christopherdwalker.files.wordpress.com€¦ · Web viewThe researchers did make sure to control for all variables (Neider et al., 2013). Comparing the results of time to find an

How does age affect the transfer of training for safety procedures in an industrial environment?

How does age affect the transfer of training for safety procedures in an industrial environment?

Christopher WalkerUniversity of Louisville

ELFH 617: Evidence-Based Research

How does age affect the transfer of training for safety procedures in an industrial environment?2

Introduction

Various fields of study have researched the school and workplace on topics of learning,

training, and age’s effect on a person’s capacity to learn and retain the knowledge gained

(otherwise known as training transfer or transfer of training). The research available ranges in

how they approach these topics. Research on learning in different ages has thus far broken down

the various topics of learning by subject of art, science, etc. Most of the research on age takes a

cognitive approach and investigates how older persons or children learn and their capacity to

learn. Also, research on safety ranges based on the setting. Workplace safety still involves how

employees protect themselves but typically the definition of workplace safety deals with natural

disasters and theft. Industrial safety deals more directly with safe habits taught in training for a

preparedness for more hazardous working environments.

The gap in research being investigated is when all three of these factors are combined.

Specifically, I seek to investigate how age affects the transfer of training for safety procedures

needed in an industrial work environment. In order to find adequate empirical research, studies in

various work environments were used but with overlapping principles. While ideally the research

for this question would focus on industrial environments, the research was inconclusive for these

particular environments; however, the available literature contained applicable principles on age

and safety. The various settings used include retail, hotel service, and construction.

The proposed question doesn’t favor or regard any age as superior but looks for effects of

youth or effects of experience. Both categories of age have positive and negative effects. Some

of the research used does singularly choose to focus on older adults or teenagers to study without

comparison. However, no research was utilized that focused only on any participants younger

than sixteen as they would not be in the workforce.


Transfer of Training

Substantial sums of money are spent on training by businesses throughout the world but

studies suggest that only between 10 and 20% of the information taught in training courses are

applicable to the people’s jobs in these courses (Ma & Chang, 2013). Training transfer is defined

as the degree to which trainees apply the knowledge, skills, and abilities that they have gained in

training to their jobs. Although there is a subsequent definition of training transfer as a principle

based on the concept of learning transfer referring to the negative or positive influence of one

type of learning on another type of learning (Ma & Chang, 2013). This means when an employee

uses the training he or she has learned to perform the job better or as expected then there was a

higher transfer of training. If he or she performs the job poorly after receiving training then there

was a low transfer of training.

Typically, when training is handled with specificity towards one job then training is still

effective. Tasks that people must deal with every day, such as looking for lost items, can still

improve with training (Neider, Ang, Voss, & Carbonari 2013).

Researchers concerned with participant’s abilities to find specific objects against similar,

or camouflaged backgrounds found that training does indeed have positive effects. While being

able to spot objects may not seem important, the researchers had in mind doctors’ abilities to

spot tumors on x-rays and similar situations (Neider et al., 2013).

To test rapid visual search abilities before and after training, researchers gathered 48

students from the University of Illinois between the ages of 18 and 29, 20 male and 28 female,

and attached an Eyelink II eye tracking system on each of the participant’s left eye. The

participants then used a game controller to search for items from a Hemera Photo Objects

database while distractors from 40 pictures of children’s toys were shown. The toy images had a


corresponding camouflage background image. The researchers did make sure to control for all

variables (Neider et al., 2013).

Comparing the results of time to find an object between a pre-training activity and post-

training through an ANOVA statistical analysis revealed that trained participants, “Exhibited

robust improvements in accuracy over training but noncamouflage trained participants did not”

(Neider et al, 2013 p. 4). Included in their control groups the researchers found that training in

this fashion does not simply improve ability for specific tasks but broader processes under

general themes. These participants did not improve their ability to find certain objects but

became better at searching as whole process (Neider et al., 2013).

Transfer of training does not simply happen, however. The effectiveness of training

transfer may be part of a larger process and flow of willingness and motivation. Research has

shown that the ability for an organization to make a worker transfer the skill taught in training

into the work they perform then the organization needs to consider a multitude of different

factors. With the end goal of most organizations to have a worker have high job performance

from employees the first step of many is to show the worker organizational support (Ma &

Chang, 2013).

Researchers at the National Sun Yat-sen University and National University of Tainan

surveyed 1,000 employees of 18 hotels catering to international tourist in Taipei, Taiwan. The

employees answered a series of Likert-type questions such as, “I actively participate in training

courses.” Compiling the results from the survey and running statistical analysis, the researchers

found significant positive relationships between training motivation and training transfer,

between training transfer and job performance, and organizational support and training

motivation. Another factor for training motivation was career planning or career goals (Ma &


Chang, 2013). Therefore, in order for an organization to create the training motivation for

transferring skills, a flow of factors must be created that starts with organizational support and

career planning.

Surveys are only one method and correlations cannot be made to claim causal

relationships. Recognizing the conflicting results in self-rated questionnaires and general lack of

qualitative research on the topic of training transfer, Smith (2011) began conducting interviews

with workers of various levels in the mental healthcare field. His focus was not to find a

definition or cause of training transfer but to explore the feelings of the workers on the use of

ideas taught in training. He wanted emphasize how those feelings affected work habits. His

second objective was to look for any negative effects in the work following training and if

possible to discover the root causes negative impacts on work (Smith, 2011). His research was

entirely formed by interviews after a mock training class on Solution-Focused Brief Therapy

(SFBT). SFBT is a technique for mental health doctors and nurses to use that only lasts less than

an hour and keeps the process focuses on problems and solutions. The technique has become

very popular in the UK (Smith, 2011).

Smith considered his combined methods of leading classes and interviews to be an

ethnography because he did study a group of community professionals. The professionals had

various levels of expertise but they all worked with adults with intellectual disabilities. The

author performed the training, the interviews, and analyzed of the results. He considered his

small sampling of participants comprised of four women and two men to be sufficient. His paper

did mention that he had previous work experiences with the interviewees.

All the procedures took place over three days. Two days were dedicated to going over the

actual training. The training was discussed on the third day in interviews. Each interview lasted


an hour each and structured by the Helpful Aspects of Therapy Questionnaire, a survey typically

used by patients after a therapy session (Elliot, 2001), but could be construed to use as an

interview questionnaire following a training session or class.

From the analysis of the interviews three clear themes emerged: “Transferring techniques

is hard without practice and support,” (Smith, 2011 p. 339), “Does it fit with my role?” (p. 341),

and “Changing the pattern of interaction,” (p. 342). These themes explained why certain workers

in the mental health profession were not completely adopting the new techniques. More often

than not there are changes but only very little changing. Most of the interviewees admitted to

combining the new skills taught in the training with the old techniques.

Most importantly this work coincides with Ma and Chang’s (2013) discovery of a

positive correlation with training motivation and transfer of training and that training motivation

is correlated with organizational support and career planning. The mental health workers wanted

to practice their techniques studied but felt no need to without support from their organization.

The other negative factor was that training did not fit their role. They had clear careers and the

training did not fit their career goals.

Age and Learning

Learning is different for those in different ages. Those who study teaching, instruction,

and learning give different terms to teaching children and adults. According to Dictionary.com

(2014), pedagogy is the instruction of children while andragogy is the instruction of adults.

While the best time for a person to learn and acquire a new skill is actually early in life there is

little difference in the capacity to learn for those in the workforce between the ages of 18 to 59

(Janacsek, Fiser, & Nemeth, 2012).


Research into the implicit sequence learning of humans has found that the difference in

learning events measured by reaction time decreased around age of 12. The lowest point in this

measurement takes place between the ages of 18 and 29. The increase after 29 is not much higher

until the age of 45 or 50 (Janacsek et. al., 2012).

To test for this, researchers found 421 participants in the experiment between the ages of

four and 85 sorting them into nine age groups. Placed in front of a computer screen, participants

responded visuals of a dog’s head by pressing corresponding response keys where the head

appeared in one of four empty circles in a line. They were asked to respond as fast and accurately

as possible. Accuracy results followed the same pattern as reaction time, only much closer

(Janacsek et. al., 2012). Therefore, the ability to respond and encode new stimuli of patterns does

not vary greatly in age. This may mean that there is no clear obstruction for anyone in the

workforce to be able to learn new tasks. Any differences in age that affect the ability of training

to transfer may come from other variables.

Age and Training

Studies more focused on the ability to retain knowledge learned through training show

different results than those covering implicit sequence learning. Research concerning the training

of executive control, “the ability to plan, guide, and monitor complex goal-directed actions,

considered to be a fundamental ability of human intelligent behavior” (Karbach & Kray, 2009 p.

978) shows transfer training to be significantly greater in young adults than in children or

younger adults. In particular, young adults, those between the ages of 18 and 26, can switch

tasks, a particular executive function, at a higher success rate than older adults and children.

To test these capabilities, researchers recruited 56 participants for each of three age

groups from the subject pool at Saarland University. The age group of children was between


eight and ten years of age. The young adult group was comprised of those between the ages of 18

and 26. The final age group of older adults was comprised of those between the ages of 62 and

76. The assessment of the task was completed twice in a pre-test, training, post-test fashion. The

tests were administered in front of an IBM computer and participants were required to decide

whether pictures were of a fruit or a vegetable and whether a picture was small or large. After

ANOVA analyses of the results the statistics showed young adults reacted faster.

Young adults have shown similar results in other studies concerning their executive

functions. Researchers in Japan have had positive results in testing whether or not young adults,

individuals around the age of 20, could increase their cognitive and executive functions by

playing marketed brain training video games. The results rejected the null hypothesis meaning

that the extra time with these games had positive results (Nouchi et al., 2013).

The Japanese researchers recruited 32 participants of equal capabilities and with very

little to no experience with video games and measured their abilities on neuropsychological and

behavioral tests. The testes utilized included Raven’s Advanced Progressive Matrices Test,

Wisconsin Card Sorting Test, and Stroop Task. Then over four weeks with at least five days a

week for an average of 15 minutes the participants played his or her game. The experimental

group used the video game Brain Age, as it was marketed to help improve brain function, while

the control group used the video game Tetris. The tests were then repeated.

After adjusting the post-test results for the factor of improvement playing games through

normal practice the researchers an ANCOVA statistical analysis for the change scores for each of

the cognitive tests. The results showed that the experimental group playing Brain Age had higher

measures of the executive functions. “These results demonstrate that the effects of playing Brain


Age were transferred to executive functions, working memory, and processing speed,” (Nouchi

et al., 2013 p. 8).

Without additional research the theory is inconclusive whether or not young adults,

between the ages of 18 and 29, can retain and transfer training to their work process and improve

job performance any greater than older adults between the ages 30 and 59. So far, research does

show that young adults can transfer and retain the training they receive. The research also

dictates that both age groups are capable of learning new skills at approximately the same

measurable ability. Division of age groups in research that classify participants being studied as

young adults or older adults seems arbitrary as well. No focus has also been paid to training in a

work environment. Both age groups can simply learn and retain information that relies on

cognitive and executive function. However, further research and archival data suggests that

teenagers, even when they can learn, still injure themselves on the work site.

Teenagers and Safety Training

There is a much clearer division between teenagers and young adults versus older

workers in terms of safe work. Shocking statistics are known about teenage workers and safe

work habits. In the United States a teenage worker is injured on the job every 10 minutes. These

same workers also have twice the risk of injury compared with other adult workers. Also reports

claim, “In 2007, the highest rates of work-related nonfatal injuries and illnesses treated in

emergency departments were among workers 18–24 years of age” (Zierold, Welsh, &

McGeeney, 2012 p. 1289).

With these statistics in mind, researchers at the University of Louisville went to

investigate the attitudes of teen workers towards safety and discover what may motivate the teens

to work safe on their job sites. Teens were recruited from two public high schools in Jefferson


County, Kentucky. The schools were kept anonymous but the recruiters met with the students

during their lunch periods and received consent from 42 students. The students were divided into

five focus groups and seven separate interview sessions.

After analyzing the results the researchers latched onto four clear themes. The first theme

was that what the teens considered to be safety training was considered by others to be mostly

“job training” about doing the job and not procedures to keep the workers safe. The second

theme was teens felt the training was necessary although the safety issues were simply common

sense. This also meant that the training was more necessary for someone else but not him or her

(Zierold, Welsh, & McGeeney, 2012). Third, the working teens were quick to dismiss certain

injuries such as cuts, burns, and jammed fingers from being injured and simply considered these

accidents to be part of the job. Lastly, and reminiscent of other studies listed, the teens expressed

a concern that the training they received was not specific to their area or age.

The study closed with opinions from the teens on what would make training more

effective. Rather than use videos and quizzes the teens believed hands-on training from those

working would be more effective. Additionally, guidance from other workers for the first few

days would be appreciated to make sure the daily procedures are being done correctly and safely.

If the attitudes of teenagers are difficult to change then what can organizations do to combat this?

Safety as a Culture

The effort of people to make a work environment safe has led to those in charge to study

the culture of safety. Past literature has divided safety culture into three levels: the individual’s

commitment, manager’s commitment, and policy commitment (Amirah, et al., 2013). While

researching the necessary changes in safety culture in Malaysia’s industrial environments,

researchers from the Universiti Malaysia Terengganu and Universiti Sultan Zainal Abidin


identified 12 key indicators for an organization’s safety culture. Among the twelve indicators

were safety leadership, management commitment, employees’ involvement and training and

education. Those four became the focus of their survey.

The researchers surveyed 30 workers from a single industrial organization. The survey

included background and demographic information of the participant and then Likert-type

questions concerning how their organization handled each factor. The results indicated that

building a safety culture relies on behavioral, situational, and psychological factors (Amirah, et

al., 2013). No one factor can be left out as all three must be considered.

Two other indicators not listed were organizational structure and safety policy. Other

research has indicated that the once dangerous construction industry has improved safety greatly

during the past four decades (Esmaeili & Hallowell, 2012). After extensive research into past

literature, two researchers from the American Society of Civil Engineers intended to analyze

how safety innovations diffuse through an organization but also why safety efforts have steadied

off over the past decade. The two researchers interviewed representatives from 58 firms in the

United States who an average of 18 years of experience in order to have intimate knowledge of

the history of the firm.

After investigating the adaption rate of safety innovations the researchers determined that

one of the six implications of the study is that the lack of new safety innovations may be due to

the saturation of safety innovations. However, this may emphasize the importance of introducing

new practices and justify additional safety expenditures (Esmaeili & Hallowell, 2012).

Revitalizing safety efforts routinely fights back against the saturation.

Of course, one final important aspect of safety culture is the need to allow for feedback.

Haberstok evaluated the manager safety training for Project Hanford in 1996. Her goal was to


determine whether the training was even effective and to decide the focuses of the training but

also to identify the best approaches for updating the training each year.

By simply surveying a random sampling of 100 students who completed the training

course with open-ended questions such as, “How would you improve this training?” and “What

topics/issues do you feel would most benefit you in managing safety?” (Haberstok, 1997 p. 40).

For clarification there were follow up interviews with 25 of the survey participants and a focus

group was formed to design interventions for the follow year’s course.

While the article did not include the results of the new interventions the article did state

the reactions of the managers involved in the discovery process. The reactions were very positive

such as, “I was happy to make the time to be involved in this. And I'm thrilled to see that my

ideas were actually listened to and incorporated into this year's training!” (Haberstok, 1997 p.

41). So, no matter the result the management will be happy to improve the training as necessary.

Hearing the feedback and keep a culture of involvement in safety processes keeps everyone

feeling positive and motivated.

Ultimately, safety intervention must be supported by an entire cultural approach.

Involvement is a key factor and should never run stagnant.

Implications for Similar Organizations

To answer the proposed question of how age affects the transfer of training for safety

procedures in an industrial environment a tangled mess of factors must be organized. After

reviewing the literature, an industrial factory setting with a workforce including employees with

an age range of 17 to retirement there are five elements of safety improvement to consider. The

first element to consider is that the process of aging does not play as important a factor as

someone might believe. Therefore, there are no barriers to learning new material caused from


brain development or deterioration. While the research shows that young adults beginning their

time working have capacity to learn at a high rate, older adults before retirement have no

negative impacts on their learning.

An additional two elements to consider recalls the stream of influences on transfer of

training. In order for training to be effective the workers must feel motivated to attend the

training. In order to achieve training motivation then workers need to one, feel supported by their

organization and two, to be able to plan their career (or feel as if the training applies to their

current position). This pattern is reminiscent of a river and a network of tributaries finally

feeding into the ocean of job performance. Career planning and organizational support contribute

to training motivation which contributes to transfer of training which results in higher job

performance.

Two “tributaries” that may contribute to organizational support are to consider the

aspects of an organization’s culture towards safety. The culture should show strong leadership, a

commitment from management, and employee involvement. The final element that strengthens

culture and involves the employees is to include a pathway for feedback from those involved in

safety policy.

Theoretical solutions may be to form a career planning program for employees, form or

remodel safety committees to have stronger involvement from management, and after all training

education courses allow them to have structured but open channels for feedback via surveys or

interviews.

Proposed Research

By reviewing the past literature a researcher can ascertain that an individual’s age does

not affect his or her capacity to learn how to do his or her assigned job safely. The leading factor


in providing a high transfer of training is to show organizational support to individuals. The

necessary research into how age relates to organizational support is a new avenue to explore.

Secondly, organizational support for safety, as understood by the past literature, relies heavily on

establishing a powerful safety culture in the work environment. This strong safety culture is

comprised of management commitment to safety, safety leadership, and employees' involvement

(Noor, et al., 2013).

When I combine these two measurable factors then he or she can determine how certain

variables affect transfer of training. This effort may be undertaken by combining two existing

surveys. One survey measures an employee’s perceived organizational support and the other

measure’s an employee’s perceived safety culture of the organization. If the researcher simply

adds additional questions about the age of the worker, years of experience with the organization,

and possibly years of experience working overall then the additional variable of age is included

in the research.

The first survey, POS (Perceived Organizational Support), was developed by the

University of Delaware in 1984 and comes in two formats (Eisenberger, et al., 1986). The first

format is 36 questions long while the second is only eight questions long. Both measure an

employee’s perception of an organization’s commitment to him or her by providing statements

such as, “The organization values my contribution to its well-being,” followed by a Likert-type

scale on which to respond by either selecting options such as strongly disagree or strongly agree

through a score of zero to six with zero meaning strongly disagree and six meaning strongly

agree. Since this survey would be combined with another, the researcher should select the eight

item long questionnaire. The survey also contains reversed scored statements such as, “The


organization shows very little concern for me,” which should require more alertness from the

survey taker for overall better responses.

The second survey utilized for this project is entitled, “Safety Culture Perception

Survey,” and it was developed by Dr. Steven Simon and Peter Cistaro in 2008. This survey

follows a similar format to that of the POS. The survey is seven items long and provides

statements for the survey takers to respond to according to the statement’s truthfulness. One

statement is, “I am clear that my immediate supervisor puts safety concerns first (Simon &

Cistaro, 2009)”. Next to the statement is a scale from one to five anchored by the number one

indicating the statement is not true and the number five indicating the statement is definitely true.

These statements due consider the previous research of what comprises a strong culture of safety.

The statements ask for indications of management commitment to safety, safety leadership, and

employee involvement.

However, without a measurement of age this combined survey would not tie-back into

the overarching research question. Therefore, a few additional questions will be provided at the

end of this compiled survey asking for three clear ratio variables and one more scaled response.

One scaled question should ask for how many injuries that employee has had in the past six

years. Six years is the recommended length of time because it allows an employee to begin

working at 18 years of age and continue working until 24 years of age putting him or her out of

the age group that comprised the highest number of work related nonfatal injuries in according to

Zierold, Welsh, and McGeeney’s research (2012). The answer to the question can be provided

with an eight item scale with the ability to respond with 0, 1, 2, and all the way up to 7+ which

would allow for an employee to be injured once every year with an additional one or two injuries

for worse years. All survey takers should also write or type, depending on distribution, their age,


years of working experience, and years with their current employer into the survey. All of these

inputs are already ratio variables and require no coding.

To combine all of these elements, one master survey will be created with three

subsections. The first should be the POS eight-item version with the subheading of

“Organizational Support,” followed by the Safety Culture Perception Survey as a subsection

simply titled, “Safety Culture,” with a final subsection of personal and demographic information.

This final subsection accounts for the additional four questions stated earlier such as injury

count, age, and years of work experience.

Depending on the scope of the project the sampling might best be handled through

snowball sampling or convenience sampling depending on how many industrial companies

would be willing to participate. Each company should already have a range of employees from

various age groups, work experience, and ethnicities. Ideally, a random sampling of the

numerous industries in the United States would be best but due to the confidentiality and privacy

concerns of employees and injury reports this may not be feasible. The survey could be

administered from a computer lab and groups of employees could take a few minutes to answer

this brief survey and the information could be compiled elsewhere via a program such as

Microsoft Excel.

Overall, this survey should have serious implications concerning correlations between

age and view of organizational support, age and perception of safety, and even age and number

of injuries. If significant correlations are found through these comparisons, using Pearson

product moment r, then a general conclusion might be found that age correlates with the broader

research of question concerning transfer of training. This shows relationships, although not


causal, between two variables. However, this would be the first step for deciding what to

investigate, more in-depth in qualitative studies.

Qualitative Follow UpAnswering a research question that begins with the “how” interrogative does not exactly

lead itself towards quantitative research, although the quantitative preparation may guide and

focus qualitative studies. To bring about a deeper understanding of the answer to the proposed

research question of how age affects the transfer of training for safety procedures in an industrial

environment there must be thorough qualitative research.

The literature reviewed for this question eliminates the possibility of cognitive

disadvantage that a certain age group must overcome in order to transfer training fully. Any adult

from the ages of 18 to mid-sixties has approximately the same capacity to learn. The literature

only shows a separation between the two age groups when researchers at the University of

Louisville found that safety training for teenagers was not received well. This team of

researchers found clear themes that most safety training was the same as job training, the training

was common sense, and non-fatal injuries that were serious were still dismissed (Zierold, Welsh,

& McGeeney, 2012). Their results from interviews and focus groups found interesting themes

that merit further research. However, the teens interviewed in their research had a range of

careers including retail and fast food as well as a range of ages from 15 to 19 years old.

Focus groups still make for a useful tool. Potentially, interviews would work just as well

but the convenience of getting opinionated, qualitative explanations concerning training, work

methods, mental models, and influence of age or experience from multiple sources at once is a

better method for research than one-on-one interviews. Additionally, participants in focus groups

are allowed to “bounce” ideas off of each other which may allow for answers that reach a deeper

understanding of the proposed questions. In a similar fashion, if the researchers are interested in


arriving at solutions to improve safety training or transfer of training, then the collective

intelligence of a group of individuals could potentially arrive at better interventions than a single

interviewee thinking alone.

The samples of participants for the focus groups must be changed from the original

University of Louisville research project. There must be at least two groups of approximately

eight participants in each group. One group must include an age range for younger workers,

representing the less safe age of workers. This grouping of participants should follow the same

range as the previously proposed age range for survey takers in the quantitative method for

research. That age range is between the ages of 18 and 24 years old. A second focus group can

be a control group with a wider variety of ages over 24 years old. This group should represent a

mindset that is safer and more experience. Both groups, in order to isolate the variable of age,

should have had a non-fatal work injury, work in industrial environments, and received some sort

of safety training before being hired on to their current job. These elements of control eliminate

variables such as of lack of training, safer work environments, or generally safer work methods

for why this sample had injuries and did not retain and work in the manner taught in their safe

work methods training.

While the question and answer structure should be loose and open to additional

comments and questioning based on the answers provided there are some specific questions that

may be beneficial to fueling conversation. One obvious question to ask both groups would be,

“What aspects of your safety training did you find most influential and why?” This question

gathers background information on the participants and what their safety training was like, but

also how methods previously utilized may have engaged some employees better than others.


From that question the discussion could build. Another useful question could be, “How would

following the safety procedures discussed in your training sessions influenced your career plans

in the next five years?” While initially this question may seem to be connecting to disparate

variables, those variables were connected in past literature where a chain reaction of influences

effect transfer of training. Influences such as organizational support and career planning create

training motivation which in turn increases transfer of training (Ma & Chang, 2013). A question

with a similar principle could be, “How does your organization motivate you to attend safety

training?”

To address a considerable emergent theme from the University of Louisville study

another question for both focus groups would be, “What elements from your safety training

seemed unnecessary or ‘common sense’ and why do those aspects of the training give you that

opinion?” The answer to this question could help discover what particular job activities covered

in training seemed like common sense. More importantly is the additional “why” element that

may uncover root causes for younger workers attitudes to belittle training. If the second focus

group with older workers does not carry the same attitude as younger, teenager workers carry

then hopefully the older workers can provide examples of positive deviance.

When the conversations are concluded then hopefully certain themes will emerge. The

finding from the focus groups can be analyzed through inductive means. Potential themes may

include low priority of career planning in teens, overestimation of common sense regarding

safety, or possibly techniques for training motivation.

After the analysis then a deeper understanding of how all the influences for training

motivation combine for higher transfer of training and what attitudes teens have to be less

receptive to the seriousness of safety and safety culture.


Application of Results

While reducing the numbers of accident and injuries of workers have their financial

benefits for an organization, these efforts have moral aims as well. No executive should desire

that workers on a line be injured nor should he or she take lightly the possibility that a young

worker injures him or herself and cause major repercussions early in life. By understanding how

to allow workers to retain safety information provided in training, the number of accidents and

injuries for any and all workforces can be reduced. Safety cultures can be strengthened and

additional supportive methods for workers can be added to an organization. Any positive result is

a great victory.


References

andragogy. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged. Retrieved February 23, 2014, from

Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/andragogy

Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). “Perceived organizational

support.” Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 500-507.

Elliot, R. (2001, March 20). Helpful aspects of therapy form. Retrieved from

http://www.experiential-researchers.org/instruments/elliott/hat.html

Esmaeili, B., & Hallowell, M. R. (2012). Diffusion of safety innovations in the construction

industry. Journal of Construction Engineer and Management, (August), 955-963.

Haberstok, J. (1996). Training feedback .. it's what you do with it that counts . Journal for

Quality & Participation, 20(3), 40-42.

Janacsek, K., Fiser, J., & Nemeth, D. (2012). The best time to acquire new skills: age-related

differences in implicit sequence learning across the human lifespan. Developmental

Science, 15(4), 496-505.

Karbach, J., & Kray, J. (2009). How useful is executive control training? age differences in near

and far transfer of task-switching training. Developmental Science, 12(6), 978–990.

Ma, C. C., & Chang, H.P. (2013). Training transfer in the taiwanese hotel industry: factors and

outcomes. Social Behavior and Personality,41(5), 761-776.

Neider, M. B., Ang, C. W., Voss, M. W., Carbonari, R., & Kramer, A. F. (2013). Training and

transfer of training in rapid visual search for camouflaged targets. PLoS ONE, 8(12).

Noor, A. A., Asma, W. I., Muda, S., & Amin, A. (2013). Operationalisation of safety culture to

foster safety and health in the malaysian manufacturing industries. Asian Social

Science, 9(7).


Nouchi, R., Taki, Y., Takeuchi, H., Hashizume, H., Nozawa, T., Kambara, T., Sekiguchi, A., …

Kawashima, R. (2013). Brain training game boosts executive functions, working memory

and processing speed in the young adults: A randomized controlled trial. PLoS ONE,

8(2).

pedagogy. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged. Retrieved February 23, 2014, from

Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pedagogy

Simon, S. I., & Cistaro, P. A. (2009). Transforming safety culture: Grassroots-led/management-

supported change at a major utility. Professional Safety, (April), 28-35.

Smith, I. C. (2011). A qualitative investigation into the effects of brief training in solution-

focused therapy in a social work team. Psychology and Psychotherapy: Theory, Research

and Practice, (84), 335-348.

Zierold, K. M., Welsh, E. C., & McGeeney, T. J. (2012). Attitudes of teenagers towards

workplace safety training. Journal of Community Health, (37), 1289-1295.




Focus Group Protocol

Good afternoon/evening. Thank you for taking the time to join our discussion on safety training. My name is…, and I’m moderating this afternoon/evening’s discussion. The point of this activitity is to research how to better fit safety training for various age groups of new and senior employees in this and similar organizations. In particular we hope to learn how to better understand how age affects an employee’s ability to retain safety procedures discussed during training seminars.

A few key points: All names will be kept confidential on our end so please keep everyone else’s information confidential as well. Everyone’s opinion is valid so everyone is expected to speak at some point and no one should speak over another participant. That also means that sometimes the flow of conversation may need to be controlled, please respond politely.

Any questions?

Moderator names: ________________________________________________________

Start time: _______________

(Start with introductions) We’ll go around the room. Everyone introduce him or herself with first names, age, and years of employment at this organization.

Be prepared to probe deeply for more information after every question1. What aspects of your safety training did you find most influential and why?2. What elements from your safety training seemed unnecessary or ‘common sense’ and

why do those aspects of the training give you that opinion? Were there some elements that were unnecessary without being common sense?

3. How does your organization motivate you to attend safety training?4. How does your organization help reinforce lessons learned in safety training after the

classes end?5. How do your supervisors or other organizational leaders show support for safety lessons?6. How does a worker’s attitude influence the likelihood of a potential injury or prevention

of future injuries?7. Have you ever been hurt on the job but disregarded the injury because it event was not

serious? If so, why? What determines the “seriousness” of an injury? Would you respond differently now?

8. Does your organization provide career counseling in any sense? How does your organization help you plan for your future?

9. How would following the safety procedures discussed in your training sessions influenced your career plans in the next five years?

Summarize, Provide Recap, Thank for participation, and End End Time: ______________

Documents

christopherdwalker.files.wordpress.com€¦ · Web viewThe researchers did make sure to control for all variables (Neider et al., 2013). Comparing the results of time to find an