impact on reaction and learning except training contents. For reaction, the most influencing training characteristic was training method followed by training management, training objectives, training environment, and trainer whereas for learning, the greatest variation was also explained by training methods but followed by trainer, training management, training environment, and training material. Moreover, reaction partially mediated the relationships between each training characteristic and learning. The study concluded with areas of future research emphasizing on linking formative evaluation with summative one i.e. behavior and results.

show abstract

Section: Training Evaluationmentioning

confidence: 92%

“…reaction. Time and resource pressures are the common reasons for this (Kraiger et al, 2004). However, in developed countries situation is comparatively better as they have realized that TE is not only a cost but a real essence of the training (Tennant et al, 2002).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An Empirical Analysis of the Relationship between Characteristics and Formative Evaluation of Training

Iqbal¹

2010

IBR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, train-ing and development is often viewed as a waste of resources, and are implemented just to comply with legal requirements. Training is also perceived by some organizations as a fad without linking the training to measurable results (Tharenou et al 2007;Caudron 2002;Kraiger et al 2004).…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, there is skepticism about the link between training and the results criteria. Training is often criticised for being faddish, too expensive, not transferring to the job, and not improving the bottom line (Bowers 2017;Caudron 2002;Kraiger et al 2004;Wright and Geroy 2001).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In other words, the ownership concentration, firm's size, and board structure play important roles in determining the success of the TDP, which is in line with the alignment theorem. Moreover, most of the research conducted in this area only evaluates TDP using reaction criteria (Alliger et al 1997;Kraiger 2003;Kraiger et al 2004), and surveys (Nguyen et al 2011;Ganotakis 2012). Hence this research aims to bridge the research gap in this area.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Training and Development Policy, Corporate Governance, and Firm Performance

2018

GADJAH MADA INT. J. BUS.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This research investigates the role of corporate governance as a moderator between firms' performance and their Training and Development Policy (TDP). Research data were taken from the US, Brazil, Russia, India, China and Indonesia from 2007 to 2013. This research found that the TDP is important for enhancing firm performance. Also, the role of the training and development policy impacted each firm's performance differently, according to the level of corporate governance of that firm. The moderating effect of corporate governance reveals that better governance of a firm may have an influence on its TDP policy, which would lead to better firm performance. Overall, the results are consistent with the conjecture that corporate governance influences the firm's performance and training and development policy, suggesting that the training and development policy's success depends on the corporate governance level of the firm. Hence, this research contributes to two big theories: the knowledge transfer theory and the human capital theory, where the research findings show a confirmation of the two theories application in this research context.

show abstract