Transfer of training: does it trulyhappen?

An examination of support, instrumentality,retention and learner readiness on the transfer

motivation and transfer of training

Muhammad Awais BhattiCollege of Business, School of Business Management,University Utara Malaysia, Sintok-Kedah, Malaysia

Mohamed Mohamed BattourFaculty of Commerce, Tanta University, Tanta, Egypt

Veera Pandiyan Kaliani SundramFaculty of Business Management, Universiti Teknologi MARA,

Segamat, Johor, Malaysia, and

Akmal Aini OthmanFaculty of Business Management, Universiti Teknologi MARA,

Segamat, Johor, Malaysia

AbstractPurpose – The purpose of this study is to highlight the importance of selected environmental,situational and individual factors in the training transfer process.

Design/methodology/approach – This study proposes and tests a framework via structuralequation modelling by including supervisor and peer support, instrumentality and learner readinesson 503 Malaysian bank employees. It proposes a modified and improved scale for learner readinesspreviously developed by Holton et al..

Findings – As hypothesized, supervisor and peer support increase the motivation level of the traineeto transfer the learned skills. The findings of this study will help researchers to resolve the conflictamong past researchers about the role of peer and supervisor support in training transfer process. Inaddition, an improved scale of learner readiness is used and the result indicates a significantrelationship between learner readiness and transfer motivation. Furthermore, this study explains theimportance of intrinsic rewards and finds that intrinsic rewards make trainees retain more skills andlearned skills are transferred to the work place.

Practical implications – The findings of this research would be helpful for human resourcedevelopment professionals to develop effective strategies in order to maximize the training transferand effectively manage the training program. The findings of this research explained the role ofstakeholders – trainers, trainees, supervisors, peers and top management – which will maximize thetraining transfer at the work place.

Originality/value – This paper examines new relationships among different factors which resisttransfer motivation and training transfer at the workplace.

Keywords Environmental support, Instrumentality, Transfer motivation, Training transfer,Learner readiness, Phased trainee supports, Malaysia, Training

Paper type Research paper

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/2046-9012.htm

Dr Muhammad Awais Bhatti would like to acknowledge Dr Ayesh Ashfaq for her moral supportand encouragement.

Transfer oftraining: does it

truly happen?

273

Received 5 April 2012Revised 3 June 2012

31 October 201221 November 2012

Accepted 15 January 2013

European Journal of Training andDevelopment

Vol. 37 No. 3, 2013pp. 273-297

q Emerald Group Publishing Limited2046-9012

DOI 10.1108/03090591311312741

1. IntroductionTraining transfer is one of the important elements in the training effectiveness criteriawhich help the employees and organizations to improve their performance. Previousresearchers have highlighted numerous factors which affect training effectiveness. Inthis regard, studies by Baldwin and Ford (1988) have found that factors such astrainee, training design, and work environment factors assist in optimising the transferof training at the workplace. Other factors found to affect the outcomes of trainingincluded career planning, organizational commitment, organizational climate aspointed by Colquitt et al. (2000). In addition, Holton’s (1996) work in the form ofLearning Transfer System Inventory (LTSI) model adds value in the transfer oftraining literature.

The main objectives of training activities are the provision of skills, abilities andknowledge to employees to achieve organizational objectives and organizations. Theseobjectives can only be achieved when employees transfer the learned skills that impactfirms strategically. However, evidences from various researchers have reported thatsuch transfers have not taken place. For example, some of the many reasons thatexplain the lack of classroom or online training transfer at workplace were highlightedby Ford (2009). Mackay (2007) pointed out that organizations are not getting theirexpected results from employee training. This could be attributed to the choice offactors in the study of training transfer and as such Scaduto et al. (2008) suggested thatit is important to test those variables which have been ignored or less focused by theresearchers in past studies. In addition, Kauffeldd and Lehmann-Willenbrock (2010)advocated that researchers and training professionals need to put more efforts ontraining transfer. Hence, the purpose of this study is to highlight the role andimportance of those factors such as supervisor- and peer roles, which are proposed tocontribute to the training transfer theory. However, a search of the literature showedthat previous researchers have not been able to get fruitful results from their researchabout the roles of supervisor and peer in training transfer. One possible reason behindthese conflicting results could be the lack of understanding about the kind of support ateach level of training. In addition, this study discusses the role of peer and supervisorsupport in a slightly different perspective and proposes the relationship betweendifferent variables to build a strong training transfer theory.

2. Factors affecting transfer of trainingA well-known framework for the transfer problem put forward by Baldwin and Ford(1988) posited that transfer is a function of three factors, namely namely, traineecharacteristic (or individual factors), work environment (or environmental factors) andtraining design factors (or situational factors). Trainee characteristics include ability orskills, motivation, and personality factors. Work environment includes climate factorssuch as supervisory or peer support as well as constraints and opportunities to performlearned behavior on the job. Training design factors include principles of learning,sequencing and training content, learning retention. Baldwin and Ford further arguedthat examination of transfer issues requires a clear understanding of what is meant bytransfer as well as the identification of factors that affect transfer.

Holton et al. (1997) explained that learning affects the individual performance whichleads to organizational performance. They also stated that individual characteristicsand perceptions of environmental forces influence individual performance.

EJTD37,3

274

Furthermore, environmental factors which include feedback, peer support, supervisorsupport, openness to change, personal outcomes also affected the individualperformance.

Another model developed by Guerrero and Sire (2001) was empirically tested byusing Baldwin and Ford’s (1988) foundation that included individual variables(age/seniority), organizational variables (voluntary action, information on trainingprogram and support of supervisor) training motivation (self-efficacy andinstrumentality) and training results (learning and satisfaction). Their model showedthat age (through collinearity, seniority) is negatively related with self-efficacy andfeelings (“training will affect my career”). Furthermore, they explained that age has nosignificant relationship with workers’ perception that training influences skillsdevelopment.

2.1 Training transferTraining transfer has gained much attention from researchers and trainingprofessionals. Among the four levels of Kirkpatrick’s training effectiveness model,reaction and learning play important roles, and training transfer helps organizationsand employees achieve their aims with more effective performance. Based on thispremise, Holton (1996) developed the LTSI model and considered 16 factors, which arelikely to influence the transfer of training in the work place. In addition, otherresearchers (Gist et al., 1991; Tracey and Tews, 2005; Tai, 2006) have highlighted manyfactors that influence training outcomes using Kirkpatrick’s model.

Holton et al. (1997) defined transfer of training as “the degree to which traineesapply to their job the knowledge, skills, behavior and attitudes they gained intraining”. Huczynski and Lewis (1980) described that the individual characteristics,work environment and supervisor support influence the transfer of learning andproposed that the researchers should find out other factors which affect the transfer oflearning for effective learning transfer. Noe (1986) worked on the training transferfactors and described individual factors which includes individual attitude andattributes effects on the motivation to learn. A well known framework for the transferproblem (Baldwin and Ford, 1988) suggested that transfer is a function of three factors:trainee characteristics which includes ability or skills, motivation, and personalityfactors, work environment which includes climate factors such as supervisory or peersupport as well as constraints and opportunities to perform learned behavior on thejob, training design factors which includes principles of learning, sequencing andtraining content, learning retention. They further argued that researcher shouldhighlight the factors which play important role in training transfer.

Kirwan and Birchall (2006) tested the Holton and Bates model and found thatlearner readiness affects transfer motivation directly and transfer motivation effect onthe learner personal capacity for transfer. To extend the boundaries of trainingtransfer, Velada et al. (2007) that transfer design, performance self-efficacy, trainingretention and performance feedback were significantly related to transfer of training.

With the further development, Liebermann and Hoffmann (2008) developed anothertraining transfer model by using (Baldwin and Ford, 1988) work and (Kirkpatrick,1976) training evaluation model and found that perceived practical relevance effect onthe participant affective reaction and also influence the transfer motivation and actualtransfer. Nikandrou et al. (2009) present an empirical study based on a trainee-oriented

Transfer oftraining: does it

truly happen?

275

systematic model for training transfer. With the development of the research, theresearchers and training professionals further classify these factors. Differentresearchers have identified different factors that directly or indirectly affect thetransfer of learning. These factors categorize as individual, situational, environmentalor contextual and training design factors. Holton et al. (1997) explain the concept oftraining transfer and define transfer of training as the degree to which trainees apply totheir jobs the knowledge, skills behavior, and attitudes they gained in training.

The purpose of this study is to explain and highlight those factors which influencetransfer motivation and transfer of training. This study will be helpful to bothresearchers and practitioners to focus more on the important ingredients of the trainingprogram. The ensuing paragraphs illustrate the factors and the respective hypothesesaffecting the transfer of training. The first to be discussed is learner readiness.

2.2 Learner readinessHolton et al. (2000, 2007) defined learner readiness as “the extent to which individualsare prepared to enter and participate in training” (page 183). According to Bates et al.(2007), there is lack of empirical research between training transfer and other variablesin LTSI like learner readiness, transfer design and performance coaching. From anearlier study, Facteau et al. (1995) advocated that learner readiness play important rolein order to maintain training reputation. A more recent study by Payne et al. (2008)measured learner readiness in terms of retention of relevant knowledge and skills; anddisposition or motivation to retrieving and applying such knowledge. They found thatlearning transfer is at a higher level when trainees are confident to retain theknowledge and motivated to apply such knowledge. This showed that trainees whohave knowledge about the training program and are motivated to apply suchknowledge are more likely to transfer learning.

Bates et al. (2007) put forward the learner readiness concept in terms of:. a program that affects the performance;. understanding about job related developments;. expectations from training; and. expected outcomes at the beginning of the training.

The work of Kirwan and Birchall (2006) showed that motivation to transfer andperformance self-efficacy correlated with similar factors, such as learner readiness,transfer design, perceived content validity and opportunity to use. There is also somenotion that these factors may work collectively. In a similar study, Kirwan and Birchall(2006) found that learner readiness exerted a significant effect and proposed thatlearner readiness directly affect motivation to transfer.

The concept of learner readiness can be viewed with some other items (Awais andSharan, 2010). Furthermore, Awais and Sharan (2010) suggested that researchershould empirically test the role of learner readiness in training transfer process byincluding these two items:

(1) basic skills to perform different activities during training; and

(2) basic knowledge about different tasks which the trainee needs to performduring training.

EJTD37,3

276

In the item (1) basic skills refers to interpersonal skills, team spirit, social grace and ITskills etc. If the trainee have these basic skills, they can better perform trainingactivities. In other words, these basic skills enable the learner to be ready to performdifferent training task. The possible explanation for including these two factors in thelearner readiness scale is to know the level of understanding of the trainee abouttraining activities, which they need to perform during training. These two factors canbe more important, when, for example, the trainee is about to learn a new technologyand when it is required by the management on their trainee to learn the newtechnology. In such a scenario, the trainee should have basic knowledge about thetechnology to perform well and learn more skills during training. Normally, the traineeneeds these skills when training contents are not similar with the job or the purpose ofthe training is to provide new knowledge and skills to the trainee. In this study, theconcept of learner readiness as defined by Bates et al. (2007) is proposed and tested byincluding two items to confirm the relationship and role of this factor in the trainingtransfer theory. These two items are:

(1) “Before the training, I had basic skills to perform different tasks duringtraining”; and

(2) “Prior to the training, I had basic knowledge about training activities”, whichwere supposed to be performed during the training.

Past researchers (Payne et al., 2008; Kirwan and Birchall, 2006) examined the role oflearner readiness and found that learner readiness influence training transfer mediatedby transfer motivation. Therefore, this study will examine the similar relationship butwith the modified scale of learner readiness as suggested by Awais and Sharan (2010).From these two premise, the following hypothesis is developed:

H1. Transfer motivation mediates the relationship between learner readiness andtraining transfer.

The subsequent factor proposed to affect the transfer of training is peer support, whichis explained in the next section.

2.3 Peer supportWith regard to the effectiveness of training, social support plays an important role.Peer support has been defined by Holton et al. (1996, p. 183) as the “extent to whichpeers reinforce and support the use of learning on the job”. Hence, social support isviewed as an important component for effective training. Baldwin and Ford (1988)argued that social support from top management, supervisor, peers and subordinatesinfluenced training effectiveness. This viewpoint that top management and colleagues’support play important roles in training effectiveness was reinforced by Chen (2007).

Nijman et al. (2006) suggested that peers’ behavior in terms of motivation andsupport help trainees to maximize the training transfer at the workplace. A review ofthe past research showed that peer support positively influences motivation to transfer(Seyler et al., 1998). A more recent study by Holton et al. (2007) found that among socialsupport factors, peer support has greater impact on past training behavior andmotivation to transfer. This was in line with the work of Kirwan and Birchall (2006)who posited that peer support positively influences transfer motivation and thesefindings are consistent with Holton et al. (2007). Furthermore, Facteau et al. (1995)

Transfer oftraining: does it

truly happen?

277

found that peer support positively influences training transfer but does not influencepre-training motivation. However, in contrast to this, Ruona et al. (2002) found that peersupport has positive influence on motivation to transfer. Nevertheless, Bates et al.(2007) argued that environmental support has not effect on training transfer and theseresults are consistent with van der Klink et al.’ (2001) study. However, the evidencesfrom Tracey et al. (1995) found that supervisors and co-workers’ encouragement oflearning and the use of trained skills on the job may be crucial elements in the transferenvironment. Thus, the results of past studies are mixed; indicating the need to furtherinvestigate the effects of peer support on transfer, pre-training motivation and transfermotivation, respectively.

In this study, the factors of time and type of support needed by the trainee atdiffering phases were taken into consideration. Social support was divided into threephases: pre-training, during training and post-training, in which the types of peersupport at each training phase is differentiated. This suggests that a trainee requiresdiffering types of peer support at each phase. The literature showed that variousresearchers differed in their measurement of peer support for each of the stages. In thestudy by Noe and Schmitt (1986), they measured peer support as “peers’ caring aboutapplying new knowledge” which was used as a scale by Chiaburu and Marinova(2005); Chiaburu and Tekleab (2005). From these studies, the researchers found thatpeer support was positively related to pre-training motivation and skills transfer.However, Facteau et al. (1995) measured peer support in terms of “peers’encouragement of incorporating new learning” and found that peer support isrelated with skills transfer but not with pre-training motivation. Pidd (2004) measuredpeers support in terms of expectations and behavior and proposed the moderating roleof peers support between trainees identified with workplace groups and trainingtransfer. Furthermore, Seyler et al. (1998) measured peer support as “peers’appreciation for using new skills”, “peers’ encouragement for using new skills”,“peers’ expectations” and “peers’ behavior” against training transfer and found thatpeer support influenced transfer motivation and training transfer. Taking into accountthe conflicting findings of these researchers, this study proposes that researchers haveto first of all highlight the type of peer support trainees need at each stage of training.Furthermore, when developing the peer support scale, researchers should classify thepeer support that trainees need before, during and after training. So far this study onlyfocused on peer support after training and after careful consideration of differentscales, this study have selected Holton (1996) scale in order to examine the influence ofpeer support on transfer motivation and training transfer. With this in mind and thepreceding literature on peer support the H2 hypothesis is developed:

H2. Transfer motivation mediates the relationship between peer support andtraining transfer.

With regards to social support, supervisor support is an important variable in atrainee’s transfer motivation, in which case the past researches are highlighted in thefollowing paragraphs.

2.4 Supervisor supportAnother factor in the concept of social peripheries boundaries is supervisor support.According to Goldstein and Ford (2002), the role of the supervisor in the area of

EJTD37,3

278

training effectiveness is crucial. Transfer of training forms an important part in thetraining effectiveness criteria and prior research has confirmed the importance ofsupervisor support for transfer of training (Awoniyi et al., 2002; Al Gumuseli andErgin, 2002) and the effect of supervisor support on training motivation (Clark et al.,1993; Facteau et al., 1995; Gregoire et al., 1998; Chiaburu and Marinova, 2005; Chiaburuand Tekleab, 2005; Velada et al., 2007). Supervisor support has been defined by Nijmanet al. (2006) as “the extent to which the supervisor behaves in a way that optimizesemployees’ use on the job of the knowledge, skills and attitudes gained in training”.Past studies have shown that supervisor support does not directly influence trainingoutcomes (Facteau et al., 1995; Ven der Klink et al., 2001; Chiaburu and Marinova, 2005;Chiaburu and Tekleab, 2005). However, it influences training outcomes throughmotivation to transfer (Nijman et al., 2006). From a past study by Seyler et al. (1998), itwas identified that within social support criteria, supervisor support was lesssignificant in predicting transfer motivation against peer support. In a later study,Bates et al. (2007) found that social factors do not predict the transfer of training. Arecent study by Liebermann and Hoffmann (2008) lends support to this results inwhich they posited that social factor criteria did not affect much influence on themotivation for training transfer. However, in contrast, many other studies found thatsocial support factors positively influence training transfer (Monesino, 2002;Smith-Jentsch et al., 2001; Warr et al., 1999). Moreover, Tracey et al. (1995) identifiedthe conditions for transfer could be positively influenced by elements such assupervisor and co-workers who encourage learning and the use of trained skills in theirwork.

As with other factors in the social support context, supervisor support also faces thesame issues related to the time and type of support required by the trainee at eachtraining stage. However, past researchers have been overlapping the supervisorsupport at each training stage. For example, Chiaburu and Marinova (2005) andChiaburu and Tekleab (2005) measured supervisor support in terms of “employeedevelopment”, “practice new skills” and “constant reminder to apply skills”. Theirstudy showed that there is no relationship between supervisor support and skillstransfer. Conversely, Facteau et al. (1995) measured supervisor support in terms of“supervisor tolerant of changes” and found that supervisor support is positivelyrelated to pre-training motivation. Furthermore, Lim and Johnson’ (2002) evaluation ofsupervisor support proposed three factors that were more closely related to the transferof training, namely “discussion with supervisor to use new learning”, “supervisor’sinvolvement or familiarization with the training” and “receiving positive feedbackfrom supervisor”.

After a careful evaluation of the supervisor support at the third stage of training(after training), we concluded that researchers who found the effect of supervisorsupport on transfer (Brinkerhoff and Montesino, 1995; Prop-Huiban and Bouhsina,1998) measured support in terms of “information sharing” “direct feedback regardingperformance” and “provision of resource or incentives”. In the study by Nijman et al.(2006), they measured supervisor support in terms of “supervisor’s opportunity toapply learned skills” and found that supervisor support have no direct effect ontraining transfer when taking into account the motivation to transfer. Similarly,Liebermann and Hoffmann (2008) measured supervisor support in terms of supervisorinterest in training and support for transfer and found no considerable influence on

Transfer oftraining: does it

truly happen?

279

transfer motivation. Finally, Velada et al. (2007) measured supervisor support in termsof “ways to apply training on the job”, “problems in using training”, “interest intraining”, “feedback on performance” and “goals to apply training on the job” andfound effects on transfer motivation.

The results discussed in the above sections clearly did not differentiate the type ofassistance required at each phase of training. For instance, the type of elements thatinfluenced the pre-training motivation at the initial phase of training (pre-training) orthe kind of assistance which influenced the transfer motivation criteria or the kind ofsuperior assistance that increased the level of transfer at the last phase (post-training)were not studied. Thus, in studying the superior role in these context can beneficial forscholars in highlighting the level of superior support obtained in the different phase oftraining and its consequence implication in the training transfer theory. So far thisstudy only focused on supervisor support after training and after careful considerationof different scales, this study have selected Holton (1996) scale in order to examine theinfluence of supervisor support on transfer motivation and training transfer.Therefore, based on this premise, the following hypothesis is developed:

H3. Transfer motivation mediates the relationship between supervisor supportand training transfer.

After learner readiness and social support have been hypothesized to support the levelof transfer motivation, the subsequent variable to be examined is instrumentality,which is the content of the following section.

2.5 InstrumentalityInstrumentality is defined by Guerrero and Sire (2001) as “individuals’ perceptions thattheir efforts in training will enable them to gain rewards at work”. According to Sire(1993), trainees expect two types of rewards for their training efforts which can becategorized as intrinsic (such as interesting work and content of activity assigned) andextrinsic (such as remuneration and career possibilities). In a related study byTharenou (2001) it was found that instrumentality (intrinsic and extrinsic rewards)positively influence transfer motivation. Thus, instrumentality (intrinsic and extrinsicrewards) has been useful in explaining that employees do not transfer the learned skillsat the workplace if they do not believe that their training efforts will lead toimprovement in their work, career or remuneration (Clark et al., 1993; Facteau et al.,1995; Noe, 1986). The study by Condry (1977) showed that while extrinsicallymotivated individuals might appear to work harder, their performance is likely to be ofa lower quality- more error prone and more stereotyped then the intrinsicallymotivated counterparts. This finding was substantiated by Kontoghiorghes (2001)who reported that extrinsic rewards, such as remunerations and commendations, aswell as punishment for failing to use the new skills and knowledge do not influencetraining retention. In contrast to extrinsic rewards, intrinsic rewards such ascommendations and acclamation for using the newly acquired skills and knowledgeobtained in training proved to be a more pertinent variable. Guerrero and Sire (2001)argued that French workers seldom perceive their participation in training as astepping-stone to change or to adapt to professional condition and workers do notnecessarily perceive training as beneficial for their personal development. Noe (1986)posits that the expected consequences of the use of training on the job are believed to

EJTD37,3

280

have a major effect on this transfer, if only by means of trainee motivation. This putforward the notion that if the trainee perceives that the skills he/she acquired duringtraining will result in intrinsic or extrinsic rewards, then the trainee will be moremotivated to transfer the learned skills to the work place and will keep more skills fortransfer.

From instrumentality, the focus shifts to training retention which is suggested toaffect the transfer of training, and is described in the next section.

2.6 Training retentionAfter completion of training, the trainee cannot effectively transfer the training unlessand until he or she has the capacity to retain the training. Velada et al. (2007) advocatedthat training retention is similar to the cognitive ability and is the degree to which thetrainee retains the content after training is completed. Wexley and Latham (2002)suggest that although approximately 40 percent of content is transferred immediatelyfollowing training, the amount transferred falls 25 percent after six months and 15percent after one year. With the progression of time, Velada et al. (2007) reported thattrainees might not be able or become less inclined to keep and use the informationobtained in the training program. This finding was in line with that of Baldwin andFord (1988) who argued that only 10 percent of all training experiences are transferredfrom the training environment to the job. Hence, Noe et al. (2006) proposed that afterlearning and retaining content, the trainee should transfer the knowledge and skillsaccrued to the work context with the intention of improving his or her job performanceover time. In order to facilitate the transfer process, Velada et al. (2007) showed thattrainees must have the ability to retain the knowledge instilled during the trainingprogram. In a similar vein, Kontoghiorghes (2001) found that retention of trainingmaterial significantly correlated with the development of goals and objectives. In thesame study he found that intrinsic rewards were (praise and recognition) significantlycorrelated with training retention. These findings support the work of Baldwin andFord (1988) who argued that learning retention outcomes are directly associated withthe generalization and maintenance of training effects on the job. In the same study,they suggested that in order for trained skills to be transferred, they must be learnt andretained.

In the past, researchers have been focusing on the concept of retention of knowledgein the educational sector and highlighted different factors, which resist students toretain the knowledge. A search of the literature showed that only a few researchersincluded this concept in the training transfer theory (Awais and Sharan, 2010).Unfortunately, Human Resource Development (HRD) professionals and researchershave in the past ignored the concept of training retention in the training transfertheory. Thus, it is an opportune time for researchers to determine the factors whichenable trainees to retain more skills. Subsequently, retention of skills will lead to anincreased level of training transfer.

In this research, the dual roles of the instrumentality factor are proposed. The firstof such role is the trainee’s expectations from training outcomes in terms of intrinsic orextrinsic rewards, which lead to a rise in the level of transfer motivation. Second, whichtype of the two rewards (intrinsic or extrinsic) that will cause higher encouragement onthe trainee to retain the learned skills and transfer to the work place in order to get theexpected outcomes. Within this objective in mind, the researchers proposed to

Transfer oftraining: does it

truly happen?

281

empirically test the dual role of instrumentality which will contribute towards buildinga strong training transfer theory. Thus, the proposed hypotheses to be tested are asfollows:

H4a. Transfer motivation mediates the relationship between instrumentality(intrinsic rewards) and training transfer.

H4b. Training retention mediates the relationship between intrinsic rewards andtraining transfer.

Transfer motivation is the final variable to be discussed in the following paragraph.

2.7 Transfer motivationTransfer motivation has been identified as a key element in the training transferprocess. Bates et al. (2007) defined transfer motivation as the direction, intensity andpersistence of effort towards utilizing in a work setting skills and knowledge learned.In other words, motivation to transfer can be viewed as the trainee’s desire to use onthe job, the knowledge and skills that have been learned in a training program (Axtellet al., 1997; Noe, 1986). Within a training context, motivation can influence thewillingness of employees to transfer what they learnt in the programme onto the job(Baldwin and Ford, 1988). The studies by Axtell et al. (1997) showed that traineetransfer motivation was positively associated with short-term transfer and long-termtransfer after returning to their work sites. Consequently, there are many factors thataffect a trainee’s motivation to transfer, such as, learner readiness, supervisor and peersupport, training design and perceived content validity. Transfer motivation has beenproposed by Holton et al. (1997) as the most crucial precondition for the trainee to applytraining contents to the workplace. However, a review of the literature showed thatmost of the research work have not added transfer motivation (Colquitt et al., 2000)except for the work of Kirwan and Birchall (2006) and Liebermann and Hoffmann(2008) who found a significant relationship between transfer motivation and transfer.While adding a new group of variables affecting transfer motivation, there is thereforea need to further probe the effects of transfer motivation on transfer. The followinghypothesis to be tested is:

H5. The higher the transfer motivation, the higher the transfer of training contenton the job.

3. MethodologyThe aim of this study is to evaluate the transfer of training in the Malaysian Bankingsector. The data has been collected from 503 employees of 11 Malaysian banks. 46bank branches have been randomly selected from the Klang valley which is theeconomic hub of Malaysia. We have selected every third branch out of 138 bankbranches located within Klang valley. The respondents comprised of those who haveattended the Financial Sector Talent Enrichment Programme (FSTEP) trainingprogram (minimum three months before and maximum 12 months). Among thedifferent policies and strategies implemented by the government to provide strongfoundation to the Malaysian financial sector. One of the most important initiativestaken by the government is to provide trained financial professionals to the financialsector. In this regard, Bank Negara (Central Bank of Malaysia) launched one

EJTD37,3

282

programme in collaboration with Institute of Bankers Malaysia (IBBM), namelyFinancial Sector Talent Enrichment Programme (FSTEP). The objective of thisprogramme is to produce highly trained financial industry professionals to have anexciting career in the financial industry. The institute provides training in four corefinancial areas which are conventional banking, Investment banking, Islamic bankingand Insurance/Takaful. By following the structure of this programme, FSTEPprovides an intensive one year technical training in the banking sector.

A total of 1,000 questionnaires were distributed and 528 completed questionnaireswere returned. Of the questionnaires, 25 were discarded because of illogical anduncompleted responses. The remaining 503 questionnaires were used for furtheranalysis. No statistically significant differences were found between the participants ofthe study and the complete sample of the trainees, with regard to gender, age, trainingperiod and job position.

3.1 MeasurementTo measure the variables, the researcher used 43 statements adopted from previousresearch. The respondents were asked to mark a number, on a five-point Likert scalefrom 1 to 5 for each statement where 1 indicates strongly disagree to 5, which meansstrongly agree. Learner readiness measured with 5 items such as “Training willincrease my personal productivity”; peer support measured with three items such as“At work my colleagues expect me to use what I learn in training”; supervisor supportmeasured with 3 items such as “my supervisor meet with me to discuss ways to applylearning at the job”; and transfer motivation measured with three items such as“training will increase my personal productivity”; were assessed as proposed byHolton (1996). As discussed earlier, researchers should classify peer and supervisorsupport before, during and after training and develop scale accordingly. Holton (1996)scales purely assessed peer and supervisor support after training and all items in thesescales present the kind of training which trainee need after training. Therefore, peerand supervisor support scale developed by Holton (1996) fulfil the criteria of this study.Instrumentality was assessed as proposed by Guerrero and Sire (2001) with sevenitems such as “training increases my autonomy at work”. Retention was assessed asproposed by Velada et al. (2007) with three items such as “I still remember the maintopics what I have learned in the training course”. Training transfer was assessed asproposed by Tesluk et al. (1995) with three items such as “I have been incorporatinglearned skills into daily work activities”.

3.2 Statistical techniquesStructural equation modeling (Amos 16) was used to test the suggested model.Structural equation modeling (SEM) is a family of statistical models that seek toexplain the relationship between multiple variables (Hair et al., 2006). SEM has becomeone of the popular statistical tools to test the relationships proposed in a parsimoniousmodel (Cheng, 2007). In addition, Byrne (2001) pointed out that this technique isappropriately used:

[. . .] when the researcher has some knowledge of the underlying latent variables structure.Based on knowledge of the theory, empirical research, or both, he or she postulates relationsbetween observed measures and the underlying factors a prior and then tests thishypothesized structure statistically.

Transfer oftraining: does it

truly happen?

283

Cheng (2007) suggested that SEM is better statistical technique then other multivariatetechniques including multiple regression, path analysis and factor analysis. Inaddition, Hair et al. (2006) claims that “SEM has been advocated because it can expandthe explanatory ability and statistical efficiency for model testing with a singlecomprehensive method”.Structural equation modeling researchers propose a two step procedure when testingtheoretical models (Medsker et al., 1994). The first step is to examine and validate themeasurement model, with the second step testing the structural model and conductinghypothesis tests (Garver and Williams, 2009).

CFA defines the relationship between the latent variables and their indicatorvariables. Normally CFA used to specify the indicators for each construct by assessingthe extent to which the observed variables are measuring the hypothesized latentconstruct as well as measuring something other than the latent construct, anddetermining the best indicators for a particular construct. The relationships betweenobserved and latent variables are expressed by factor loadings that inform researchersabout the extent to which a given indicator is able to measure the variable or functionsas validity coefficients. In addition, CFA compares the solution found against ahypothetical one (Bryman and Cramer, 2001). Confirmatory factor analysis instructural equation modeling (SEM) is refine and validate the measurement model(Garver and Williams, 2009) Awoniyi et al. (2002) proposed that confirmatory factoranalysis (CFA) examine the uniqueness of the construct and test the hypotheses inmore appropriate way.

Therefore, to analyze the research data, two steps method was used by using Amos16. At first step, measurement model (factor) analyses evaluated the contribution ofeach item to the construct (latent variables) being assessed. Then at the second step,the structural model was tested to determine the strength of the hypothesizedrelationships between the constructs.

CFA defines the relationship between the latent and their indicator variables.Normally CFA used to specify the indicators for each construct by assessing the extentto which the observed variables are measuring the hypothesized latent construct aswell as measuring something other than the latent construct, and determining the bestindicators for a particular construct. The relationships between observed and latentvariables are expressed by factor loadings that inform researchers about the extent towhich a given indicator is able to measure the variable or functions as validitycoefficients. In addition, CFA compares the solution found against a hypothetical oneBryman and Cramer (2001). Confirmatory factor analysis in structural equationmodeling (SEM) is refine and validate the measurement model (Garver and Williams,2009) In addition, Georges (2008) proposed that confirmatory factor analysis (CFA)examine the uniqueness of the construct and test the hypotheses in more appropriateway.

3.3 Reliability and validityConfirmatory factor analysis showed that all factor loadings and path coefficient werestatistically significant. The t values were above the required value of 1.96. Reliabilityof all constructs were above 0.60 (Bagozzi and Yi, 1988), as shown in Table I. Thesehigh and significant loadings indicated good convergence validity (Bagozzi et al., 1991).

EJTD37,3

284

For all factors, chi-square difference by far exceeded the critical value of chi-squarediff ¼ 3:84 (p , 0:05; d:f: ¼ 1) (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988; Bentler and Bonett,1980). Thus, statistically significant differences between the base model and restrictedmodels, as well as discriminate validity of the measurement scales, can be assumed.

4. ResultsTo test the structural model, different measures have been selected for model fit. Withreference to chi-square goodness-of-fit indices statistic, Chin et al. (2008) argued thatchi-square goodness-of-fit indices can be used to evaluate model fit but based onpsychometrics principles, it tend not to be considered as a reliable guide for modeladequacy (Hu and Bentler, 1999). That is because the actual size of the test statisticdepends not only on model adequacy (Chin et al., 2008) but also on which one amongseveral chi-square tests is used, as well as other conditions (Hu and Bentler, 1999). Thisstatistic has no upper limit and as such its value is not interpretable in a standardizeway (Kline, 2005). Therefore, we have selected alternative measures of fit like RMSEA,CFI, AGFI, CMIN/DF, TLI and IFI. For these measures of goodness-of-fit are based onvarious cut-off criteria (Byrne, 2001)

For the goodness-of-fit indices like RMSEA, CFI, AGFI, CMIN/DF, TLI and IFI, it isimportant to be aware that there is no distinction made in terms of degree of fit fordifferences in fit indexes beyond the cut-off point (Chin et al., 2008). For RMSEA, avalue less than 0.05 indicates a good fit (Byrne, 2001, p. 85) while a value which is morethan 0.05 but lesser than 0.11 can indicate average fit (Chen et al., 2008) but a valueabove 0.10, the fit is said to be poor (Byrne, 2001, p. 89).

CFI ranges from zero to one (Byrne, 2001). Researchers consider Comparative fitindex (CFI) . 0:90 indicate adequate fit (Cleveland et al., 2009; Chen et al., 2008; Bealand Dawson, 2007; Chau, 1997). Adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI) . 0:80indicates good fit (Beal and Dawson, 2007; Chau, 1997). With reference to CMIN/df , 3indicate good fit (Beal and Dawson, 2007; Byrne, 2001; Chau, 1997). Tucker-Lewisindex (TLI) . 0.89 indicate adequate fit (Loibl et al., 2009). Finally, IFI $ 0.90 canconsider good model fit (Lai, 2009). The results of the goodness of fit measures shownin Tables II and III indicate a model fit.

Based on Table IV, instrumentality has a stronger direct effect on transfermotivation (effect ¼ 0:313) and at the same time have considerable effect on trainingretention (effect ¼ 0:226). In addition, peer support, supervisor support and learnerreadiness effect training transfer through transfer motivation. Moreover, trainingretention and transfer motivation directly affect training transfer.

Constructs Reliability

Instrumentality 0.791Learner readiness 0.781Motivation to transfer 0.796Peer support 0.806Supervisor support 0.779Training retention 0.851Training transfer 0.783

Table I.Reliability of the Scale

Transfer oftraining: does it

truly happen?

285

Table V displays a summary of the hypotheses, which shows that all structural pathsare statistically significant. H1 postulates that if a trainee has a clear understandingabout the training program before it began, he/she would be more motivated totransfer the learned skills (H1 ¼ 0:252). Subsequently, if the trainee has peer support,he/she would be more motivated to transfer the learned skills (H2 ¼ 0:277). Inaddition, supervisor support in terms of setting goals, discussing ways to applylearned skills and solving the problems also motivate the trainee to increase transfer(H3 ¼ 0:206). With reference to instrumentality, intrinsic rewards motivate the traineemore to maximize the transfer (H4a ¼ 0:521) but these rewards also make the traineeto retain the learned skills and transfer (H4b ¼ 0:350). Finally, H5 (0.400) postulatesthat the trainee’s level of transfer motivation increases the training transfer at theworkplace.

The results of this study’s t-value (t ¼ 2:320; t . 1:96; Hair et al., 2006) indicatedthat transfer motivation mediate the relationship between learner readiness andtraining transfer and supported the H1. Learner readiness motivate the trainees totransfer the learned skills and directly influence transfer motivation (effect ¼ 0:259).

Training retention Transfer motivation Training transferDirect Indirect Total Direct Indirect Total Direct Indirect Total

Instrumentality 0.226 – 0.226 0.313 – 0.313 – 0.111 0.111Peer support – – – 0.090 – 0.090 – 0.019 0.019Supervisor support 0.285 – 0.285

– – – 0.172 – 0.172 – 0.070 0.070Learner readiness – 0.073 0.073

– – – 0.259 – 0.259 – 0.106 0.106Retention – – – – – – 0.196 – 0.196Motivation – – – – – – 0.213 – 0.213

Table IV.Summary of effects

Overall model measure Model score Acceptable model fit Acceptable baseline

CFI 0.956 Passed .0.90AGFI 0.863 Passed .0.80RMSEA 0.056 Passed , 0.10CMIN/DF 2.586 Passed , 3TLI 0.949 Passed .0.89IFI 0.956 Passed .0.90

Table III.Structural modelgoodness of fit

Overall model measure Model score Acceptable model fit Acceptable baseline

CFI 0.963 Passed .0.90AGFI 0.874 Passed .0.80RMSEA 0.052 Passed , 0.10CMIN/DF 2.361 Passed , 3TLI 0.956 Passed .0.89IFI 0.963 Passed .0.90

Table II.Measurement model fit

EJTD37,3

286

The p-value (p ¼ 0:000; p , 0:05; Garver and Williams, 2009) indicate that the path(learner readiness effect the transfer motivation) is statistically significant. In otherwords, Learner readiness, however, exerted indirect effect on training transfermediated by transfer motivation.

The result of hypothesis H4b indicates that training retention mediates therelationship between instrumentality or intrinsic rewards and training transfer t-value(t ¼ 4:086, t . 1:96; Hair et al., 2006) and influence training transfer (effect ¼ 0:196).The results of this study also indicates the positive relationship between trainingretention and instrumentality (intrinsic rewards) p-value (p ¼ 0:001, p , 0:05; Garverand Williams, 2009). Therefore, training retention work as a mediating factor betweeninstrumentalities (Intrinsic rewards) and training transfer.

The results of this study t-value (t . 1:96; Hair et al., 2006; t ¼ 1:96) indicated thattransfer motivation mediates the relationship between peer support and trainingtransfer H2. In other words, peer support directly influence the transfer motivation(effect ¼ 0:090). The p-value (p , 0:05; Garver and Williams, 2009; p ¼ 0:001) indicatethat the path (peer support positively related with transfer motivation) is statisticallysignificant.

The results of this study indicated that transfer motivation mediates therelationship between supervisor support and training transfer with t-value (t . 1:96;Hair et al., 2006; t ¼ 2:156) and supported H3. In addition, the results also explain thatsupervisor support positively influence transfer motivation (effect ¼ 0:172) andp-value (p , 0:05; Garver and Williams, 2009; p ¼ 0:031) indicate that the path(supervisor support positively related with transfer motivation) is statisticallysignificant.

The results of this study t-value (t . 1:96; Hair et al., 2006; t ¼ 2:794) indicated thattransfer motivation mediates the relationship between instrumentality (intrinsicrewards) and training transfer H4a. The results of this study also explain thatinstrumentality (intrinsic rewards) positively influence transfer motivation(effect ¼ 0:313) and p-value (p , 0:05; Garver and Williams, 2009; p ¼ 0:005). Inaddition, the results of this study p-value (p , 0:05; Garver and Williams, 2009;p ¼ 0:005) provide evidence and explain that instrumentality (intrinsic rewards)positively related with training retention (effect ¼ 0:226).(see Figure 1)

Hypotheses P-value

Accept orreject

H1 Transfer motivation mediates the relationship between learner readinessand training transfer 0.002 Accept

H2 Transfer motivation mediates the relationship between peer support andtraining transfer 0.010 Accept

H3 Transfer motivation mediates the relationship between supervisor supportand training transfer 0.012 Accept

H4a Transfer motivation mediates the relationship between Instrumentality(intrinsic rewards) and training transfer 0.001 Accept

H4b Training retention mediates the relationship between Intrinsic rewards andtraining transfer 0.012 Accept

H5 The higher the transfer motivation, the higher the transfer of trainingcontent on the job 0.003 Accept

Table V.Result of Analyses and

Hypotheses

Transfer oftraining: does it

truly happen?

287

5. Conclusion and suggestion for future researchThe purpose of this study is to highlight the role and importance of environmentalfactors (peer and supervisor support), a situational factor (instrumentality) and anindividual factor (learner readiness) in the training transfer theory. The aboveframework was proposed and tested especially to determine effective transfer oftraining to the work place and most importantly to improve the employees’ andcompany’s performance. Every variable in this framework represents specificcategories like individual factors, environmental factors and situational factors. Wehave included the most important and closely related variables from each category andtested them by using structural equation modeling (SEM).

Transfer of training is a critical issue and researchers have been focusing ondifferent factors affecting it for the purpose of providing substantial feedback totrainers and managers. Furthermore, among the different factors, supervisor and peersupport seems to be important for training transfer. This study found that supervisorsupport positively influences transfer motivation and indirectly influence the trainingtransfer. In other words, transfer motivation plays a mediating role between peersupport, supervisor support and training transfer and these findings are consistentwith other researches (Clark et al., 1993; Facteau et al., 1995; Gregoire et al., 1998;Chiaburu and Marinova, 2005; Chiaburu and Tekleab, 2005; Velada et al., 2007). Inaddition, peer support also influences training transfer through transfer motivationand these findings are consistent with previous studies (Holton et al., 2007; Kirwan andBirchall, 2006). However, for further clarification of supervisor and peer role in thetraining transfer process, researchers need to test supervisor and peer support indifferent dimensions. For example, researchers need to classify supervisor and peersupport before, during and after training, as the timing factor needs to be consideredwhile examining the effect of supervisor and peer support. Velada et al. (2007) foundthat supervisor support, in terms of feedback and meetings, has indicated a weakrelationship with transfer of training. Perhaps this kind of supervisor interruptionsduring pre- and ongoing training could have a stronger effect on the transfer oftraining. Furthermore, this study proposes that the researchers should distinguish the

Figure 1.Complete model(standardized)

EJTD37,3

288

types of support which trainees need at each stage of training like pre-training,ongoing training and post-training. Most importantly, at the time of developing thescale, researchers should clearly highlight and differentiate the kind of support whichtrainees need before, during and after training.

Another strong factor affecting training transfer is instrumentality (intrinsicreward). As found in this study, intrinsic rewards not only increase the motivationlevel of the trainee but also influence the training retention. The findings of this studyshowed that transfer motivation plays a mediating role between instrumentality andtraining transfer. In addition, training retention also plays a mediating role betweeninstrumentality and training transfer but transfer motivation has a more strongmediating effect as compare to training retention. These rewards make trainees retainmore skills and transfer to the workplace. Training retention is a critical factor intransferring skills. Prior to transferring the skills, the trainee needs to retain the skillshence, the more the trainee retains the learned skills the transfer level would be higher.The concept of training retention is similar with cognitive ability and explains thedegree to which the trainee retains the content after training is completed (Velada et al.,2007). The training transfer can be maximized, if the trainee retains the learned skills.The findings of this research showed that training retention is positively related withtraining transfer and these results are in support of the work of the earlier researchers(Velada et al., 2007; Baldwin and Ford, 1988; Kontoghiorghes, 2001). In addition, Noeet al. (2006) proposed that after learning and retaining content, trainee should transferthe knowledge and skills accrued to the work context with the intention of improvingjob performance over time. Furthermore, May and Kahnweiler (2000) suggested thatlack of training transfer could be inadequate learning and retention. Therefore, theresult of this study also supports the theoretical view point of May and Kahnweiler(2000) and Noe et al. (2006). Many factors like instrumentality, training design andsocial support factors may influence training retention or help trainees to retain thelearned skills, but after the retention it depends on the intention of the trainee totransfer the learned skills. Trainees may transfer the learned skills with the intention toimprove the performance or to get intrinsic or extrinsic rewards.

With reference to individual factors, learner readiness can be viewed from multipleperspectives. This study proposed two additional items to be included in measuringlearner readiness which are in terms of basic skills before training and basicknowledge about the training activities. Therefore, this study empirically tested therole of learner readiness in the training transfer process and found that learnerreadiness positively relates with transfer motivation. In other words, learner readinessexerted indirect effects on training transfer mediated by transfer motivation. The resultof this study is consistent with Kirwan and Birchall, (2006) and Payne et al.’s (2008)findings. Furthermore, the findings also support Facteau et al.’s (1995) and Holtonet al.’s (1996) theoretical view point. These two items can expand the boundaries andeffects of learner readiness’ factors in the training transfer theory.

Rapid change in the business environment and customer expectations forcebusiness and human resource development professionals to focus more on employeestraining and development. Researchers and training professionals have been tryingtheir best to equip their employees with advance skills, knowledge and abilities inorder to cope with the complicated challenges of modern era. In this regards, they aredeveloping different training models and designing effective training programs.

Transfer oftraining: does it

truly happen?

289

Therefore, in the process of developing different training programs, researchers haveidentified different criteria which prevent trainees from transferring their learned skillsat workplace. The purpose of this study is to highlight those factors which restrainemployees to transfer the training at workplace and found that social support elements(peer and supervisor support) play important role in training transfer process. Theresults of this study suggested that training professionals should have different typesof peer and supervisor support at each level (pre-training, ongoing-training,post-training). This study examined the effect of supervisor and peer support ontraining transfer after the training and suggested that social support factors (peer andsupervisor support) should be categorized based on time and type of support. The typeof support required by trainees can be different before, during and after the training. Inorder to reconcile the conflict in previous studies, the researchers should differentiatethe type of support which trainee require before (pre-training), during(ongoing-training) and after (post-training). By doing so, and researchers canascertain the role of supervisor and peer support in training transfer process.

Future research could highlight the kind of support at each stage (before, duringand after the training) and empirically test the relationships with other trainingtransfer factors. This practice will help researcher to build on literature on trainingtransfer and would be helpful for researcher to explain the importance of social supportfactors (peer and supervisor support) in the boundaries of training effectiveness.

The data was collected from trainees who have attended FSTEP training program.Due to particular training structure and duration, the findings of this study may not beapplicable in other training context. In future, the researchers should test this model inother training setting in order to explain the role of these factors in training transferprocess. Furthermore, this study only examined the post training peer and supervisorsupport. Future researchers should examined the peer and supervisor support in beforeand during training with appropriate measurement scale.

ImplicationsThe results of this study advocated that the supervisors should assist trainee at eachstage of the training like before (pre-training), during (ongoing-training) and after(post-training). This study only focused on post training support and suggested thatafter training supervisors should discuss different ways with trainee about how tomake use of the learned skills at the workplace. Supervisor can support the traineesafter training by meeting regularly to solve the problems face by the trainees in termsof applying the learned skills at workplace. In addition, supervisors can discussdifferent methods to apply learned skills at workplace and set goals to encouragetrainees to use training on job. Finally, this study posits the notion that if supervisorsplay his/her role effectively, the training transfer can be increased.

With reference to the role of peer support in the training transfer process, this studysuggested that peers also can play their role to maximize the training transfer. Peersshould encourage trainees to participate in training activities and help trainees to applythe learned skills at the workplace in order to improve his performance and to achieveorganizational tasks. In addition, peers should appriciate the trainee, when he/sheusing the training on job. Peers appreciation and encouragement motivate trainees touse training on job. Finally, the peers expectations from trainees also play important

EJTD37,3

290

role in training transfer. Peers expectations in terms of using training on job alsomotivate trainees to apply the learned skills at workplace.

Another important consideration for trainers and training professionals is that thelearner should be ready to participate in training activities. The findings of this studysuggested that before starting training program trainer should make sure that thetrainees have basic skills and knowledge to participate in training activities. Becauseprior knowledge and skills about training activities motivate trainees to participate intraining activities in order to transfer the learned skills at workplace. For example, if anemployees going to learned new computer software, it is important for that employeesto have basic computer knowledge and skills to operate computer. If the employee havelack of basic computer knowledge, it would be difficult for the employee to activelyparticipate in training activities and maximize the learning. In conclusion, the managerand trainers should provide basic skills to the employees which help them to perfometraining task and actively participate in training activities. Therefore, better learningduring training will further motivate the trainee to transfer the training on job.

Finally, human resource development professionals and trainers should explainpractically to trainee that how they can apply the learned skills at workplace. Thispractical exposure increases the efficacy level of the trainee and leads to trainingtransfer. Therefore, trainers should more practical examples during training session inorder to help trainees understand how the training is closely related with their job.Therefore, using real life examples can build the trainees confidence and motivate themto transfer the training on job. In addition, the top management, trainers, supervisorshould appreciate, encourage and motivate the trainee to participate in trainingactivities.

References

Anderson, J.C. and Gerbing, D.W. (1988), “Structural equation modelling in practice: a review andrecommended two-step approach”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 88 No. 3, pp. 588-606.

Awais, M. and Sharan, K. (2010), “The role of individual and training design factors on trainingtransfer”, Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 34 No. 7, pp. 656-72.

Awoniyi, E.A., Griego, O.V. and Morgan, G.A. (2002), “Person-environment fit and transfers oftraining”, International Journal of Training and Development, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 25-35.

Axtell, C.M., Maitlis, S. and Yearta, S.K. (1997), “Predicting immediate and longer term transferof training”, Personal review, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 201-13.

Bagozzi, R., Yi, Y. and Phillips, L. (1991), “Assessing construct validity in organizationalresearch”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 421-58.

Bagozzi, R.P. and Yi, Y. (1988), “On the evaluation of structural equation models”, Journal of theAcademy of Marketing Science, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 74-94.

Baldwin, T.T. and Ford, J. (1988), “Transfer of training: a review and directions for futureresearch”, Personal Psychology, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 63-105.

Bates, R., Kauffeld, S. and Holton, E.F. III (2007), “Examining the factor structure and predictiveability of the German-version of the learning transfer system inventory”, InternationalJournal of Training and Development, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 195-211.

Beal, D.J. and Dawson, J.F. (2007), “On the use of Likert-type scales in multilevel data: influenceon aggregate variables”, Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 657-72.

Transfer oftraining: does it

truly happen?

291

Bentler, P.M. and Bonett, D.G. (1980), “Significance test and goodness of fit in the analysis ofcovariance structures”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 88 No. 3, pp. 588-606.

Brinkerhoff, R.O. and Montesino, M.U. (1995), “Partnership for training transfers. Lessons from acorporate study”, Human Resource Development Quarterly, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 263-74.

Bryman, A. and Cramer, D. (2001), Quantitative Data Analysis with SPSS Release 10 forWindows, Psychology Press, London.

Byrne, B.M. (2001), Structural Equation Modeling with Amos: Basic Concepts, Applications andProgramming, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.

Chau, P.Y.K. (1997), “Reexamining a model for evaluating information center success using astructural equation modelling approach”, Decision Sciences, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 309-34.

Chen, C.-Y. (2007), “Exploring potential factors leading to effective training”, Journal ofManagement Development, Vol. 26 No. 9, pp. 843-56.

Chen, L.S., Kwok, O.-M. and Goodson, P. (2008), “US health educators likelihood of adoptinggenomic competencies into health promotion”, American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 98No. 9, pp. 1651-7.

Cheng, E.W.L. (2007), “SEM being more effective than multiple regression in parsimonious modeltesting for management development research”, Journal of Management Development,Vol. 20 No. 7, pp. 650-67.

Chiaburu, D.S. and Marinova, S.V. (2005), “What predicts skill transfer? An exploratory study ofgoal orientation, training self-efficacy and organizational supports”, International Journalof Training and Development, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 110-23.

Chiaburu, D.S. and Tekleab, A.G. (2005), “Individual and contextual influence on multipledimensions of training effectiveness”, Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 29No. 8, pp. 604-26.

Chin, W.W., Johnson, N. and Schwarz, A. (2008), “A fast form approach to measuring technologyacceptance and other constructs”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 687-703.

Clark, S.C., Dobbins, G.H. and Ladd, R.T. (1993), “Exploratory field study of training motivation:influence of involvement, credibility, and transfer climate”, Group & OrganizationManagement, Vol. 18, September, pp. 292-307.

Cleveland, M., Laroche, M. and Papadopoulos, N. (2009), “Cosmopolitanism, consumerethnocentrism, and materialism: an eight-country study of antecedents and outcomes”,Journal of International Marketing, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 116-46.

Colquitt, J.A., LePine, J.A. and Noe, R.A. (2000), “Towards and integration theory of trainingmotivation: a meta-analytic path analysis of 20 years of research”, Journal of AppliedPsychology, Vol. 85 No. 5, pp. 678-707.

Condry, J. (1977), “Enemies of exploration: self invented versus other initiated learning”, Journalof Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 35 No. 7, pp. 459-77.

Facteau, J.D., Dobbins, G.H., Russell, J.E.A., Ladd, R.T. and Kudisch, J.D. (1995), “The influence ofgeneral perception of the training environment on pre-training motivation and perceivedtraining transfer”, Journal of Management, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 1-25.

Ford, L. (2009), “Improving training transfer”, Journal of Industrial and Commercial Training,Vol. 41 No. 2, pp. 92-6.

Garver, M.S. and Williams, Z. (2009), “Examining model of understanding customer value andsatisfaction data”, The Marketing Management Journal, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 113-32.

Georges, J.C. (2008), “The myth of soft-skills training”, Journal of Training and Development,Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 48-54.

EJTD37,3

292

Gist, M.E., Stevens, C.K. and Bavetta, A.G. (1991), “Effects of self-efficacy and post-trainingintervention on the acquisition and maintenance of complex interpersonal skills”, PersonalPsychology, Vol. 44 No. 1, pp. 837-61.

Goldstein, I. and Ford, J.K. (2002), Training in Organization, 4th ed., Wadsworth, Belmont, CA.

Gregoire, T.K., Propp, J. and Poertner, J. (1998), “The supervisor role in the transfer of training”,Administration in Social Work, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 1-18.

Guerrero, S. and Sire, B. (2001), “Motivation to train from the workers perspectives: example ofFrench companies”, International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 12 No. 6,pp. 988-1004.

Gumuseli, A.L. and Ergin, B. (2002), “The manager role in enhancing the transfer of training:a Turkish case study”, International Journal of Training and Development, Vol. 6 No. 2,pp. 80-97.

Hair, J., William, C.B., Barry, J.B. and Rolph, E.A. (2006), Multivariate Data Analysis, 7th ed,Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Holton, E.F. III (1996), “The flawed four-level evaluation model”, Human Resource DevelopmentQuarterly, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 5-21.

Holton, E.F., Bates, R. and Kauffeld, S. (2007), “Examining the factor structure and predictiveability of the German-version of the learning transfer system inventory”, Journal ofEuropean Industrial Training, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 195-211.

Holton, E.F. III, Bates, R.A. and Ruona, W.E. (2000), “Development of generalized learningtransfer system inventory”, Human Resource Development Quarterly, Vol. 11 No. 4,pp. 333-60.

Holton, E. III, Bates, R.A., Seyler, D.L. and Carvalho, M.B. (1997), “Towards construct validationof a transfer climate instrument”, Human Resource Development Quarterly, Vol. 8 No. 2,pp. 95-113.

Hu, L.-T. and Bentler, P.M. (1999), “Cut-off criteria for fit indexes in covariance structureanalysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives”, Structural Equation Modeling,Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 1-55.

Huczynski, A. and Lewis, W. (1980), “An empirical study into the learning transfer process inmanagement training”, The Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 227-40.

Kauffeldd, S. and Lehmann-Willenbrock, N. (2010), “Sales training: effects of spaced practice ontraining transfer”, Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 23-37.

Kirkpatrick, D. (1976), “Evaluation of training”, in Craig, R.L. (Ed.), Training and DevelopmentHandbook, 2nd ed., McGraw Hill, New York, NY.

Kirwan, C. and Birchall, D. (2006), “Transfer of learning from management developmentprogrammes: testing the Holton Model”, International Journal of Training andDevelopment, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 252-68.

Kline, R.B. (2005), Principles and Practices of Structural Equation Modeling, 2nd ed., The GuilfordPress, New York, NY.

Kontoghiorghes, C. (2001), “Factors affecting training effectiveness in the context of theintroduction of new technology- a US case study”, International Journal of Training andDevelopment, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 248-60.

Lai, K.-h. (2009), “Linking exchange governance with supplier cooperation and commitment:a case of container terminal operations”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 30 No. 1,pp. 243-60.

Transfer oftraining: does it

truly happen?

293

Liebermann, S. and Hoffmann, S. (2008), “The impact of practical relevance on training transfer:evidence from a service quality training program for German bank clerks”, InternationalJournal of Training and Development, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 74-86.

Lim, D.H. and Johnson, S.D. (2002), “Trainee perception of factor that influence learningtransfer”, International Journal of Training and Development, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 36-48.

Loibl, C., Cho, S.H., Diekmann, F. and Batte, M.T. (2009), “Consumer self-confidence in searchingfor information”, Journal of Consumer Affairs, Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 26-55.

Mackay, R. (2007), “Fit for which purpose”, Training and Management Methods, Vol. 21 No. 4,pp. 333-8.

May, G.L. and Kahnweiler, W.M. (2000), “The effect of a mastery practice design on learning andtransfer in behaviour modelling training”, Personal Psychology, Vol. 53 No. 2, pp. 353-73.

Medsker, G.J., Williams, L.J. and Holahan, P.J. (1994), “A review of current practices forevaluating causal-models in organizational-behavior and human-resources managementresearch”, Journal of Management Development, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 439-64.

Montesino, M.U. (2002), “Strategic alignment of training, transfer-enhancing behaviours, andtraining usage: a post training study”, Human Resource Development Quarterly, Vol. 13No. 1, pp. 89-108.

Nijman, D.-J.J.M., Nijhof, W.J., Wognum, A.A.M. (Ida) and Veldkamp, B.P. (2006), “Exploringdifferential effects of supervisor support on transfer of training”, Journal of EuropeanIndustrial Training, Vol. 30 No. 7, pp. 529-49.

Nikandrou, I., Brinia, V. and Bereri, E. (2009), “Perspective on practice: trainee perceptions oftraining transfer: an empirical analysis”, Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 23No. 3, pp. 255-70.

Noe, R.A. (1986), “Trainee attributes and attitudes: neglected influences on trainingeffectiveness”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 736-49.

Noe, R.A. and Schmitt, N. (1986), “The influence of trainee attitudes on training effectiveness:test of a model”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 393, pp. 497-523.

Noe, R.A., Hollenbeck, J.R., Gerhart, B. and Wright, P. (2006), Human Resource Management:Gaining a Competitive Advantage, 6th ed., McGraw-Hill Irwin, Boston, MA.

Payne, S.L., Flynn, J. and Whitfield, J.M. (2008), “Capstone business course assessment:Exploring student readiness perspectives”, Journal of Education for Business, Vol. 83 No. 3,pp. 141-6.

Pidd, K. (2004), “The impact of workplace support and identity on training transfer: a case studyof drug and alcohol safety training in Australia”, International Journal of Training andDevelopment, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 274-88.

Prop-Huiban, J.-P. and Bouhsina, Z. (1998), “Innovation and quality of labour factor: an empiricalinvestigation in the French food industry”, Small Business Economics, Vol. 10 No. 4,pp. 389-400.

Ruona, W.E.A., Leimbach, M., Holton, E.F. III and Bates, R. (2002), “The relationship betweenlearner utility reactions and predicted learning transfer among trainees”, InternationalJournal of Training and Development, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 218-28.

Scaduto, A., Lindsay, D. and Chiaburu, D.S. (2008), “Leader influence on training effectiveness:motivation and outcome expectation process”, International Journal of Training andDevelopment, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 158-70.

Seyler, D.L., Holton, E.F. III, Bates, R.A., Burnett, M.F. and Carvalho, M.A. (1998), “Factorsaffecting motivation to transfer training”, International Journal of Training andDevelopment, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 16-17.

EJTD37,3

294

Sire, B. (1993), Gestion strategique des remunerations, editions liaisons, France.

Smith-Jentsch, K.A., Salas, E. and Brannick, M.T. (2001), “To transfer or not to transfer?Investigating the combined effects of trainee characteristics, team leader support, andteam climate”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86 No. 2, pp. 279-92.

Tai, W.-T. (2006), “Effects of training framing, general self-efficacy and training motivation ontrainees training effectiveness”, Personal Review, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 51-65.

Tesluk, P.E., Farr, J.L., Mathieu, J.E. and Vance, R.J. (1995), “Generalization of employeeinvolvement training to the job setting: individual and situational effects”, PersonalPsychology, Vol. 48 No. 3, pp. 607-32.

Tharenou, P. (2001), “The relationship of training motivation to participation in training anddevelopment”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 74 No. 5,pp. 599-621.

Tracey, J.B. and Tews, M.J. (2005), “Construct validity of a general training climate scale”,Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 353-74.

Tracey, J.B., Tannenbaum, S.I. and Kavanagh, M.J. (1995), “Applying trained skills on the job:the importance of the work environment”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 80 No. 2,pp. 239-52.

Velada, R., Caetano, A., Michel, J.W., Lyons, B.D. and Kavanagh, M.J. (2007), “The effects oftraining design, individual characteristics and work environment on transfer of training”,International Journal of Training and Development, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 282-94.

Ven der Klink, M.R., Gielen, E. and Nautta, C. (2001), “Supervisory support as a major conditionto enhance transfer”, International Journal of Training and Development, Vol. 5 No. 1,pp. 52-63.

Warr, P., Allan, C. and Birdi, K. (1999), “Predicting three levels of training outcomes”, Journal ofOccupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 72 No. 3, pp. 351-75.

Wexley, K.N. and Latham, G.P. (2002), Developing and Training Human Resource inOrganization, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Further reading

Acton, T. (2003), “Training the knowledge worker”, Journal of European Industrial Training,Vol. 27 Nos 2/3/4, pp. 137-46.

Bates, R.A. and Khasawneh, S. (2005), “Organizational learning culture, learning transfer climateand perceived innovation in Jordanian organizations”, International Journal of Trainingand Development, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 96-109.

Borges-Andreade, J.E. (2006), “Integrated and Summative Evaluation in TD&E”, Training,Development and Education in Organizations and Work, Foundation for PersonalManagement, pp. 343-58.

Broad, M.L. (2005), Beyond Transfer of Training: Engaging Systems to Improve Performance,John Wiley & Sons, San Francisco, CA.

Brown, T. (2005), “Effectiveness of distal and proximal goals as transfer of training intervention:a field experiment”, Human Resource Development Quarterly, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 369-87.

Chen, L.-S., Kwok, O.-M. and Goodson, P. (2008), “US health educators likelihood of adoptinggenomic competencies into health promotion”, American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 98No. 9, pp. 1651-7.

Transfer oftraining: does it

truly happen?

295

Goldstein, I.L. (1991), “Training in work organizations”, in Dunnette, M.D. and Hough, L.M.(Eds), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2nd ed., ConsultingPsychology Press, Palo Alto, CA, pp. 507-619.

Goldstein, I.L. and Gilliam, P. (1990), “Training system issues in the year 2000”, AmericanPsychologist, Vol. 45 No. 2, pp. 134-43.

Hawley, J.D. and Barnard, J.K. (2005), “Work environment characteristics and implications fortraining transfer: a case study of the nuclear power industry”, Human ResourceDevelopment International, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 65-80.

Jayasuriya, R. and Caputi, P. (2008), “Exploring the role of goal theory in understanding trainingmotivation”, International Journal of Training and Development, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 54-72.

Lim, D.H. and Morris, M.L. (2006), “Influence of trainee characteristics, instructional satisfaction,and organizational climate on perceived learning and training transfer”, Human ResourceDevelopment Quarterly, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 85-115.

Muhammad, M. and Idris, K. (2005), “Workplace learning in Malaysia: the learner’s perspective”,International Journal of Training and Development, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 62-78.

Olivera, F. and Straus, S.G. (2004), “Group-to-individual transfer of learning: cognitive and socialfactors”, Small Group Research, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 440-65.

Othman, O. (2001), “What adults learn”, in M. Mazanah and Associates (Ed.), Adult andContinuing Education in Malaysia, UNESCO Institute for Education and University PutraPress, Hamburg and Serdang, pp. 85-109.

Pilati, R. and Borges-Andrade, J.E. (2008), “Affective predictors of the effectiveness of trainingmoderated by the cognitive complexity of expected competencies”, International Journal ofTraining and Development, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 226-37.

Robotham, D. (2004), “Developing the competent learner”, Industrial and Commercial Training,Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 66-72.

Tracey, J.B., Tannenbaum, S.I. and Mathieu, J.E. (1997), “The influence of individualcharacteristics and the work environment on varying level of training outcomes”,Academy of Management Proceedings, p. 210.

Tracey, J.B., Hinkin, T.R., Tannenbaum, S. and Mathieu, J.E. (2001), “The influence of individualcharacteristics and the work environment on varying levels of training outcomes”, HumanResource Development Quarterly, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 5-23.

About the authorsDr Muhammad Awais Bhatti MB is currently working as Senior Lecturer in School of BusinessManagement, College of Business, University Utara Malaysia. He holds Bachelor’s degree inBusiness and Accountancy, MBA in Marketing, Human Resource Management and InformationTechnology, PhD in Training and Development. His area of expertise includes internationalbusiness, strategic management, human resource development and human resourcemanagement. He is a professional trainer and designs training programmes for managers andexecutives around the world. He also reviews work for the European Journal of Training andDevelopment, and was a member of the program committee for the IBIMA 2011 conference. Hisdevotion towards training and research activities enabled him to publish books and journals indifferent fields mainly in the area of training and development, internationalization, e-learningand business research. Muhammad Awais Bhatti is the corresponding author and can becontacted at: awaisbhatti_786@yahoo.com

Dr Mohamed Mohamed Battour is currently working as Senior Lecturer in Tanta University-Faculty of commerce. Tanta, Egypt. He holds a Bachelor’s degree in Business Administration,

EJTD37,3

296

MBA, and PhD (Marketing). His area of expertise includes marketing, internet marketing,consumer behaviour, and customer relationship management.

Veera Pandiyan Kaliani Sundram is currently working as a Lecturer in Universiti TeknologiMARA, Malaysia. He is a graduate member of Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport(CILT), UK. Prior to CILT, he obtained a Bachelor’s degree in Analytical Economics and an MBA.He is a Research Fellow of the Malaysia Institute of Transport (MITRANS) and Ministry ofScience, Technology and Innovation (MOSTE). His passion towards research enabled him topublish books and research articles in different journals of national and international repute,mainly in the area of logistics and supply chain, international trade and technological change. Healso reviews work for the Journal of Business Economics and Management (ISI Thomson Rank)and Benchmarking: An International Journal (SCOPUS Rank). As such this knowledge andexperience led to being a management and research consultant for several corporate andgovernment link companies such as PETRONAS, Public Bank, Johor Corporation, Sindora Bhd,Kulim Bhd. and KPJ Health Care.

Akmal Aini Othman is currently the Head of Studies Center at the Faculty of BusinessManagement, University Teknologi Mara Johor Malaysia. She holds a PhD in BusinessManagement specialising in the procurement process and marketing resources in the buildingconstruction industry. Her research interests include issues surrounding supply chainmanagement, relationship marketing, construction management, and training and development.

Transfer oftraining: does it

truly happen?

297

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.comOr visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints