Development of Trainee Self-Efficacy, Motivation To Learn, and Motivation To Transfer Learning

INFORMATION TO USERS
This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI
films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some
thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may
be from any type of computer printer.
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the
copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality
illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins,
and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete
manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if
unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate
the deletion.
Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by
sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand corner and
continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each
original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in
reduced form at the back of the book.
Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced
xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6" x 9" black and white
photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations
appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly
to order.
University Microfilms International

A Bell & Howell Information C om pany
3 0 0 North Z e e b Road. Ann Arbor, Ml 4 8 1 0 6 -1 3 4 6 USA
3 1 3 /7 6 1 -4 7 0 0
8 0 0 /5 2 1 -0 6 0 0
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
O rd e r N u m b e r 9403563
D evelopm ent o f trainee self-efficacy, m otivation to learn, and

m otivation to transfer learning
New ton, K athryne Ann, P h.D .
Texas A&M University, 1993
Copyright 1993 by N ew ton , K athryne A nn. All rights reserved.
UMI
300 N. Zeeb Rd.

Ann Arbor, MI 48106
DEVELOPMENT OF TRAINEE
SELF-EFFICACY, MOTIVATION TO LEARN, AND
MOTIVATION TO TRANSFER LEARNING
A Dissertation
By
KATHRYNE ANN NEWTON
Submitted to the Office of Graduate Studies of

Texas A&M University
in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
August 1993
Major Subject: Industrial Education
1993
KATHRYNE ANN NEWTON
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
DEVELOPMENT OF TRAINEE
SELF-EFFICACY, MOTIVATION TO LEARN, AND
MOTIVATION TO TRANSFER LEARNING
A Dissertation
By
KATHRYNE ANN NEWTON
Submitted to Texas A&M University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Robert Albanese
(Member)
(Member)
Lloyd J. Korhonen
(Head of Department)
August 1993
Major Subject: Industrial Education
iii
ABSTRACT
The Development of Trainee Self-Efficacy, Motivation to Learn, and
Motivation to Transfer Learning. (August 1993)
Kathryne Ann Newton, B.S. Texas A&M University;
M.B.A., Texas A&M University
Chair of Advisory Committee: Dr. Daniel L. Householder
The purpose of the study was to examine the development of trainee selfefficacy, motivation to learn, and motivation to transfer learning as a result of
experiences in a training and development program. This study fit the description
of a one-group pretest-posttest quasi-experimental design (Borg & Gall, 1989).
The sample was a group of trainees attending an 84-hour training and
development program designed to enhance the competencies needed by human
resource and development trainers. The program was conducted in four, 21-hour
weekend training sessions between January and May, 1993.
The survey instrument was developed by the researcher by combining
scales developed by other researchers for studies on the constructs of selfefficacy, motivation to learn, and motivation to transfer learning.
A pretest was administered prior to the first training session. Two posttests
were administered, one after the first training session and one at the conclusion
(after the fourth training session) of the training and development program.
Reliability estimates were calculated for the survey instrument and for the
construct scales. The f-test was used to test for significant differences between
the pretest and the first session posttest items means, and between the pretest
and the fourth session posttest item means.
No significant difference was found between the pretest and posttest
means. An analysis of difference scores on the pretest and the fourth session
posttest means identified significant differences in means on two items on the selfefficacy scale, one item on the motivation to learn scale, and one item on the
motivation to transfer scale.
The conclusion of the study was that trainee self-efficacy, motivation to
learn and motivation to transfer learning (as these constructs were measured by
this survey instrument) were not improved by participation in the training and
development program.
Further theoretical development appears to be needed to delineate the
constructs of self-efficacy, motivation to learn, and motivation to transfer learning.
Further development may be needed to improve the sensitivity of the survey
instrument, the specificity of the construct measurement, and the reliability of the
self-efficacy scale. It is recommended that the survey instrument be utilized in a
more rigorous research design with a larger sample size and control group to
examine and work to improve the validity of the instrument for training
effectiveness research.
DEDICATION
This research is dedicated to my family - Charles, Robert, Daniel and
Michelle. This could not have been completed without their patience, support and
love. Thanks also to Dad for teaching how short-term sacrifices benefit the long
run, and to Mom for her many examples of wisdom.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
A note of thanks for the cooperation of the Brazos County American
Society for Training and Development and the Educational Human Resource
Development Department at Texas A&M University, for their assistance with this
research.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
ABSTRACT ....................................................................................................... jjj
DEDICATION......................................................................................................v
ACKNOWLEDGMENT..................................................................................
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................. vii

LIST OF T A B LE S ............................................................................................... x
CHAPTER
I.
INTRODUCTION...................................................................................... 1
Problem Statem ent.......................................................................3
Purpose of this Study .................................................................. 3
Hypotheses....................................................................................4
Limitations of the S tu d y................................................................ 4
Assumptions..................................................................................4
Definition of Terms ...................................................................... 5
II.
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ............................................................7

Training Effectiveness.................................................................. 7
Measures of Training Effectiveness ............................................ 8
Attitude Research ....................................................................... 10
Attitudes and Their Links to Behavior........................................ 13
Self-Efficacy and Motivation: Antecedents and
Outcomes of Training ................................................................ 14
Self-Efficacy ...............................................
14
Trainee Motivation............................................................19
Motivation to Learn ..........................................................21
Motivation to Transfer Learning ......................................24
Summary of Literature R eview ................................................... 25
III.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY.............................................................. 28
Design ........................................................................................ 28
Development of the Instrument................................................... 28
Selection of the Sample.............................................................. 32
viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
PAGE
Treatment....................................................................................33
Collection of the Data ................................................................ 41
Data A n a lysis............................................................................. 43
IV.
RESULTS...............................................................................................45
Reliability Analysis.......................................................................46
Tests of Hypotheses.................................................................. 49
Test of Hypothesis O n e ................................................. 49
Test of Hypothesis T w o ................................................. 50
Test of Hypothesis T h re e ............................................... 51
Analysis of Items and S ca le s .....................................................52
Analysis of Self-Efficacy Scale Item M eans.................... 53
Correlation Analysis of Self-Efficacy Scale...................... 57
Analysis of Motivation to Learn Scale Item Means . . . . 59
Correlation Analysis of Motivation to Learn Scale
64
Analysis of Motivation to Transfer Learning Scale
Item M eans.......................................................................65
Correlation Analysis of Motivation to Transfer
Learning Scale ................................................................ 70
Additional Research Findings.....................................................71
Correlation Analysis Among the Construct Scales . . . . 71
Additional Research on the Training
and Development Program.............................................. 72
Summary of Results .................................................................. 80
Discussion of Results ................................................................ 83
V.
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
............. 90
Hypotheses..................................................................................90
Design ........................................................................................ 91
Development of Instrument ....................................................... 91
Treatment....................................................................................92
Data C ollection........................................................................... 92
Data A n a lysis............................................................................. 93
R esults........................................................................................ 93
Conclusions ............................................................................... 95
Recommendations for Future Research ................................... 96
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
CHAPTER
PAGE
REFERENCES................................................................................................ 98
APPENDIX A .................................................................................................104
APPENDIX B .................................................................................................108
VITA ........................................................................................................... 111
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE
PAGE
1.
Scales Measuring Self-Efficacy, Motivation to Learn,

and Motivation to Transfer.................................................................... 30
2.
Reliability Coefficients on
First Session Posttest and Fourth Session Posttest.............................47
3.
Pretest, First Session Posttest and Fourth Session

Posttest Cronbachs Alpha Reliability Coefficients
for Construct Scales and Subscales in the Survey Instrument ........... 48
4.
Survey Instrument and Construct Scale Means and Standard

Deviations for Pretest, First Session Posttest, and
Fourth Session Posttest.........................................................................50
5.
Self-Efficacy Scale Item Means and Standard Deviations for

Pretest, First Session Posttest, and Fourth Session P osttest
53
Analysis of Difference Scores using /-test for Paired Samples

Procedure for Differences Between Self-Efficacy Scale Pretest and
First Session Posttest, and Between Pretest and Fourth Session
Posttest (n=17)
55
6.
7.
Correlation Matrix for Self-Efficacy Scale ............................................. 59
8.
Motivation to Learn Scale Item Means and Standard Deviations for

Pretest, First Session Posttest, and Fourth Session P osttest
9.
60
Analysis of Difference Scores using /-test for Paired Samples

Procedure for Differences Between Motivation to Learn Scale
Pretest and First Session Posttest, and Between Pretest and
Fourth Session Posttest (n=17) ........................................................... 62
10. Correlation Matrix for Motivation to Learn Scale .................................. 65

11.
Motivation to Transfer Learning Scale Item Means and Standard

Deviations for Pretest, First Session Posttest, and Fourth
Session Posttest....................................................................................66
LIST OF TABLES continued

TABLE
PAGE
12. Analysis of Difference Scores using f-test for Paired Samples

Procedure for Differences Between Motivation to Transfer
Learning Scale Pretest and First Session Posttest, and Between
Pretest and Fourth Session Posttest (n=17) ........................................68
13. Correlation Matrix for Motivation to Transfer Learning Scale.................71
14. Participant Motivation for Attending Program......................................... 73
15. Interests of Participants.......................................................................... 74
16. Typical Job Duties of Participants...........................................................75
17. Percent of Participants who Felt Their Proficiency Level
was High in Competencies Listed Prior to Training and
Development Program........................................................................... 76
18. Percent of Participants who Felt Competency was Critical
in Relation to Job Function Prior to Training and
Development Program........................................................................... 78
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Training is increasingly depended upon by employees, managers, and
organizations as a means of addressing work issues (Goldstein, 1989).
For
example, training is used to improve current job skills, to prepare for career
advancement, and to retool employees for new or changing job requirements
(Tannenbaum, Mathieu, Salas, & Cannon-Bowers, 1991).
In addition to the
primary purpose of skill development, variables such as self efficacy (Latham,

1989) and organizational commitment (Tannenbaum et al., 1991) may also be
important outcomes.
Surveys indicate that over 90% of private corporations have some type of
systematic training program (Goldstein, 1986). Georgenson (1982) estimated that
American industries spend up to $100 billion annually on training and
development. Unfortunately, not more than 10% of these expenditures actually
result in transfer to job performance (Georgenson, 1982). Given these statistics,
it is not surprising approximately two-thirds of training managers responding to a
recent study felt that they were under pressure for their programs to produce
"bottom-line" results (Carnevale & Schulz, 1990).
Training effectiveness can be influenced by a number of factors, such as
thoroughness of needs analysis, quality of training design, and trainee selection.
The Journal of Industrial Teacher Education was used as the model for
style and format of this dissertation.
There appears to be a recent increase "in research on the implications of trainee

characteristics for improving training effectiveness" (Tannenbaum & Yukl, 1992,
p. 413). Feldman (1989) suggested that research should examine how attitudes
change in training settings. Individuals should be viewed as active information
processors adapting attitudes, behaviors, and beliefs to their own social context
and past experiences (Baldwin & Ford, 1988).
In their review of research on trainee characteristics, Tannenbaum & Yukl
(1992) concluded that trainee self-efficacy, motivation, and expectations appear
to be central constructs in understanding training effectiveness.
Training may be viewed as an intervention designed to influence learning
and behavior change (Huse, 1975). Noe (1986) suggested that trainees beliefs
that they can learn the material presented in a program and that desirable
outcomes will result from skill and knowledge acquisition may influence their
motivation to learn the material presented in a training program. Pretraining selfefficacy has been found to be positively related to improvements in performance,
to openness to experiment, and to the likelihood that trainees will use the material
taught in the program on the job (Gist, Schwoerer, & Rosen, 1989). Gist (1987)
stated that training that enhances self-efficacy and motivation should improve
subsequent performance and reduce the time needed for employees to perform
well. Determining the individual characteristics influencing the effectiveness of
training is of utmost importance in order to understand how to increase the
likelihood that behavior change and performance improvement will result from
participation (Noe & Schmitt, 1986).
Problem Statement
While training is heavily depended upon in the U.S. to increase
performance on-the-job, skills learned during training are not adequately being
transferred to the workplace. Research is needed to identify whether motivation
and self-efficacy are determinants of whether or not learning, behavior change,
or performance improvement are results of training (Noe, 1986). In addition, there
is a need for the measures of self-efficacy and trainee motivation to be
operationalized more clearly. For example, a distinction should be made between
motivation to attend, motivation to learn, and motivation to transfer (Tannenbaum
et al., 1991).
Purpose of this Study
The purpose of this study was to examine the development of trainee selfefficacy, motivation to learn, and motivation to transfer learning as a result of
experiences in a training and development program.
Hypotheses
This study had three hypotheses; each was concerned with two
assessments:
1(a). Trainee self-efficacy will be improved by participation in the first
training session of the training and development program.
1fb).
Trainee self-efficacy will be improved by completion of the training

and development program.
2(a). Trainee motivation to learn will be improved by participation in the

first training session of the training and development program.
2(b). Trainee motivation to learn will be improved by completion of the

training and development program.
3(a). Trainee motivation to transfer learning will be improved by
participation in the first training session of the training and
3(b). Trainee motivation to transfer learning will be improved by
completion of the training and development program.
Limitations of the Study
The ultimate measure of transfer of learning can only be made by
observing on-the-job performance after training. However, this study dealt only
with the after-training assessment of those attitudes which are believed to relate
to training effectiveness.
No attempt was made to assess actual transfer of
training on the job.

There was no control group in this design, therefore, there was no way to
rule out other causes of change outside the training program (Borg & Gall, 1989).
Assumptions
Because the subjects self-selected the training, this study was conducted
under the assumption that those participating in the training and development
program expected the training to improve their performance in their jobs. The
researcher attended the first full day of the first training session and participated
as an instructor for two of the two-hour training modules, one during each of the
second and third training sessions. Participants appeared to be interested in
learning the materials as evidenced by their close attention during the training
sessions. They devoted extra time and effort outside the formal sessions working
on assignments designed to enhance their learning and to assess their
competencies in the subject matter.
The sets of items which were used to assess self-efficacy, motivation to
learn, and motivation to transfer in this study had been used previously by
researchers in combination with other items. Because each set of items was left
fundamentally intact, it is assumed that the new combination of item sets in this
study did not have an adverse effect upon the reliability and validity of the sets of
items or the total instrument.
Definitions of Terms
Attitude: A general and enduring positive or negative feeling about some
person, object, or issue (Petty & Cacioppo, 1981). Attitudes serve as convenient
summaries of beliefs and may assist others to predict behaviors one is likely to
engage in. In this study, attitudes were assumed to be structures in memory
(Tesser & Shaffer, 1990).
Self-Efficacy.
"Peoples beliefs in their capabilities to mobilize the
motivation, cognitive resources, and courses of action needed to exercise control

over events in their lives" (Wood & Bandura, 1989, p. 364).
Motivation to Learn: A specific desire of the trainee to learn the content of
the training program (Noe, 1986).
Motivation to Transfer Learning: The trainees desire to use the knowledge
and skills in the training program on the job (Noe, 1986).
Training and Development Program:
The Training and Development
Certification Program conducted by the Texas A&M University Department of

Educational Human Resource Development January 22-24, February 19-21,
March 19-21 and April 30-May 2, 1993, under the sponsorship of the Brazos
Valley Chapter of the American Society for Training and Development and the
San Antonio Chapter of the National Society for Performance and Instruction.
This non-credit program was designed for training professionals who wished to
develop and update their skills.
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
This review of literature begins with a discussion of the needs for training
effectiveness and training effectiveness measures which provides the background
upon which this research study was built. The concepts used in the study are
explored in the following order:
attitude research, attitudes and their link to
behavior, self-efficacy, motivation, motivation to learn, and motivation to transfer.

Training Effectiveness
The need for effective training and retraining in America is as critical today
as it has ever been. The influence of increased domestic and global competition,
increasing quality standards, new technology, increased consumer awareness,
and changes in the American workforce has made training a critical ingredient for
improving American productivity. Most surveys indicate that over 90% of private
corporations have some type of systematic training program (Goldstein, 1986) and
it has been estimated that American industries annually spend up to $100 billion
on training and development.
According to Wexley (1989), four practical issues must be addressed if
training is to be effective in increasing the nations productivity.
organizations must use training programs that fit their needs.
First,
Training
practitioners need to assess their organizations training needs to develop

programs that work and are practical. A second issue concerns the training
program design; there is a need to know more about selecting employees who are
trainable, choosing the best combination of methods and techniques for
maximizing trainees learning and transfer to the workplace. The third practical
issue is the changing nature of the work force.
It has been estimated that
employers will have to retrain office workers five to eight times during their careers
in the near future. The last practical issue is centered around evaluating the
effectiveness of training programs.
New methodologies are necessary to
determine the degree of effectiveness of training programs in improving job

performance and the cost/benefit value of training (Wexley, 1989).
Measures of Training Effectiveness
Training can be viewed as a change intervention designed to influence
learning and behavior change (Huse, 1975).
It has also been defined as a
"planned learning experience designed to bring about permanent change in an

individuals knowledge, attitudes, or skills" (Noe & Schmitt, 1986, p. 497). Training
effectiveness has often been determined by assessing the criteria in Kirkpatricks
(1976) hierarchical model of training outcomes. Tannenbaum & Yukl (1992)
stated that this typology remains the prevalent framework for categorizing training
criteria. This model suggests that one should consider the hierarchy of trainees
reactions, learning, behavior change, and subsequent organizational results.
Reactions are defined as what the trainees thought of the particular program;
learning is concerned with measuring the learning of principles, facts, techniques,
and attitudes specified in the training objectives; behavior refers to the
measurement of job performance; and results relates to how the training program
met the organizational objectives (Goldstein, 1974). Each training outcome affects
the next level in the hierarchy (Noe, 1986). This model of training evaluation
criteria is well known in training departments across the country (Alliger & Janak,
1989) and the field of industrial/ organizational psychology has largely accepted
this framework (Cascio, 1987). Noe & Schmitt (1986) stated that positive trainee
reactions, learning, behavior change, and improvements in job-related outcomes
can be expected from well-administered training programs.
Because trainee
reactions are the criterion most commonly used from this typology, it is important
to examine the relationship of trainee reactions to the other three criteria. Alliger
& Janak (1989) found no relationship between trainee reactions and the other
three levels; although they did find slightly higher correlations among the other
levels. Mathieu, Tannenbaum, & Salas (1992) took the position that "there is no
theoretical reason why reactions should be linearly related to learning or to other
outcome measures" (p. 833). Overall, studies fail to support the direct causal
relationship among the typology (Tannenbaum & Yukl, 1992).
Trainee attitudes, interests, values, and expectations may attenuate or
enhance training effectiveness (Noe, 1986).
Feldman (1989) suggested that
research should examine how attitudes and values change during training.
Tannenbaum et al. (1991) stated that research is needed that examines the
development of motivation and self-efficacy during training.
It has also been
stated that variables such as trainees goals and their levels of self-efficacy
before, during, and after training could impact the ultimate effectiveness of a
training program (Mathieu, Martineau, & Tannenbaum, 1993). Determining the
individual characteristics that influence the effectiveness of training is of utmost
importance to understand how to increase the likelihood that behavior change and
10
performance improvement will result from participation (Noe & Schmitt, 1986).
A model describing the hypothesized relationships between attitudes and
training effectiveness was used as a study design by Tannenbaum et al. (1991).
Although not all of the hypothesized relationships are being tested in this study,
this model (Figure 1) provided the foundation for this study.
As illustrated,
trainees enter training at different levels of self-efficacy and motivation. During the
training and development program, trainees experience the content and various
methods used to teach the material, in addition to the social aspects of the
training.
Training fulfillment is a function of expectations and desires of the
trainees and their perceptions. "Trainee perceptions reflect the individual trainees
observations of what transpired during training, trainee performance reflects how
well trainees performed, and trainee reactions reflect satisfaction with the training"
(Tannenbaum et al., 1991, p. 761). There is evidence to suggest that training is
related to the development of self-efficacy and motivation.
The training
experience is expected to positively influence posttraining self-efficacy and

motivation.
Attitude Research
Attitude research is flourishing and attitude and motivational themes have
become more important (Tesser & Shaffer, 1990). The word attitude originated
as a physiological rather than as a cognitive concept. The current view of attitude
gained acceptance in part from the development of new measurement techniques
(Petty, Ostrom, & Brock, 1981). Cacioppo, Harkins, & Petty (1981) stated that
Thurstone was the originator of modern attitude measurement. Thurstone viewed
an attitude as the amount of affect or feeling for or against a stimulus.
He
measured attitudes by presenting statements to subjects and asking them to

indicate the ones they agreed with; the statements expressed evaluations ranging
from very unfavorable to very favorable.
The concept of attitude was
subsequently broadened to include other dimensions (Cacioppo et al., 1981).

Examples of other definitions include: preparation or readiness for response;
degree of affect for or against an object or a value; a predisposition of the
individual to evaluate some symbol or object or aspect of his world in a favorable
or unfavorable manner (Dawes, 1977). Dawes (1977) made a compelling case
that the term attitude does not have an exact scientific meaning or definition.
PRE-TRAINING ATTITUDES
POST-TRAINING ATTITUDES
TRAINEE DEMOGRAPHICS
TRAINEE EXPECTATIONS
AND DESIRES
TRAINEE PERCEmONS
TRAINEE REACTIONS
Figure 1. Relationships between Attitudes and

Training Effectiveness (adapted from Tannenbaum et al, 1991).
12
Researchers in the field generally agree that the term attitude should be
used to refer to a general and enduring positive or negative feeling about some
person, object, or issue (Petty & Cacioppo, 1981). Attitudes can be viewed as
structures in memory (Tesser & Shaffer, 1990). More importantly, attitudes are
learned from experience and, if they are learned, attitudes may (presumably) be
taught (Shrigley, Koballa, & Simpson, 1988). Attitudes are enduring enough to be
stable but transient enough to be changed. This transient nature depends upon
the specificity of attitudes. For example, "the attitude of a biology teacher toward
science is rather enduring, but her attitude toward wait time, divergent
questioning, or the new biology text are more specific, more transient, and more
easily changed" (Shrigley et al., 1988, p. 668). Although learning theory is central
to the concept of attitude, the emphasis in the field has shifted from stimulusresponse to cognitive psychology.
Attitudes should be distinguished from beliefs and behaviors. The term
belief is reserved for "the information that a person has about other people,
objects and issues" (Petty & Cacioppo, 1981, p. 7). Behaviors are overt actions.
Attitudes have been conceptualized as involving three classes of responses: (a)
affect -- an individuals feelings about a stimulus; (b) cognition -- an individuals
thoughts, ideas, associations, and images pertaining to a stimulus; and (c)
conation -- an individuals behavioral responses evoked by a stimulus (Cacioppo
et al., 1981).
Both attitudes and beliefs are learned, are bidirectional, and have a
tendency toward action. To contrast, attitudes are not born of facts; some beliefs
13
are.
Beliefs are likely to be more enduring than attitudes, particularly when
approaching the level of facts. "Attitudes are not observable; some descriptive
beliefs are" (Shrigley et al., 1988, p. 669).
Attitudes and Their Links to Behavior
Petty & Cacioppo (1981) stated that attitude became an important concept
because of the psychological functions that attitudes were thought to serve and
because of the presumption that attitudes direct (and thus predict) behavior. They
further stated that although attitudes are important because they serve as
convenient summaries of our beliefs, attitudes are important for another reason:
knowing our attitudes assists others to predict the behaviors we are likely to
engage in.
Much of the research on attitudes is based on the Fishbein and Ajzen
(1981) theory of personal action that assumes that the best predictor of behavior
is intention. According to the theory, an individuals behavior is determined by his
or her intention to perform a particular behavior. Assuming that no unforeseen
change in plans occurs, the measure of an individuals intention should be the
best single predictor of behavior (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1981). Behavioral intention
is viewed as a function of two factors: the individuals attitude toward performing
the behavior (positive or negative feeling toward performing the behavior) and the
individuals subjective norm with respect to the behavior (belief that others think
the individual should or should not perform the behavior (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1981).
In this framework, attitude is solely evaluative and a function of belief (Shrigley et.
al, 1988). The model was recently expanded to include perceived behavioral
14
control (similar to Banduras self-efficacy), and the name of the model changed
to theory of planned behavior (Ajzen & Madden, 1986).
Adding the variable of self-efficacy contributes to the accurate prediction
of both behavioral intentions and behaviors (Tesser & Shaffer, 1990). Tesser &
Shaffer concluded that, although not all attempts to use perceived control to
predict behavior or behavioral intentions have met with success, self-efficacy
appears to have been a useful addition. Petty & Cacioppo (1981) asserted that
enough careful research has been conducted by scholars to conclude with
confidence that attitudes are related to behaviors.
Self-Efficacy and Motivation: Antecedents and Outcomes of Training
This section reviews studies dealing with self-efficacy, trainee motivation,
motivation to learn, and motivation to transfer learning.
Self-Efficacy
Self-efficacy is a key element in Banduras social learning theory (Gist,
1987).
Social learning theory explains human behavior in terms of interplay
among cognitive, behavioral, and environmental influences; it incorporates the

views of both the behaviorists and cognitivists (Wexley & Latham, 1981). This
approach emphasizes a reciprocal relationship between cognitive processes and
information derived from the environment (Rosenthal & Zimmerman, 1978).
Bandura (1989a) makes the distinction:
15
persons are neither autonomous agents nor simply mechanical

conveyers of animated environmental influences. Rather, they make
causal contribution to their own motivation and action within a
system of triadic reciprocal causation. In this model of reciprocal
causation, action, cognitive, affective, and other personal factors,
and environmental events all operate as interacting determinants (p.
1175).
The nature of this process is such that individuals may conceive the
consequences of their proposed behavior, decide among alternative courses of
action, behave accordingly, and thus modify the environment in which they are
operating. This modification creates a new situation which may suggest new
alternative behaviors among which the individuals again exert choices (Chell,
1987). There is impressive empirical support for social learning theory as a
vehicle for changing employee behavior (Mager, 1991; Wexley & Latham, 1981).
Self-efficacy is an important determinant of work motivation (Eden & Kinnar,
1991). Self-efficacy concerns "peoples beliefs in their capabilities to mobilize the
motivation, cognitive resources, and courses of action needed to exercise control
over events in their lives" (Wood & Bandura, 1989, p. 364).
Self-efficacy is a dynamic construct (Gist & Mitchell, 1992). Self-efficacy
arises gradually as the individual acquires cognitive, social, linguistic, and/or
physical skills through experience. Individuals appear to weigh, integrate, and
evaluate information about their own capabilities and then regulate their choices
and efforts accordingly (Gist, 1987).
Further differentiation between self-efficacy and similar constructs is
important to the future theoretical development on self-efficacy (Gist & Mitchell,
1992). There are a number of definitions regarding performance expectations and
16
their sources (Eden & Kinnar, 1991).
Gist, Stevens & Bavetta (1991)
distinguished self-efficacy from self-esteem and locus of control.
While self-
efficacy is a judgment of task-specific capability, self-esteem is generally

considered to be a trait reflective of an individuals characteristic evaluation of the
self. Locus of control is a belief about the general causal relationship between
actions and outcomes (i.e., are they internally or externally induced). Eden and
Kinnar (1991) stated that although there are conceptual differences between selfefficacy, self-esteem, and expectancy, the scales devised to measure them lack
discriminant validity. Similarly, while there are shades of difference in meaning
among the constructs of self-efficacy, self-confidence, and self-assurance, all
three constructs are highly correlated and are not likely to be distinguished
operationally.
Peoples beliefs about their self-efficacy can be strengthened in four ways.
From most influential to least influential, these are:
(a) enactive mastery
experiences, which involve successful performances of tasks; (b) vicarious

experience, (modeling) in which models are provided of effective strategies for
managing different situations; (c) social persuasion, which involves increasing
peoples beliefs that they possess capabilities to achieve what they seek; and (d)
judgment of physiological states while people are assessing their own capabilities
(Eden & Kinnar, 1991; Gist, 1987; Gist & Mitchell, 1992; Ozer & Bandura, 1990;
Wood & Bandura, 1989).
Self-efficacy has three dimensions. Magnitude refers to the level of task
difficulty that a person believes he or she can attain. Strength is a measure of
17
whether the conviction regarding magnitude is strong or weak. Generality is the

degree to which the expectation is generalized across situations (Gist, 1987).
According to Wood and Bandura (1989), there is a difference between
possessing skills and being able to use them under difficult circumstances. To be
successful, one must possess, in addition to required skills, a resilient self-belief
in ones capabilities to exercise enough control to accomplish desired goals. It is
possible for people with the same skills, therefore, to perform poorly, adequately,
or well above average depending on whether their self-efficacy enhances or
impairs their motivation. Self-efficacy beliefs have been found to be superior to
past performance in predicting future behavior (Marcus & Owen, 1992)
it is clear that Banduras concept of self-efficacy is not a measure of global
self-efficacy traits (Eden, 1988; Eden & Kinnar, 1991).
While Banduras
conceptualization of self-efficacy was situational-specific, several researchers have

constructed theories to define self-efficacy in more general terms. While the
construct of general self-efficacy is still emerging, Sheltons (1990) review on its
development included the following points:
(a) generalized self-efficacy is a
composite of an individuals past success and failure experiences, (b) individuals

differ in general self-efficacy expectations, and (c) an individuals general selfefficacy should affect the persons mastery expectations in new situations.
Perceived self-efficacy is a cognitive factor that influences motivation. The
self-percepts of efficacy partially provide the basis depended upon for choosing
what challenges to undertake, how much effort to expend, and how long to
persevere in the face of difficulties (Bandura & Cervone, 1986; Wood & Bandura,
18
1989). Moreover, peoples judgments of their capabilities influence how they think
and feel about a task as they anticipate it and while carrying it out (Ross, 1992).
Whether or not perceived discrepancies between personal standards and
attainments are motivating or discouraging is likely to be determined by the
degree of peoples perceived capabilities to attain standards they have been
pursuing. "Those who distrust their capabilities are easily discouraged by failure;
whereas those who are highly assured of their efficacy for goal attainment will
intensify their efforts when performances fall short and they persevere until they
succeed" (Bandura & Cervone, 1986, p. 93). The relationship that strong belief
in ones efficacy heightens perseverance in difficult pursuits has been
corroborated by evidence across diverse activity domains for both children and
adults (Bandura & Cervone. 1986). In training settings, measurement of trainees
self-efficacy should focus on effective responses to learning and change; such
responses include confidence in learning situations, ease of comprehending new
material, and difficulty in adjusting to work situations (Noe, 1986).
Jones (1986) studied the effects of self-efficacy on role-orientation of
newcomers and found that newcomers high in self-efficacy tended to define
situations themselves even when their roles in organization were prescribed.
Bandura & Cervone (1986) found the self-efficacy contributed to motivation across
a wide range of discrepancy conditions. Lent, Brown & Larkin (1987) found that
self-efficacy was useful in predicting grades and persistence in technical/scientific
majors. Gist et ai. (1991) found that trainee self-efficacy was significantly related
to initial performance levels as well as to skill maintenance over a seven-week
19
period. Bouffard-Bouchard (1990) found that self-efficacy was related to both task
persistence and to ability to evaluate the correctness of responses. Self-efficacy
has also been shown to predict performance in computer software training (Gist
et al., 1989) interpersonal skills training (Gist et al., 1991) and military training
programs (Eden & Ravid, 1982, Tannenbaum et al., 1991). Self-efficacy is now
being investigated by researchers who argue that perceived self-efficacy predicts
performance in such diverse areas as assertiveness training, adherence to
exercise programs, and sales performance (Bouffard-Bouchard, 1990).
Trainee Motivation
The importance of trainee motivation for facilitating the effectiveness of a
training program is not in doubt (Wexley & Latham, 1981).
Everyone has
experienced situations where skills and ideas most readily learned were those
related to personal needs. Likewise, shared experiences where little progress
was made due to disinterest in what was being taught often occurs. Motivation
can be seen as a force influencing enthusiasm about a program (energizes), a
stimulus directing participants to learn and attempt to mastery of the content of a
program (director), and a force influencing the use of newly acquired knowledge
and skills even in the presence of criticism or lack of support (maintenance) (Noe
& Schmitt, 1986). Mathieu et al. (1992), Tannenbaum et al. (1991) and Baldwin,
Machuka and Loher (1991) all provided empirical evidence for a positive
relationship between trainee motivation and training outcomes.
How are trainees motivated? Social cognitive theory emphasized human
capacities for self-direction and self-motivation (Bandura, 1989a; Wood &
20
Bandura, 1989).
"People motivate themselves and guide their actions
anticipatorily through the exercise of forethought" (Bandura, 1989b, p. 729).

These operate partly through peoples internal standards and their evaluations of
their own behavior. People seek self-satisfactions from fulfilling goals, and are
motivated by discontent when performances are not up to their own standards.
Therefore, people use self-evaluative reactions, which act as motivators and
guides, to keep their conduct in line with their personal standards. It is important
to note however, that self-motivation relies not only on discrepancy reduction, but
also on discrepancy production. People first set standard which create a state of
disequilibrium, thereby mobilizing the efforts required to accomplish their goals.
After they attain the standards they pursue, they generally set higher standards
forthemselves (Bandura, 1989a; Bandura, 1989b). "Thus, self-motivation involves
a dual control mechanism that operates through discrepancy production, which is
followed by discrepancy reduction" (Wood & Bandura, 1989, p. 367).
Wexley and Latham (1981) stated that three theories are particularly useful
to understanding trainee motivation: goal setting theory, reinforcement theory,
and expectancy theory. Goal setting theory states that individuals conscious
goals or intentions regulate their behavior (a goal is anything an individual is trying
to achieve). Reinforcement theory (behavior modification) emphasizes that the
frequency of behavior is influenced by its consequences. If the consequence is
positive forthe individual, the likelihood the behavior will be repeated is increased.
Expectancy theories, also important to motivating trainees, share the concept that
individuals will be motivated to choose a behavior alternative that is most likely to
21
have favorable consequences. Decisions to expend effort are then dependent

upon the answer to the question "what am I going to get out of this?" (Wexley &
Latham, 1981).
Motivation to Learn
Motivation is relevant to learning because learning requires conscious and
deliberate effort (Stippek, 1988). When trainees are not motivated, they usually
do not perform at the level their ability would allow.
The self-efficacy literature suggests that trainees beliefs that they can learn
the material in the training program and that desirable outcomes will result from
acquiring new skills and knowledge may influence motivation to learn the
behavior, knowledge, or skills presented in the training program. In discussing
perceptions of efficacy, Bandura referred to a sense of skill mastery, not just
normative competency (Stippek, 1988).
For example, trainees must actually
perceive themselves to be making progress in acquiring a new skill or knowledge,

or they will not feel efficacious. This is true even if they are rewarded for their
efforts and are performing better than others.
The motivation to learn can be described as a specific desire of the trainee
to learn the content of the training program (Noe, 1986; Noe & Schmitt, 1986).
Noe suggested that measures of motivation to learn include strength of trainee
enthusiasm for learning and level of persistence when program content is difficult.
Ryman and Biesner (1975) studied motivation to learn and found that it was useful
for predicting success and class drop out rates of U.S. Marine recruits in three
Navy diving training classes.
Noe (1986) stated that, given similar abilities,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout permission.
22
trainees who are enthusiastic about the program and desire to learn its contents
are likely to acquire more knowledge and skills and to demonstrate greater
behavior change and performance improvement than trainees who are not
motivated to learn.
Noe (1986) cited expectancy theory as having particular relevance in
training situations. Trainees have expectations regarding potential outcomes of
training participation (Expectancy I) and have preferences for particular outcomes
of participation such as promotion or pay increase. In addition, trainees have
differing beliefs regarding the extent to which good performance in the training
program will lead to their preferred outcomes (Expectancy II). These notions
suggest that trainees beliefs that they can learn the material presented and that
desirable outcomes such as promotion or salary increase will result are important
antecedents of motivation to learn (Noe & Schmitt, 1986).
Effort-performance expectancies are related to Banduras self-efficacy
perceptions. Noe & Schmitt (1986) hypothesized that motivation to learn was
influence by "the extent to which trainees identified psychologically with their work
and engaged in career exploration behavior, including self-assessment of interests
skill strengths and weaknesses, and career planning" (p. 502). Highly job involved
individuals were believed more likely to be motivated to learn new skills because
it could increase skill level, improve job performance and elevate feelings of selfworth.
Gist (1987) and Gist & Mitchell (1992) make a clear distinction between
self-efficacy and expectancy theory components. While it does appear that self
23
efficacy is related to effort-performance expectancies or E1 in expectancy theory,

they are not identical. First, self-efficacy focuses on a conviction that one can
execute a particular behavior, while E1 focuses on a belief that effort will lead to
a desired outcome. The former definition implies that judgments of self-efficacy
depend on more than the consideration of effort and may involve many other
factors such a coping abilities and motivational convictions. "Therefore, E1 may
predict that effort will lead to desired performance, while self-efficacy may predict
that desired performance will not occur because of an individuals conviction that
he or she is unmotivated to perform the required behavior" (Gist, 1987, p. 477.).
A second distinction between E1 and self-efficacy revolves around measurement
differences between the two. Self-efficacy measures assess expectations over
a wide range of performance levels, while expectancy measures typically assess
effort-performance expectancy for a particular performance goal.
Expectancy theory and the construct of self-efficacy both suggest that
trainees beliefs that 1) they can learn the training material and 2) desirable
outcomes will result from the knowledge and skill acquisition may influence
motivation to learn from the training program.
The concept of trainability is useful for understanding why learning,
behavior change, and transfer to the job may differ among program participants
(Noe & Schmitt, 1986). Trainability can be viewed as a function of trainees
ability, motivation, and environmental favorability [Trainability = /(Ability,
Motivation, Environmental Favorability)] (Noe & Schmitt, 1986).
The ability
component of trainability has received the majority of attention in the literature
24
(Baldwin et al., 1991; Noe, 1986). According to Noe (1986), the influence of the
work environment on trainability is a factor that should not be ignored. The
climate and the social context within a work setting are important determinants of
reinforcement and feedback. For example, trainees perceptions of climate or task
constraints may indirectly influence behavior change and learning by reducing
motivation to learn new skills or apply them to job tasks (Noe, 1986).
Baldwin et al. (1991) stated that one prescription for enhancing motivation
to learn is to involve adults in the selection of training content. This has been a
reflection of adult learning theorists who argue that adults will learn only what they
feel a desire to learn.
Empirical evidence to support the idea that trainee
involvement enhances motivation and learning is sparse. Baldwin et al. (1991)

further explored the idea and found that motivation to learn can be enhanced by
providing trainees with choices, but only on the condition they do receive the
training they choose. The potential downside of providing participation is that
trainees who did not receive their choice had significantly lower motivation to learn
and learning outcomes (Baldwin et al. 1991).
Motivation to Transfer Learning
Motivation to transfer learning can be described as "the trainees desire to
use the knowledge and skills mastered in the training program on the job" (Noe,
1986, p. 743). It is accepted in the training effectiveness literature that learning
and transfer to the workplace will occur only when trainees have both the ability
("can do") and volition ("will do") to acquire and apply new skills (Noe, 1986;
Tannenbaum & Yukl, 1992). Trainees attitudes regarding the use of new skills
25
in the work setting may influence behavior change in the work situation. Behavior
change will likely occur for trainees who learn the material presented in the
training program and desire to apply the knowledge and skills to the work setting
(Noe, 1986). Trainees are likely motivated to transfer new skills to the work
situation when they "feel confident about using the skills, perceive that jobperformance improvements will likely occur as a result of the use of the new skills,
and believe the knowledge and skills emphasized in the training program will help
solve work-related problems and frequent job demands" (Noe & Schmitt, 1986, p.
503).
Ryman and Biesner (1975) studied motivation to transfer and found a
significant relation between trainee confidence in successful course completion
and the subsequent class success and dropout rate. Noe and Schmitt (1986)
found that trainees with high job involvement were more motivated to transfer
skills to the workplace.
Summary of Literature Review
The need for effective training and retraining in America is as critical today
as it has ever been. Training may be viewed as an intervention designed to
influence learning and behavior change (Huse, 1975). Gist (1987) stated that
training that enhances self-efficacy and motivation should improve subsequent
performance and reduce the time needed for employees to perform well.
Feldman (1989) suggested that research should examine how attitudes and
values change during training. Petty and Cacciopo (1981) stated that attitudes
are an important concept because of the psychological functions they were
26
thought to serve and the presumption that attitudes direct (and thus predict)
behavior.
Self-efficacy is a key element in Banduras social learning theory (Gist,
1987). Social learning theory incorporates the views of both the behaviorists and
cognitivists (Wexley & Latham, 1981). Self-efficacy concerns "peoples beliefs in
their capabilities to mobilize the motivation, cognitive resources, and courses of
action needed to exercise control over events in their lives" (Wood & Bandura,
1989, p. 364).
Perceived self-efficacy is a cognitive factor that influences
motivation. Self-efficacy partially provides the basis depended upon for choosing
what challenges to undertake, how much effort to expend, and how long to
persevere in the face of difficulties (Bandura & Cervone, 1986; Wood & Bandura,
1989).
The relationship that strong belief on ones efficacy heightens
perseverance in difficult pursuits has been corroborated by evidence across

diverse activity domains for both children and adults (Bandura & Cervone, 1986).
The importance of trainee motivation for facilitating the effectiveness of a
training program is not in doubt (Wexley & Latham, 1981). Social cognitive theory
emphasize human capacities for self-direction and self-motivation. These operate
partly through peoples internal standards and their evaluations of their own
behavior (Bandura, 1989a; Wood & Bandura, 1989). The motivation to learn can
be described as a specific desire of the trainee to learn the content of the training
program (Noe, 1986; Noe & Schmitt, 1986). Ryman and Biesner (1975) studied
motivation to learn and found it useful for predicting success and class drop out
rates in U.S. Navy diving training classes. Noe (1986) stated that, given similar
27
abilities, trainees who are enthusiastic about the program and desire to learn its
contents are likely to acquire more knowledge and skills and to demonstrate
greater behavior change and performance improvement than trainees who are not
motivated to learn.
Motivation to transfer can be described as "the trainees desire to use the
knowledge and skills mastered in the training program on the job" (Noe, 1986, p.
743). Trainees attitudes regarding the use of new skills in the work setting may
influence behavior change in the work situation. Behavior change will likely occur
for trainees who learn the material presented in the training program and desire
to apply the knowledge and skills to the work setting (Noe, 1986). Trainees are
likely motivated to transfer new skills to the work situation when they "feel
confident, about using the kills, perceive that job-performance improvements will
likely occur as a result of the use of the new skills, and believe the knowledge and
skills emphasized in the training program will help solve work-related problems
and frequent job demands" (Noe & Schmitt, 1986, p. 503). Noe & Schmitt (1986)
found that trainees with high job involvement were more motivated to transfer
skills to the workplace.
CHAPTER III
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This chapter includes a description of the methodology used to conduct this
research.
The sections included are:
design, development of instrument,
selection of the sample, treatment, collection of the data, and data analysis.
Design
This study fit the description of a one-group pretest-posttest quasiexperimental design (Borg & Gall, 1989). Random assignment of individuals to
the group under study was not possible; therefore, the results are not
generalizable.
Development of Instrument
The survey instrument was developed using a combination of scales from
previous research on the constructs of self-efficacy, motivation to learn, and
motivation to transfer/utilize training.
Scales were selected based on their
applicability to the constructs being tested, their appropriateness to this research

situation and their potential for improving the measurement of the constructs, and
their likelihood of high reliability. Previous researchers had reported alpha values
of .70 or higher for the scales, with the exception of Ford & Noe (1987). One new
item on motivation to learn was added by the researcher, and their potential for
improving the measurement of the constructs. Two of the constructs, motivation
to learn and motivation to transfer learning, were measured by combining two
separate scales from previous studies to form a new scale for each construct.
The combinations were deemed important because the previous scales used to
29
measure these constructs contained were two to five items per construct. It was
believed that a combination of scales would provide more complete coverage of
the constructs being measured and would improve the overall reliability of the
measurements. All items in each of the scales utilized were kept intact and in the
same order as in the original forms, with exception: (a) one item from Noe (1986)
was split into two distinct questions and one item on motivation to transfer training
was removed from Ford & Noe (1987) to prevent repetition of an item on the Noe
scale. In earlier studes, some of the scales had been used in comtination with
additional scales measuring different constructs. The additional scales were not
included in this study.
All of the scales used 7-point Likert-type items that ranged from strongly
disagree (1) to strongly agree (7), with neither agree nor disagree (4) as the
midpoint (Tannenbaum et al., 1991). Hypothesis one was tested with an 8 item
instrument assessing self-efficacy taken from Jones (1986) who reported an alpha
of 71. Hypothesis two was tested with a combination of two different scales. Two
items for the assessment of motivation to learn were taken directly from Hicks and
Klimoski (1987) who reported a test-retest reliability of .88. A second 7-item scale
on motivation to learn was taken from Ryman and Biesner (1975), who reported
a reliability of .81 for the scale. One item on motivation to learn was added by the
researcher: "I am personally interested in the subject of training." This was added
because it supported the suggestion made by Noe (1986) that measures of
motivation to learn include trainee enthusiasm for learning.
The third hypothesis was also tested with a combination of two different
30
scales. A 5-item scale for the motivation to transfer was developed from Noe
(1986), and another 4-item scale came from Ford and Noe (1987) who reported
a .87 internal consistency (one item was removed from the original 5-item scale
to prevent repetition from the Noe scale). The original scales are listed in Table
1.
Table 1
Scales Measuring Self-Efficacy, Motivation to Learn, and Motivation to Transfer
Responses were recorded on 7-point scales ranging from "strongly

disagree" to "strongly agree."
Self-Efficacy (Jones, 1986)

1.
My job is well within the scope of my abilities.
2.
I do not anticipate any problems in adjusting to work in this organization.
3.
I feel I am overqualified for the job I will be doing.
4.
I have all the technical knowledge I need to deal with my job, all I need
now is practical experience.
5.
I feel confident that my skills and abilities equal or exceed those of my

future colleagues.
6.
My past experiences and accomplishments increase my confidence that I

will be able to perform successfully in this organization.
7.
I could handle a more challenging job than the one I am doing.
8.
Professionally speaking, my job exactly satisfied my expectations of myself.
Table 1 Continued
Motivation to Learn (Hicks & Klimoski, 1987)

1.
I am motivated to learn the training material in this workshop.
2.
I will try to learn as much as I can from this workshop.
Motivation to Learn (Ryman & Biesner, 1975)

1.
I have a better chance of learning this training material than most others.
2.
I volunteered for this training as soon as I could.
3.
The knowledge and experience that I gain in this training may advance my
career.
4.
Even if I fail, this training will be a valuable experience.
5.
I will get more from this training than most people.
6.
If I have difficulty during training, I will try harder.
7.
I am more prepared for this training than most people.
Motivation to Transfer (Noe, 1986)

This scale was developed from recommendations for scale development
by Noe (1986).
1.
I am confident in using the skills learned in this workshop.
2.
I am aware of work situations in which demonstration of the skills learned

in this workshop is appropriate.
3.
I perceive that job performance improvements will likely occur as a result

of use of the skills learned in this workshop.
32
Table 1 Continued
Motivation to Transfer (Noe, 1986)

4.
The knowledge and skills emphasized in this training program will be

helpful in solving work-related problems and frequent job demands.
Attitudes Towards Training Utility (Ford & Noe, 1987)

1.
The training programs I have attended have been useful for my

development as a supervisor.
2.
Most of the material in training programs I have attended has been relevant
to skills I had hoped to develop.
3.
The time, spent away from my job to attend training programs has been
worthwhile.
4.
I have been able to apply to the job what I have learned in training.
5.
I have opportunities to practice the skills emphasized in training on my job.
Minor modifications were made in the wording of the various items to

ensure that the language was appropriate for the audience and situation. In
addition, efforts were made to ensure the survey questions were worded with
clear specificity and meaning. The survey and answer sheet are reproduced in
Appendix A.
Selection of the Sample
The group under study were participants in a training and development
program. Attendance at the first session was 19, the second session was 28, the
third session was 25 and the fourth session was 27. Not all of the participants
33
attended all sessions. Three of the participants dropped out of the program
during the middle sessions, while others attending only one or two sessions. The
sample was comprised of the individuals who participated throughout the four
training sessions and received certificates. The program administrator established
that participants had to attend a minimum of 85 percent of the 84 hour program
to be considered for certification. In addition, they were required to complete all
take-home assignments. The total sample of participants who met these criteria
and completed valid and identifiable pretests, first session posttests and fourth
session posttests was 17.
Figure 1 includes the attendance records of all
participants and identifies the reasons for excluding individuals from the sample.
Survey responses which were not identifiable were not included because there
was no way to determine which participants filled them out and which did not.
Treatment
The group under study were participants in a training and development
program designed to instruct participants in the 35 competencies identified by
McLagan and Suhadolnik (1989) as critical to the trainer and the training
environment. Each participant received 84 hours of training on the 35 trainer
competencies during four 21-hour training sessions held one weekend per month,
January 22-24, February 19-21, March 19-21 and April 30-May 2, 1993, during
Spring of 1992.
Each of the four sessions began at mid-day on Friday and
concluded on Sunday afternoon. The training and development program was held
in the Texas A&M University System State Headquarters Building in College
Station, Texas. The program was designed to be a hands-on, experienced-based
program for training and development practitioners leading to professional

certification.
Figure 1
Selection Process for Participants Used in Data Analysis
Number Assigned
To Participant
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Training Session Attended

___________________________
Present,
Not
No
Valid, and
1
2
3
4
Usable Name Identifiable
*
Dr
it
it
it
it
it
it
it
it
*
*
it
it
it
it
it
it
*
*
35
Figure 1 Continued
Training Session Attended

Number Assigned
To Participant
28
29
30
31
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Present,
Not
No
Valid, and
Usable Name Identifiable
*
*
The target audience for the program included: (a) professionals who wished
to enter the field of human resource development; (b) professionals who were
currently in the field of human resources development who wished to broaden
their knowledge and skill base; and (c) professionals who sought field-based
credentials outside a formal educational setting.
It was recommended that
participants should possess a high school diploma and at (east two years of
college as the performance assessment process for certification would be
challenging to participants without a college background.
As expected, the group under study represented a wide variety of industries
and organizations and held various positions within them. It is important to note
that a majority of the participants had several years of experience in the training
and development field, and many of them had extensive careers in the field. The
fact that many of the participants were seasoned professionals would indicate that
they may be experienced test takers. The types of organizations represented by
the group included:
Reproduced with permission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
36
Computer software
Chemical
Universities
Metals
Law enforcement
Geological
Federal agencies
State agencies
County agencies
Municipal agencies
Production supply
Self-employment
The types of positions represented by the group were:
Academy Coordinator
Training Director
Human Resource Director
Public Information and Training Director
Associate Director
Training and Development Supervisor
Training Supervisor
Medical Lab Supervisor
Customer Satisfaction Manager
Customer Service Manager
Graduate Student in Adult Education
Assistant Dean and Lecturer
Technical Writer
Systems Analyst
Personnel Officer
The fact that this was the initial offering of the training and development
program meant that there had been no opportunity to pilot-test the content and
delivery of the program.
However, a number of monitoring procedures were
initiated during the sessions, including videotaping the speakers, speaker and
content assessments, and observation.
The basis for the content of the program were 35 competencies identified
in the Models for HRD Practice (McLagan & Suhadolnik, 1989). The program was
37
unique in that it was based upon a professional and practitioner structure to

generate entry level quality standards within the competencies. "Because there
are many interventions available to improve human performance rather than
training alone, the successful practitioner will be able to integrate the three HRD
components (training, career development, and organizational development) to
fortify a position in the field" (Smith, 1992, p. 20 ). However, the training and
development program was developed without an opportunity to conduct a specific
needs analysis by consulting the participants prior to the start of the program.
Needs analysis is a process which identifies the difference between the
participants desired and actual knowledge, skills, and performance in order to
guide their selection of content for a training program (Callahan, 1985).
The 25 individuals who served on the program faculty were nominated by
peers and selected by a steering committee. Faculty members were selected
because of their specific expertise and experiences. They represented a wide
variety of experiential and training backgrounds. Twelve of the faculty members
were affiliated with a university, either as faculty or as graduate students. The
remaining were trainers working in industry, education, or consulting firms. Most
of the trainers had not worked together as members of an instructional team.
Participants in the training and development program experienced
classroom and laboratory activities in a variety of training formats, including
lectures, workshops, case studies, team problem-solving, and role playing.
Faculty assessed the competency of participants at the conclusion of the training
modules (two to three hours each) with such assessment techniques as quizzes,
case studies, written assignment or problems to solve. Nowlen (1988) stated that
"to be competent is to posses sufficient knowledge and ability to meet specified
requirements in the sense of being able, adequate, suitable, and capable" (pp. 31 32).
The 35 competencies which formed the basis for the content of the training
program are listed below. The competencies and their definitions are listed in the
order in which they were presented in the training program.
Session 1: The Trainer and the Training Environment
1.
Training and Development Techniques - Knowing the

techniques and methods used in training; understanding their
appropriate uses.
2.
Group Process Skills - Influencing groups so that tasks,

relationships, and individual needs are addressed.
3.
Business Understanding - Knowing how the functions of a

business work and relate to each other; knowing the
economic impact of business decisions.
4.
Information Search Skill - Gathering information from printed

and other recorded sources; identifying and using information
specialists and reference services and aids.
5.
Research Skills - Selecting, developing and using

methodologies, statistical and data collection techniques for
formal inquiry.
6.
Data Reduction Skills - Scanning, synthesizing, and drawing

conclusions from data.
7.
Writing Skills - Preparing written material which follows

generally accepted rules of style and form, is appropriate for
the audience, creative, and accomplishes its intended
purposes.
8.
Computer Competence - Understanding and/or using

computer applications.
39
9.
Electronic Systems Skills - Having knowledge of functions,

features, and potential applications of electronic systems for
the delivery and management of HRD (such as computerbased training, teleconferencing, expert systems, interactive
video, satellite networks).
10.
Records Management Skills - Storing data in easily

retrievable form.
Session 2: The Training as a Technical Expert

11.
Subject Matter Understanding - Knowing the content of a

given function or discipline being addressed.
12.
Observing Skills - Recognizing objectively what is happening

in or across situations.
13.
Competency Identification Skills - Identifying the knowledge

and skill requirements of jobs, tasks, roles.
14.
Adult Learning Understanding - Knowing how adults acquire

and use knowledge, skills, attitudes.
Understanding
individual differences in learning.
15.
Objectives Preparation Skills - Preparing clear statements

which describe desired outputs.
16.
Presentation Skills - Presenting information orally such that

an intended purpose is achieved.
17.
Feedback Skills - Communicating information, opinions,

observations and conclusions such that they are understood
and can be acted upon.
Session 3: The Trainer as an Organizational Change Agent

18.
Self Knowledge - Knowing ones personal values, needs,

interests, style, and competencies and their effects on others.
19.
Negotiation Skills - Securing win-win agreements while

successfully representing a special interest in a decision.
20.
Relationship Building Skills - Establishing relationships and

networks across a broad range of people and groups.
40
21.
Questioning Skills - Gathering information from stimulating

insight in individuals and groups through use of interviews,
questionnaires and other probing methods.
22.
Intellectual Versatility (Creative Thinking) - Recognizing,

exploring and using a broad range of ideas and practices;
thinking logically and creatively without undue influence form
personal biases.
23.
Career Development Techniques - Knowing the techniques

and methods used in career development; understanding
their appropriate uses.
24.
Organizational Development Techniques - Knowing the

techniques and methods used in organization development;
understanding their appropriate use.
25.
Organization Understanding - Knowing the strategy, structure,

power networks, financial position, and systems of a specific
organization.
26.
Organization Behavior Understanding - Seeing organizations

as dynamic, political, economic, and social systems which
have multiple goals; using this larger perspective as a
framework for understanding and influencing events and
change.
Session 4: The Trainer as a Manager

27.
Industry Understanding - Knowing the key concepts and

variables such as critical issues, economic vulnerabilities,
measurements, distribution channels, inputs, outputs, and
information sources that define an industry and sector).
28.
Visioning Skills - Knowing how to project trends and how to

visualize possible and probable futures as well as their
implications.
29.
Performance Observation Skills - Tracking and describing

behaviors and their effects.
30.
Coaching Skill - Helping individuals recognize and

understand personal needs, values, problems, alternatives,
and goals.
31.
Delegation Skills - Assigning task responsibility and authority

to others.
32.
Facilities Skills - Planning and coordinating logistics in an

efficient and cost-effective manner.
33.
Model Building Skill - Conceptualizing and developing

theoretical and practical frameworks that describe complex
ideas in understandable, usable ways.
34.
Project Management Skills - Planning, organizing, and

monitoring work.
35.
Cost-Benefit Analysis Skills - Assessing alternatives in terms

of theirfinancial, psychological, and strategic advantages and
disadvantages.
(Smith, 1992, p. 35)
The Training and Development Certification Program was designed for

"training professionals across disciplines who wish to develop and update their
skills to remain current in a constantly changing workforce" (Smith, 1992, p. 17).
This program, based on the most comprehensive and valid definitions of roles and
competency available, sought to generate entry level quality standards for the
competencies addressed. The concept of "standards" was therefore established
from the practices of recognized professionals. However, a level of proficiency
was not identified (Smith, 1992).
Collection of the Data
The survey contained measures of three constructs:
self-efficacy,
motivation to learn, and motivation to transfer. The pretest data were collected
by the researcher and administrator of the program prior to the start of the first
training session. The survey was administered immediately after participants
42
arrival at the registration site to insure that responses were truly antecedent to the
training (Tannenbaum et al., 1991). All but three of the surveys were completed
prior to the opening session; those completed during the first intermission. These
surveys were included in this analysis because the opening training session was
an introduction to the program and did not present content related to the training
competencies.
Participation in the research was requested (not required) and respondents
were asked to place their names on the questionnaires.
Participants were
assured that no individual responses would be revealed in the report of the

research.
Throughout training, trainees participated in classroom and laboratory
learning experiences, completed assignments in and out of class, and were
assessed for competency development upon completion of each training session.
The first session posttest was administered at the conclusion of the first 21 hours
of training.
All instruments collected were evaluated for validity. Three instruments
were not utilized because respondents had rated the questions on a scale of 1-10
rather than 1-7 as instructed. The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences
(SPSS Inc., 1988) was utilized to calculate Cronbachs alpha reliability estimates
for each administration of the survey instrument, and Guttmans split-half reliability
estimates were used to calculate test-retest reliability for each scale for
comparison with reliability estimates reported from prior research, and for each set
of items measuring the three constructs to evaluate the usefulness of the
43
instrument.
A second posttest was administered at the conclusion of the fourth training
session after 84 total hours of training in the 35 competency areas. Only surveys
completed by individuals who participated throughout the four training sessions
were analyzed for results. It is believed that the exact nature of the research was
not recognizable to the participants in the study because the nature of the
questions appeared to have face validity for generic program evaluation. Face
validity means that the test looked valid "on the face of it" (Mehrens & Lehmann,
1984, p. 295).
None of the results of the pre-test were shared with the
participants prior to the posttest to prevent bias (Petty & Cacioppo, 1981).
Participants who included their address on the survey responses were offered a
summary of the results.
The researcher attended the first full day of the first training session and
participated as an instructor for two of the two-hour training modules, one during
each of the second and third training sessions.
Participants appeared to be
interested in learning the materials as evidenced by their close attention during

the training sessions. They devoted extra time and effort outside the formal
sessions working on assignments designed to enhance their learning and to
assess their competencies in the subject matter.
Data Analysis
Cronbachs Alpha and Guttman split-half reliability measures were
calculated using SPSS-X (SPSS Inc., 1988) for the survey instrument, each scale
and for each construct measured from the pretest, the first session posttest and
44
the fourth session posttest.
Test-retest reliability was selected because test
results should not have been affected by repetition, although it is possible that
participants recalled some of their former responses (Anastasi, 1988).
Gain scores were calculated by subtracting trainees pretest scores from
their first session and fourth session posttest scores. These calculations were also
made on each scale representing the construct measures of self-efficacy,
motivation to learn, and motivation to transfer. The /-test was used to ascertain
the level of statistical significance of the observed differences between the pretest
and first session posttest and the pretest and fourth session posttest means for
each construct measured.
Further analyses of the means on each of the items within each scale
involved testing for significant differences between means of items on the pretest
and first session posttest, and between the pretest and fourth session posttest.
The /-test procedure was used to examine differences in item means.
Subsequently, a Pearson product-moment correlation analysis was used to
identify possible relationships among the items in each of the three construct
scales.
CHAPTER IV
RESULTS
This study had three hypotheses; each was concerned with two
assessments:
1(b). Trainee self-efficacy will be improved by completion of the training
2(b).
Traineemotivation to learn will be improved by completion of the

3(a).
Traineemotivation
to transfer learning will be
participation in the first training session of the
improved by
training and
3(b).
Trainee
motivationto transfer learning will
beimproved by

A survey instrument was developed using a combination of scales from
previous research to measure the constructs of self-efficacy, motivation to learn,
and motivation to transfer/utilize learning and to test the hypotheses.
The pretest data were collected by the researcher and administrator of the
program prior to the start of the first training session.
The survey was
administered immediately after arrival to assure that responses were truly
46
antecedent to the training (Tannenbaum et al., 1991). The first training session
began 1:00 p.m. Friday, January 22, 1993 and concluded at 3:00 p.m. Sunday,
January 24, 1993. The four weekend training sessions were approximately one
month apart and provided approximately 21 hours of training each. The fourth
training session was conducted from April 30 to May 2,1993. At the conclusion
of the first 21 hours of training, the first session posttest was administered. The
fourth session posttest was administered at the conclusion of the fourth training
session having concluded 84 total hours of training in the 35 competency areas.
All survey instruments collected and validated were utilized in calculating
reliability statistics.
Only surveys completed by individuals who remained
participants throughout the four training sessions were used to test the
hypotheses.
Reliability Analysis
The survey instrument and survey instrument scales and subscales were
tested for reliability using all respondent surveys. Test-retest analysis was made
using correlation between forms and Guttman split-half which were calculated
using the SPSS software package (SPSS Inc., 1988). The correlation between
forms for pretest and first session posttest was .41, while the correlation between
forms for pretest and fourth session posttest was .76. The Guttman split-half for
the pretest and first session posttest was .46, with the pretest equal to .93 and
first session posttest equal to .77. The Guttman split-half for pretest and fourth
session posttest was .86, with the pretest equal to .93 and the fourth session
posttest equal to .95. These reliability coefficients are shown in Table 2.
47
Table 2
Reliability Coefficients on First Session Posttest and Fourth Session Posttest

First Session Posttest Fourth Session Posttest
Correlation Between Forms
.41
.76
Guttman Split-Half
.46
.86
Alpha for Pretest
.93
.93
Alpha for Posttest
.77
.95
Reliability coefficients were also calculated for the survey instrument scales
measuring the constructs of self-efficacy, motivation to learn, and motivation to
transfer and the survey instrument subscales which were used to develop them.
These were calculated for the pretest, first session posttest and fourth session
posttest using the SPSS Cronbachs ALPHA model (SPSS Inc., 1988). The
results of the reliability analysis on the scale measuring self-efficacy was
comparable to the .71 reported by Jones (1986). The reliability measures on the
subscales of the motivation to learn subscale adapted from Hicks and Klimoski
(1987) and motivation to transfer from Ford and Noe (1987) also were comparable
to their reliability reports of .88 and .87, respectively. The reliability statistics for
the pretest, first session posttest and fourth session posttest (.72, .73 and .77
respectively) for the subscale on motivation to learn adapted from Ryman and
Biesner (1975) were lower than the reported reliability of .81. Results of the
reliability analysis are shown in Table 3.
48
Table 3
Pretest, First Session Posttest and Fourth Session Posttest Cronbachs Alpha
Reliability Coefficients for Construct Scales and Subscales in the Survey
instrument
Scale
Pretest First Session Fourth Session

Posttest
Posttest
n=23
n=22
n=23
Survey Instrument
.95
.82
.94
Self-Efficacy*
.55
.65
.76
Motivation to Learn
.88
.63
.90
Motivation to Learn Subscale A**
.96
.75
.98
Motivation to Learn Subscale B***
.72
.73
.77
Motivation to Transfer Learning
.97
.89
.97
Motivation to Transfer Subscale A
.97
.82
.97
Motivation to Transfer Subscale B****
.91
.84
.91
* Jones (1986) reported reliability of .71

** Hicks & Klimoski (1987) reported reliability of .88
*** Ryman & Biesner (1975) reported reliability of .81
**** Ford & Noe (1987) reported reliability of .87
49
Tests of Hypotheses
Test o f Hypothesis One
The first hypothesis of this study stated:
This hypothesis was tested by the use of the self-efficacy scale adapted
from Jones (1986), items one to eight in the survey instrument.
This hypothesis test required comparing pretest and posttest data for
significant improvements in the mean scores.
Survey items were rated by
trainees on a scale of 1 to 7, where a rating of 1 meant they strongly disagreed

with the statement, 4 meant they were neutral about the statement, and 7 meant
they strongly agreed with the statement. Means and standard deviations were
calculated for the survey instrument and self-efficacy scale as shown in Table 4.
The pretest mean for the self-efficacy scale was 4.59, the first session posttest
mean was 4.79, and the fourth session posttest mean was 4.99.
A f-test was also conducted to test for a significant difference between the
pretest and the first session posttest.
The difference was not statistically
significant (f-value = -1.72,2-tailed p = .13). A f-test was also conducted between

the pretest and the fourth session posttest means for the self-efficacy scale.
There was no significant difference between the pretest mean and the fourth
session posttest mean (f-value = -2.14, 2-tailed p = .07).
50
Table 4
Survey Instrument and Construct Scale Means and Standard Deviations for
Pretest, First Session Posttest and Fourth Session Posttest
First Session
Posttest
Pretest
Mean Std. Dev.
Fourth Session
Posttest
Mean Std. Dev. Mean Std. Dev.
Survey instrument
5.35
1.01
5.63
1.10
5.50
.87
Self-efficacy
4.59
1.10
4.79
1.32
4.99
.98
Motivation to learn
5.50
1.07
5.71
1.00
5.42
.89
Motivation to
transfer learning
5.87
.30
6.28
.28
6.05
.34
Results of the comparison of the pretest means with the first session
posttest and the pretest means with the fourth session posttest means on the selfefficacy scale indicated that there was sufficient evidence to reject the hypothesis
that self-efficacy would be improved by completion of the training program.
Test o f Hypothesis Two
The second hypothesis of the study stated:
This hypothesis was tested with the scale on motivation to learn (items 9
51
to 18) developed by combining subscales adapted from Hicks and Klimoski

(1987), Ryman and Biesner (1975) and one item added by the researcher.
The means and standard deviations for the motivation to learn scale are
shown in Table 4. The pretest mean for the motivation to learn scale was 5.50,
the first session posttest mean was 5.71 and the fourth session posttest mean
was 5.42.
The f-test procedure results indicated there was a significant difference
between the pretest mean and the first session posttest mean (f-value = -3.69, p
= .01), but there was not a significant difference between the pretest mean and
the fourth session posttest means (f-value = .42, p = .69).
Although there was an improvement in motivation to learn after the initial
training session, no difference was evident afterthe fourth training session. There
was sufficient evidence to reject the hypothesis that motivation to learn would
increase as a result of the training program.
Test of Hypothesis Three
The third hypothesis of this study stated:
3(a).
Trainee motivation to transfer learning will be improved by

3(b).
Trainee motivation to transfer learning will be improved by

This hypothesis was tested with the scale on motivation to transfer (items
19-27) developed by combining a four-item scale for the motivation to transfer
52
developed from Noe (1986) with four items from Ford and Noe (1987) (one item
was removed from original five-item Ford and Noe scale to prevent repetition from
the Noe scale).
The means and standard deviations for the motivation to transfer scale are
shown in Table 4. The pretest mean for the motivation to transfer learning scale
was 5.87, the first session posttest mean was 6.28 and the fourth session posttest
mean was 6.05.
The results of the f-test procedure indicated a significant difference
between the pretest mean and first session posttest mean (/-value = -5.38, p =
.00). The f-test results for the difference between the pretest mean and the fourth
session posttest mean did not indicate a significant difference (f-value = -2.19, p
= .06).
Results of the comparison of the pretest mean to first session posttest
mean of the motivation to transfer learning scale indicated that there was sufficient
evidence to retain the hypothesis. However, comparison of the pretest mean and
the fourth session posttest mean indicated that the hypothesis that motivation to
learn would increase as a result of the training program should be rejected.
Analysis of Items and Scales
An analysis of difference scores was conducted on each construct scale.
A f-test for paired samples procedure was used to test for significant differences
between pretest and first session posttest item means, and the differences
between pretest and fourth session posttest item means.
Pearson product-
moment correlations were also calculated on each of the construct scales to
analyze the relationship among the items and scales.

Analysis o f Self-Efficacy Scale Item Means
An analysis of difference scores was conducted by computing the
difference between the pretest and first session posttest means, and the
difference between the pretest and the fourth session posttest item means for
each item on the self-efficacy scale.
The means and standard deviations
calculated for each item are included in Table 5.

Table 5
Self-Efficacy Scale Item Means and Standard Deviations for Pretest, First Session
Posttest, and Fourth Session Posttest
First Session
Item
Fourth Session
Pretest
Posttest
Posttest
Mean Std. Dev. Mean Std. Dev. Mean Std.Dev.
Self Efficacy Scale
1. My training job is well

within the scope of my
abilities
5.76
1.52
6.17
1.19
6.18
1.70
2. I do not anticipate any

problems adjusting to
training assignments in
my organization
5.12
2.18
5.41
1.18
5.29
1.83
3. I am overqualified for the

training I will be doing
3.18
1.29
2.82
1.42
3.18
1.98
4. I have all the technical

knowledge I need to
deal with my training
assignments
1.31
4.47
1.28
3.29
3.18
1.51
54
Table 5 Continued
First Session
Fourth Session
Pretest
Posttest
Posttest
Mean Std. Dev. Mean Std. Dev. Mean Std. Dev.
Item
Self Efficacy Scale

5. 1feel confident that my
training skills and
abilities equal or
exceed those of my
future colleagues
4.35
1.66
4.41
1.12
5.53
1.23
6. My past experiences and

accomplishments in training
increase my confidence
that 1will be able to
perform successfully
in my organization.
6.06
1.68
6.29
.59
5.94
1.60
7. 1could handle
a more challenging
training job than
the one 1am doing
5.12
1.54
5.65
1.32
5.05
1.92
8. Professionally speaking,
my training job exactly
satisfies my
expectations of myself
3.82
1.74
4.35
1.73
4.29
1.69
The /-test for paired samples procedure was used to test for significant
differences between the pretest and first session posttest item means, and
between the pretest and fourth session posttest item means. Two-tailed tests of
significance are appropriate when the direction of the relationship cannot be
55
determined in advance (SPSS Inc., 1988). Results are in Table 6.

There was no statistically significant change in item means on the selfefficacy scale between the pretest and first session posttest. However, significant
changes were noted between the pretest mean and the fourth session posttest
mean on two items on the self-efficacy scale. They were item four, "I have all the
technical knowledge I need to deal with my training assignments" and item five,
"I feel confident that my training skills and abilities equal or exceed those of my
future colleagues."
Table 6
Analysis of Difference Scores using t-test for Paired Samples Procedure for
Differences Between Self-Efficacy Scale Pretest and First Session Posttest, and
Between Pretest and Fourth Session Posttest (n=17)
Test for Differences From Pretest
First Session
Survey Item
f-test
Posttest 2-Tail
Mean Diff. Prob.
Fourth Session
Posttest
Mean Diff.
f-test
2-Tail
Prob.
Self-Efficacy Scale
1. My training job is well
within the scope of my
ability
.65
.09
.41
.25
2. I do not anticipate any

problems adjusting to
training assignments in
my organization
.29
.55
.19
.80
56
Table 6 Continued

First Session
Survey Item
f-test
Posttest 2-Tail
Mean Diff. Prob.
Fourth Session
Posttest
Mean Diff.
f-test
2-Tail
Prob.
Self-Efficacy Scale
3. I am overqualified for the
training I will be doing
-.35
.32
.00
1.00
4. I have all the technical

knowledge I need to
deal with my training
assignments
-.12
.78
1.18
.00*
5. I feel confident that my

training skills and
abilities equal or
exceed those of my
future colleagues
.06
.90
1.18
. 02*
6. My past experiences and

accomplishments in training
increase my confidence
that I will be able to
perform successfully
in my organization
.24
.55
-.12
.81
7. I could handle
a more challenging
training job than
the one I am doing
.53
.17
-.06
.92
57
Table 6 Continued

First Session
Survey Item
f-test
Posttest 2-Tail
Mean Diff. Prob.
Fourth Session
Posttest
Mean Diff.
f-test
2-Tail
Prob.
Self-Efficacy Scale
8. Professionally speaking,
my training job exactly
satisfies my
expectations of myself
.53
.25
.50
.33
Correlation Analysis o f Self-Efficacy Scale

A correlation analysis was conducted on the self-efficacy scale to identify
the relative strength of the correlations among items. The self-efficacy scale has
several questions that appear to be highly correlated with one another. The
critical region for rejection of the hypothesis that the correlation is zero in a
population of n=17 consists of all values of r * greater than .41 (Walker & Lev,
1953). As illustrated in Table 7, item 1, the degree that abilities are within the
scope of the job was highly correlated with item 2, the ease of adjusting to training
assignments (r = .74), item 5, the confidence that training skills exceed colleagues
(r = .76), and item 6, the degree of confidence that past experiences and
accomplishments will assist successful organizational performance (r = .88). All
58
of these questions related to self-evaluation of training skills and abilities.

The anticipation of problems in adjusting to a training assignment was also
highly related to the confidence that ones training skills exceed skills of
colleagues (r = .76) and the degree of confidence that past experiences and
accomplishments will assess organizational performance (r = .78). Two items in
the scale were not highly correlated with any other items. These items assess
whether individuals believe that they are overqualified for training and whether
they believe that they could handle a more challenging job. These questions
relate to ideas other than the assessment of abilities; whether the trainees
abilities are appropriate for a particular job; or whether they are capable of
handling more responsibility than they already have. These items may reflect a
subcomponent of self efficacy which enables individuals to differentiate their
beliefs about their own capabilities in a manner that is situation-specific.
59
Table 7
Correlation Matrix for Self-Efficacy Scale
1
1
1.00
.74*
-.23
1.00
-.23
1.00
.42*
.52*
.76*
.76*
-.32
.63* 1.00
.88*
.78*
-.29
.41* .81*
1.00
.44*
.19
-.12
.16 .33
.43* 1.00
.42*
.38
-.80*
.18 .37
.45*
.24 1.00
.19
1.00
Analysis of Motivation to Learn Scale Item Means

Means and standard deviations for the items on the motivation to learn
scale are shown in Table 8. Analysis of difference scores on the motivation to
learn scale indicated no significant change in item means between the pretest and
first session posttest. The mean on one item on the motivation to learn scale did
changed significantly between the pretest and fourth session posttest. The mean
on item 12, "I am eager to learn more about training" was significantly lower on
the fourth session posttest than on the pretest. This analysis is included in Table
9.
60
Table 8
Motivation to Learn Scale Item Means and Standard Deviations for Pretest, First
Session Posttest, and Fourth Session Posttest
First Session
Item
Fourth Session
Pretest
Posttest
Posttest
Motivation to Learn Scale
9. I am motivated to
learn as much as
possible about training
6.29
1.49
6.53
.80
6.06
1.89
10. I try to learn as

much as I can
about training
6.00
1.54
6.24
.97
5.82
1.91
11.1 have a better chance

of learning these training
materials than most other
individuals attending
4.41
.99
4.35
.86
4.11
1.32
12. I am eager to learn

as much as I can
about training
6.53
1.46
6.59
.71
5.76
1.89
13. The knowledge and

experience that I gain
by learning about training
may advance my career
6.12
1.54
6.41
.80
6.24
1.25
14. Even if I dont

understand all the
materials, this training
will be a valuable
learning experience
6.29
1.36
6.12
1.05
6.24
1.60
61
Table 8 Continued
First Session
Item
Fourth Session
Pretest
Posttest
Posttest
1 5 .1 learn more from training

than most people
4.35
1.17
4.53
1.01
4.36
.99
16. If I have difficulty

learning training
materials, I try harder
4.88
1.36
5.47
1.07
5.59
1.28
17. I am better prepared for

this training than
most people
3.88
1.41
4.18
1.29
4.06
.90
18. I am personally
interested in the
subject of training
1.46
6.65
.61
6.00
1.87
6.53
62
Table 9
Differences Between Motivation to Learn Scale Pretest and First Session Posttest,
and Between Pretest and the Fourth Session Posttest (n=17)

First Session
Survey Item
Mest
Posttest 2-Tail
Mean Diff. Prob.
Fourth Session
Posttest
Mean Diff.
f-test
2-Tail
Prob.
-.24
.48

9. I am motivated to
learn as much as
possible about training
.24
.56
10. I try to learn as

much as I can
about training
.24
.60
-.18
.57
11.1 have a better chance

of learning these training
materials than most other
individuals attending
.24
.16
.00
1.00
12. I am eager to learn

as much as I can
about training
.06
.89
-.77
.04*
13. The knowledge and

experience that I gain
by learning about training
may advance my career
.29
.39
.12
.54
63
Table 9 Continued

First Session
Mest
Posttest 2-Tail
Mean Diff. Prob.
Survey Item
Fourth Session
Posttest
Mean Diff.
f-test
2-Tail
Prob.

14. Even if I dont
understand all the
materials, this training
will be a valuable
learning experience
-.18
.53
.06
.82
15. I learn more from training

than most people
.18
.48
.00
1.00
16. If I have difficulty

learning training
materials, 1try harder
.59
.17
.71
.21
17. 1am better prepared for

this training than
most people
.29
.35
.18
.63
18. 1am personally

interested in the
subject of training
.12
.77
-.53
.15
64
Correlation Analysis of Motivation to Learn Scale

Table 10 shows the correlation matrix for the motivation to learn scale.
Several questions which appear to be highly related to each other are related to
motivation to learn, willingness to try to learn, eagerness to learn, the belief that
knowledge and experience may advance a career, the belief that training will be
a valuable learning experience, the propensity to try harder to learn difficult
material, and personal interest in learning the subject. These measures are
consistent with Noes (1986) recommendations that motivation to learn be
measured with items related to strength of enthusiasm, level of persistence, and
perception of task constraints.
Items which do not appear to be related to other elements of motivation to
learn are the belief in a better chance to learn training materials that most people,
the likelihood of learning more from training than most people, and being better
prepared for training than most people.
These questions had generally low
correlations with other items and may have enabled individuals to assess their
abilities relative to the particular training situation better than the more generalized
questions about abilities.
65
Table 10
Correlation Matrix for Motivation to Learn Scale
11
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
1.00
10
.97*
1.00
11
.12
.16
1.00
12
.92*
.94*
.11
13
.74*
.72*
.21
.63* 1.00
14
.78*
.75*
.02
.70*
15
.25
.30
.54*
.28
.48*
.34
1.00
16
.68*
.76*
.10
.81*
.53*
.60*
.37
1.00
17
.48*
.44*
.31
.38
.21
.08
.19
.19
1.00
18
.96*
.96*
.13
.94*
.67*
.71*
.23
.78*
.41*
1.00
.84*
1.00
Analysis of Motivation to Transfer Learning Scale Item Means

Means and standard deviations for items on the motivation to transfer scale
are shown in Table 11
66
Table 11
Motivation to Transfer Learning Scale Item Means and Standard Deviations for
Pretest, First Session Posttest, and Fourth Session Posttest
First Session
Fourth Session
Pretest
Posttest
Posttest
Item
Motivation to Transfer Learning Scale

19 .1 am confident I can use
the skills taught in
this training session
6.41
1.50
6.53
.51
6.35
1.46
20. I am aware of work

situations in which
application of the skills
learned in this training
session will be
appropriate
5.88
1.65
6.47
.80
6.41
1.46
21. Improvements in job

performance will likely
occur from applying the
skills learned in this
training session
5.82
1.55
6.29
.85
6.24
1.44
22. The knowledge and skills

emphasized in this
training program will be
useful in solving
5.94
work-related problems
1.56
6.35
.86
6.06
1.43

emphasized in this training
program will be useful
in handling frequent
job demands
5.76
1.48
5.88
.93
5.82
1.70
67
Table 11 Continued
First Session
Fourth Session
Pretest
Posttest
Posttest
Mean Std. Dev. Mean Std. Dev. Mean Std.Dev.
Item

24. The training programs I
have attended have been
useful for my development
as a trainer
5.41
1.46
6.18
.88
5.82
1.47
25. The material in training

programs I have attended
has been relevant to skills
I had hoped to develop
5.47
1.55
5.82
.88
5.35
1.50
26. The time spent away

from my job to attend
will be worthwhile
6.00
1.66
6.65
.70
6.29
1.49
27. I have opportunities

to practice the skills
emphasized in this
training on my job
6.12
1.45
6.35
.79
6.06
1.52
The analysis of results on the motivation to transfer scale are included in

Table 12. There was no significant difference among the item means on the
motivation to transfer learning scale between the pretest and first session posttest.
One item, "I am aware of work situations in which application of the skills learned
in this training session will be appropriate" had a significantly higher mean on the
68
fourth session posttest than on the pretest.

Table 12
Differences Between Motivation to Transfer Learning Scale Pretest and First
Session Posttest, and Between the Pretest and Fourth Session Posttest (n=17)
First Session
f-test
Posttest 2-Tail
Mean Diff. Prob.
Survey Item
Fourth Session
Posttest
Mean Diff.
f-test
2-Tail
Prob.

19. I am confident I can use
the skills taught in
.12
.74
-.06
.67
20. I am aware of work

situations in which
application of the skills
learned in this training
session will be
appropriate
.59
.18
.53
.05*
21. Improvements in job

performance will likely
occur from applying the
skills learned in this
training session
.47
.12
.41
.13
69
Table 12 Continued

First Session
f-test
Posttest 2-Tail
Mean Diff. Prob.
Survey Item
Fourth Session
Posttest
Mean Diff.
/-test
2-Tail
Prob.

emphasized in this
training program will be
useful in solving
work-related problems
.41
.20
.12
.63

emphasized in this training
program will be useful
in handling frequent
job demands
.12
.67
.06
.84
24. The training programs I

have attended have been
useful for my development
as a trainer
.77
.07
.41
.23
25. The material in training

programs I have attended
has been relevant to skills
I had hoped to develop
.35
.36
-.12
.77
26. The time spent away

from my job to attend
will be worthwhile
.65
.08
.29
.37
70
Table 12 Continued

First Session
t-test
Posttest 2-Tail
Mean Diff. Prob.
Survey Item
Fourth Session
f-test
Posttest
2-Tail
Mean Diff. Prob.

27. I have opportunities
to practice the skills
emphasized in this
training on my job
.24
.50
-.07
.67
* p less than or equal to .05

Correlation Analysis of Motivation to Transfer Scale
Table 13 includes the correlation matrix for the motivation to transfer
learning scale. All items were highly correlated with one another. The high
agreement among the responses to these questions was also demonstrated in the
low standard deviations on the pretest, first session posttest, and fourth session
posttest (.28 - .34).
71
Table 13
Correlation Matrix for Motivation to Transfer Learning Scale
19
20
22
21
23
24
25
19
1.00
20
.99*
1.00
21
.94*
.93* 1.00
22
.92*
.94* .90* 1.00
23
.86*
.86* .81*
.85* 1.00
24
.68*
.68* .73*
.72*
.51* 1.00
25
.69*
.67* .69*
.66*
.66*
.86* 1.00
26
.90*
.89* .96*
.84*
.74*
.68*
.68* 1.00
27
.90*
.92* .91*
.89*
.87*
.65*
.62*
.88*
Additional Research Findings

Correlation Analyses Among the Construct Scales
Appendix B contains correlation matrices comparing the self-efficacy items
with the motivation to learn items, the self-efficacy items with the motivation to
transfer items and the motivation to learn items with the motivation to transfer
items. There are several items within each of the construct scales that are highly
related to items in one or both of the other construct scales.
The self-efficacy item 1, "my training job is well within the scope of my
abilities"; item 2, "I do not anticipate any problems in adjusting to training
assignment in my organization; and item 6, "my past experiences and

accomplishments in training increase my confidence that I will be able to perform
successfully in my organization" appear highly related to all of the items of the
motivation to learn scale except item 11, "I have a better chance of learning these
training materials than most other individuals attending; item 15, "I learn more
from training than most people; and item 17, "I am better prepared for this training
than most people."
The self-efficacy item 1, "my training job is well within the scope of my
abilities"; item 6, "my past experiences and accomplishment in training increase
my confidence that I will be able to perform successfully in my organization"; and
item 8 "professionally speaking, my training job exactly satisfies my expectations
of myself" all appear to be related to all the items on the motivation to transfer
scale.
The motivation to learn item 9, "I am motivated to learn as much as
possible about training; item 12, "I am eager to learn more about training; item 13,
"the knowledge and experience that I gain by learning about training may advance
my career; item 14, "even if I dont understand all the materials, this training will
be a valuable learning experience"; and item 18, "I am personally interested in the
subject of training" all appear to be related to all items on the motivation to
transfer scale except item 25, "the material in training programs I have attended
has been relevant to skills I had hoped to develop."
Additional Research on the Training and Development Program
Additional data have been collected from the participants in the training and
development program by the program director and Smith (1993). A pretest was
sent to participants prior to the program which measured several factors providing
information relevant to the development of self-efficacy and motivation to learn
and transfer. One item asked participants for their motivation for attending the
program.
The results in Table 14 indicated that the majority of respondents
attended the program to enhance knowledge and skills.
More important,
differences in participants interests are indicated in Table 15. These responses

did not indicate an overwhelming interest in any given subject. The wide variety
of interests may be reflective of the wide variety of job duties that participants
perform.
Furthermore, it is interesting that although 35 competencies were
included in the training program, participants indicated an interest in only 19

competencies.
Also, 14 competencies were interesting to only one of the
participants. Table 16 indicates that not all of the participants viewed themselves
as traditional "trainers."
Table 14
Participant Motivation for Attending Program
Certification
Change agent
Develop practitioners point of view
Enhance knowledge and/or skills
Learn new ideas
Learn theory to apply to job
Network
1
1
1
10
2
1
1
74
Table 15
interests of Participants
Adult learning
Career development
Coaching
Computer competence
Data reduction
Electronic systems
Evaluation
Everything related to training
Feedback
Group dynamics
Model building
Needs assessment
Negotiation skills
Presentation skills
Questioning skills
Research skills
Training and development techniques
Training management
Visioning
Writing skills
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
3
1
2
1
3
1
1
3
1
1
1
75
Table 16
Typical Job Duties of Participants

Administrative
Continuous training
Customer service
Design
Evaluation
Market courses
Medical lab supervisor
OSHA treatments and audits
Quality improvement
Research
Safety
Specialized training
Supervise training and development
Systems documentation
Teaching/training
Training materials development
Writing
1
1
4
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
4
1
It seemed evident from the pretest data gathered by Smith (1993) that
people entered this program with very different motivations. Many participants
were specific in describing what they hoped to learn from the program. It may be
that the measurement of factors such as enthusiasm and persistence varies with
the subject matter being taught and may require more specific information about
the participants current knowledge and ability levels and perceived usefulness of
the information in order to be assessed with accuracy.
76
Table 17
Percent of Participants who Felt Their Proficiency Level was High in

Competencies Listed Prior to Training and Development Program
Percent
Competencies
84
Subject matter understanding
72
Delegation skill
56
Objectives preparation skills

Writing skill
Self-knowledge
48
Competency identification
Coaching skill
Presentation skill
44
Facilities skills
Project management skill
40
Observing skill
36
Computer competence
Feedback skill
32
Adult learning
Records management skill
Questioning skill
Relationship building skill
28
Business understanding
Group process skill
Data reduction skill
Information search skill
Visioning skill
24
Training and development theories and techniques

Organizational behavior
Intellectual versatility
77
Table 17 Continued
Percent
Competencies
20
Electronic systems skill

Organization understanding
Negotiation skill
Model building skill
16
Industry understanding
12
Career development theories and techniques

Performance observation skill
Organization development theories and techniques
Research skills
Cost-benefit analysis skill
Smith (1993) also conducted a pretest immediately prior to the first training
session which asked participants to rate their proficiency levels in the 35

competencies. Results in Table 17 illustrate the wide variety of skills represented
in the participants and the high competency levels of some individuals in some of
the competency areas. The same pretest also asked participants to rate how
critical the 35 competencies were in relation to their job function.
Table 18
contains results of this pretest which imply relatively high need for the
competencies relative to the proficiency levels.
78
Table 18
Percent of Participants Who Felt Competency was Critical in Relation to Job

Function Prior to Training and Development Program
Percent
Competencies
100
Adult learning understanding

Objectives preparation skill
Subject matter understanding
Writing skill
96
Training and development theories and techniques

Project management skill
Feedback skill
Information search skill
92
Competency identification skill

Intellectual versatility
88
Coaching skill
Group process skill
Presentation skill
Questioning skill
Observation skill
Visioning skill
80
Delegation skill
Records management skill
Negotiation skill
Observation skill
Self-knowledge
78
Data reduction skill
74
Computer competence
Business understanding
Organization behavior
79
Table 18 Continued
Percent
Competencies
70
Electronic systems skill
62
Organization understanding
58
Organization development theory and techniques
54
Facilities skills
50
Career development theory and techniques

Research skills
Cost-benefit analysis skill
Industry understanding
Smith (1993) also conducted a fourth session posttest on the 35
competencies and analyzed findings on the reports of the 10 identifiable

participants who completed the survey instrument and who completed the
certification program. Her comparison found that 68% of the participants felt that
some of the 35 competencies were as important or more important to their job
than at the beginning of the program.
However, 31% felt that some of the
competencies were less important to their job than at the beginning of the
program. She stated that a possible reason was that the material presented was
not appropriate for some of the participants jobs.
When looking at proficiency levels, Smith (1993) found that 32% felt that
their proficiency levels in some competency areas had not changed at the end of
the program. A possible reason cited was the brief exposure to course content.
80
However, 60% felt their proficiency level was higher in some competency areas
at the end of the program. Five % reported that their proficiency level was lower
in some competency areas at the end of the program. A possible reason given
was that participants in the program learned how little they really knew in certain
competency areas.
Summary of Results
The first hypothesis, that trainee self-efficacy would be improved by
participation in the training and development program, was tested by comparing
results of a pretest administered prior to a training and development program
designed to enhance trainer competence with a first session posttest administered
at the conclusion of the first 21-hour weekend of training, and comparing results
of the pretest and the fourth session posttest administered approximately three
months later at the conclusion of the fourth 21-hour weekend of training. The
results from the survey instrument scale used to assess self-efficacy were
analyzed using the f-test. There was insufficient evidence to indicate a difference
in the self-efficacy of the trainees as measured by the instrument.
Further analysis was conducted to compute the difference between the
pretest mean and the first session posttest mean and between the pretest mean
and the fourth session posttest mean for each item on the survey instrument. The
f-test for paired samples procedure (SPSS Inc., 1988) was used to test for
significant differences between the pretest mean and the first session posttest
mean for each item and the difference between the pretest mean and the fourth
session posttest mean for each item on the self-efficacy scale. Item four from the
self-efficacy scale, "I have all the technical knowledge I need to deal with my
training assignments" had a significant increase in the mean of 1.18 during the
training. Item five from the self-efficacy scale, "I feel confident that my training
skills and abilities equal or exceed those of my future colleagues" also had a
statistically significance increase in the mean of 1.18.
The second hypothesis stated that trainee motivation to learn would be
improved by participation in the training and development program. There was
insufficient evidence to indicate a difference in the trainees motivation to leam.
Further analysis used to test for significant differences between the pretest
mean and the fourth session posttest mean for each item on the motivation to
learn scale indicated that item 12, "I am eager to learn more about training"
declined significantly between the pretest and fourth session posttest by .77.
The final hypothesis was that trainee motivation to transfer learning would
be improved by participation in the training and development program.
The
results from the analysis of pretest, first session posttest, and fourth session
posttest scores were conflicting.
In total, there was insufficient evidence to
indicate that the training program resulted in a change in the trainees motivation
to transfer learning.
Analysis used to test for significant differences between the pretest mean
and the fourth session posttest mean for each item demonstrated that item 20
from the motivation to transfer scale, "I am aware of work situations in which
application of the skills learned in this training session will be appropriate" differed
between the pretest and fourth session posttest means.
82
Pearson product-moment correlation analysis was conducted on the scale

items. Several items on the self-efficacy scale were related to self-evaluation of
training skills and abilities. The anticipation of problems in adjusting to training
assignment was also highly related to the confidence that training skills exceed
colleagues and the degree of confidence that past experiences and
accomplishments will assess organizational performance.
Questions on the motivation to learn scale which appeared to be highly
related to each other were the motivation to learn, the willingness to try to learn,
the eagerness to learn, the belief that knowledge and experience may advance
a career, the belief that training will be a valuable learning experience, the
propensity to try harder to learn difficult material, and the personal interest in
learning the subject. It is believed that several of these items are tapping the
same motivational element.
Analysis of item results on the motivation to transfer scale were highly
correlated with one another. This provides evidence that the motivation to transfer
scale may be effectively tapping the construct.
Additional data collected from the participants in the training and
development program by the program director and Smith (1993) indicated that
participants came from a wide variety of backgrounds and job descriptions.
Although the majority of participants stated that their motivation to attend was to
increase their knowledge and skills, participants had very different interest
preferences for the subject matter in the training program. Smith also found the
majority of participants to believe that the 35 competencies were as important or
83
more important to their job at the end of the program than at the beginning and
that a majority also felt their proficiency levels were higher in some competency
areas at the end of the program.
Discussion of Results
Although is estimated that American industries spend up to $100 billion
annually on training and development (Georgenson, 1982), research is needed
to understand the implications of trainee characteristics for improving training
effectiveness (Tannenbaum & Yukl, 1992).
Feldman (1989) suggested that
research should examine how attitudes change in training settings. This research
examined the development of self-efficacy and motivation during training.
The trainees self-efficacy as measured in this study did not appear to be
significantly improved by the training and development program. Rating of two
items on the self-efficacy scale did appear to have been enhanced by the training;
self-evaluations of technical knowledge needed for training assignments and
confidence that training skills and abilities equal or exceed those of colleagues
were significantly improved.
Noe (1986) recommended that measurement of trainees self-efficacy
should focus on effective responses to learning and change.
Gist (1987)
recommended that specific self-efficacy measures be tailored to unique

organizations such as hospoitals and academic institutions.
It may be that
measurement instruments will have to be more specific in identifying the specific

knowledge and abilities which are being addressed by the training program and,
more importantly, being sought by the participants in the training program. A
84
needs assessment conducted with participants prior to a training program may

provide more concise identification of appropriate components of a groups self
efficacy for a given subject matter. Such an instrument would come closer to
meeting Banduras conceptualization of situational-specific self-efficacy (as
opposed to more global measures of self-efficacy) and could incorporate
measures of the magnitude, strength and generality of self-efficacy. It is also
recommended that a measure of self-evaluation accuracy be incorporated into the
posttest measurements to assist in identifying changes in self-perceptions which
have more to do with increased knowledge about a given subject, rather than a
change (or no change) in a given participants ability level.
The pretest data provided by Smith (1993) provided evidence that
participants who entered this training and development program held a wide
variety of competency levels and were seeking to benefit from the program in
different ways. Use of this type of data in instrument development may provide
a more situation-specific measure of skill mastery in keeping with Banduras
conceptualization of self-efficacy.
Another possible weakness in the instruments sensitivity may stem from
the fact that it is self-evaluative.
Jones (1986) suggested that caution be
exercised in interpreting results which rely exclusively on self-reported measures

because common method variance may affect the magnitude of relationships
being measured. The use of longitudinal research designs may partially offset this
probem. It may be that participants did not enter the program with a knowledge
base which provided for an accurate evaluation of self-efficacy. Gist & Mitchess
85
(1992) stated highly complex activities are more likely to result in inaccurate selfassessments of self-efficacy. Likewise, the less experience that participants have
with a particular task, the less accurate their assessments are likely to be. Given
such possibilities, a posttest measurement may appear to show no improvements
in self-efficacy at all, when in fact it is simply that their perceptions about the
knowledge base has been altered or is too complex to accurately assess its
impact on self-efficacy.
The unique combination of participants may have influenced the survey
results. The fact that a majority of the participants work as professionals in the
training and development field indicated that participants may have been
experienced enough at taking tests to bias the results.
The correlational analysis between construct scales (Appendix B)
suggested that there may be overlap between the three constructs of self-efficacy,
motivation to learn, and motivation to transfer as measured in this study. This
result seems to align with the wording of Eden & Kinnar (1991), who stated that
these constructs lacked discriminant validity in practice.
The trainees motivation to learn as measured in this study did not appear
to be significantly improved as a result of the training and development program.
Ratings of one item on the motivation to learn scale did appear to change as a
result of the training; trainee eagerness to learn as much as possible about
training declined significantly. Tannenbaum et al. (1991) reported that trainees
had lower training motivation after training than when they entered. The potential
for reduced motivation is consistent with the social learning theory idea that
86
people use self-evaluative reactions, which act as motivators and guides. As

individuals in the training and development program, they evaluate their own
behavior against a set of internal standards. These evaluations may change over
time relative to their internal standards, resulting in changes in motivation.
It may have been reasonable to expect eagerness to learn to decline, given
the longevity and intense nature of the program. Several factors may be
considered as reasons that motivation to learn was not increased. Oversaturation
in training may have been a factor related to reduction in motivation to learn. It
may be that individuals met their internal expectations for the program and thus
their motivation was lower after the program. It is also possible that individuals
may have been affected by boredom, fatigue or overload of material. The nature
of the training and development program may have been difficult for a group of
adult learners in light of current theories in adult education. Cross (1981) stated
that the following characteristics are important to adult as they mature: (a) their
self-concept moves from one of dependence to self-direction; (b) they accumulate
a growing reservoir of experience that becomes a resource for learning; (c) their
readiness to learn becomes oriented to developmental tasks of their social roles,
and; (d) their perspective of time changes from one of postponed application, to
immediacy of application and therefore shifts their learning orientation from subject
centeredness to problem centeredness. Knowles (1970) suggested that adult
learners participate actively in the learning process and that they feel a need to
learn. Although efforts were made to create an environment conducive to adult
learners, the differences between the trainers and the long length of the training
87
sessions may have been a difficult learning environment for the participants.
Tannenbaum et al. (1991) conjectured that it is possible that, during the course
of training, trainees realized that the materials learned would not affect their
careers as much as anticipated, or they may have developed a more realistic
belief about the instrumentality of the training. They recommended the most
logical way of influencing expectations is through realistic communication about
the training.
The motivation to learn scale does not appear to be specific enough to
identify whether the training and development program influenced their specific
motivations.
Participants in the program entered with very different interests
motivations for learning. It may be that in responding to the items that are rather
global evaluations of the motivation to learn the material in the training program,
the influence that the program did have on participants specific areas of interest
was not identified.
A limited number of studies have investigated the relation between
motivation to learn and training effectiveness.
Self-assessment measures
concerning career goals, interest and skills completed prior to training may help
to increase training effectiveness. Employees may self-select out of programs
they feel are inappropriate (Noe, 1986).
Pretraining information regarding
participant motivation to learn may be helpful in identifying the influence that

training has on motivation to learn and should be explored in future
measurements of motivation to learn.
Further, trainers should attempt to identify trainees expectations and
88
desires and should be as flexible as possible in meeting these needs

(Tannenbaum et al., 1991).
The trainees motivation to transfer as measured in this study did not
appear to be significantly improved as a result of the training and development
program. Ratings of one item on the motivation to transfer scale did appear to
change as a result of the training and development program; trainee awareness
of work situations in which application of the skills learned would be appropriate
did significantly increase.
The motivation to transfer learning may have been hampered by training
in materials that does not appear relevant to work situations. Managers forced
to attend programs they do not believe will address their training needs are more
likely to become dissatisfied with training and lack the motivation to learn and
transfer skills (Noe & Schmitt, 1986). The pretest data gathered by Smith (1993)
revealed a wide variety of industry types and job duties represented in the
participants. It may be that elements of the training program which did not appear
to meet the needs of participants acted negatively on their motivation to transfer
the information to the workplace. Expectations regarding the materials included
in the program and the usefulness of the material learned may be important
influencers of the motivation to transfer.
Ford & Noe (1987) found that differences in self-assessed training needs
reflected that different managerial positions required different knowledges and
skills. Lower level managers desired more technical supervisory training in areas
such as union guidelines and inventory than middle level managers. Identifying
89
differences in training needs may enable managers to reduce training costs by

having trainees attend training programs that are relevant to their job demands
and problems.
It is not apparent in this research what effect the setting and schedule of
the training and development program may have had on the participants.
Tannenbaum et al. (1991) recommended that future research should consider
relative effect of trainers style,
individual trainee differences, training
characteristics, and classmate interactions on the development of posttraining

attitudes. The potential may exist for optimizing training situations in order to
provide the best possible effect on attitudes such as self-efficacy, motivation to
learn, and motivation to transfer.
90
CHAPTER V
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
While training is heavily depended upon in the U.S. to increase
performance on-the-job, skills learned during training are not adequately being
transferred to the workplace. This research was conducted to identify whether
motivation and self-efficacy were determinants of whether or not learning,
behavior change, or performance improvement were results of training.
In
addition, the scales used to measure the constructs of self-efficacy and trainee
motivation to learn, and motivation to transfer learning were adapted.
The purpose of this study was to examine the development of trainee selfefficacy, motivation to learn, and motivation to transfer learning as a result of
experiences in a training program.
Hypotheses
This study had the following hypotheses:
3(a). Trainee motivation to transfer learning will be improved by
91

3(b). Trainee motivation to transfer learning will be improved by
Design
This study fit the description of a one-group pretest-posttest quasiexperimental design (Borg & Gall, 1989). Random assignment of individuals to
the group under study was not possible; therefore, the results are not
generalizable.
Development of Instrument
The survey instrument was developed using a combination of scales from
previous research on the constructs of self-efficacy, motivation to learn, and
motivation to transfer training. Scales were selected based on their applicability
to the constructs being tested, their appropriateness to this research situation,
their likelihood of high reliability and their potential for improving the measurement
of the constructs.
The construct of self-efficacy was measured with a scale
adapted from Jones (1986). Two of the constructs, motivation to learn, and
motivation to transfer learning, were measured by combining two separate scales
into one for each construct. It was believed that the combination of the scales
provided more complete coverage of the constructs being measured and would
improve the overall validity and reliability of the measurements. Items in each
scale utilized remained intact and in the same order as originally reported, with
the exception of one item added by the researcher to the scale on motivation to
92
learn, "I am personally interested in the subject of training" and one item on
motivation to utilize training which was removed from the Ford & Noe scale (1987)
to prevent repetition of an item from the Noe (1986) scale.
All of the scales were 7-point Likert-type scales ranging from strongly
disagree (1) to strongly agree (7), with neither agree nor disagree (4) as the
midpoint (Tannenbaum et al., 1991).
Treatment
Each participant received 84 hours of training on the 35 trainer
competencies during four 21-hour training sessions held once a month during
Spring of 1993. The Training and Development Certification Program was
designed for "training professionals across disciplines who wish to develop and
update their skills to remain current in a constantly changing workforce" (Smith,
1992).
Data Collection
The pretest data were collected by the researcher and administrator of the
program prior to the start of the first training session.
The survey was
administered immediately after arrival to insure that the pretest responses were
truly antecedent to the training (Tannenbaum et al., 1991). At the conclusion of
the first 21 hours of training, the first session posttest was administered. This
training session was completed during a single weekend. It began at 1:GG p.m.
on Friday and concluded at 3:00 p.m. on Sunday. The fourth session posttest
was administered at the conclusion of the fourth training session, when the
subjects had completed a total of 84 hours of training in the 35 competency areas.
93
The fourth training session was held approximately three months after the first
training session.
Data Analysis
The f-test was used to ascertain the level of statistical significance of the
observed differences in the pretest and posttest means within the individual scales
and for each construct measured.
Further analysis of the items within each scale was conducted to test for
significant differences in the pretest, first session posttest and fourth session
posttest item means. The f-test procedure was all used to examine differences
in item means.
Results
The results from the survey instrument scale used to assess self-efficacy
was analyzed using a combination of procedures including the f-test. There was
insufficient evidence in the results to indicate a significant change in self-efficacy
of the trainees as measured by the instrument.
Further analysis was conducted to compute the difference between the
pretest, first session posttest and fourth session posttest means for each item on
the survey instrument. The f-test for paired samples procedure (SPSS Inc., 1988)
was used to test for significant differences between pretest and fourth session
posttest item means. Item four, "I have all the technical knowledge I need to deal
with my training assignments" had a significant increase in the mean of 1.17
during the training. Item five, "I feel confident that my training skills and abilities
equal or exceed those of my future colleagues" also had a significance increase
94
in the mean of 1.17.

The second hypothesis tested stated that trainee motivation to learn will be
improved by participation in the training and development program. The results
from the survey instrument scale used to assess motivation to learn was analyzed
and there was insufficient evidence to indicate a difference in the trainees
motivation to learn.
Further analysis used to test for significant differences between pretest and
fourth session posttest item means revealed that Item 12, "I am eager to learn
more about training" declined significantly between the pretest and fourth session
posttest by .77.
The final hypothesis was that trainee motivation to transfer learning would
be improved by participation in the training and development program.
The
results from the survey instrument scale used to assess motivation to transfer
learning was analyzed and there was insufficient evidence to indicate a difference
in the trainees motivation to transfer learning.
Further analysis used to test for significant differences between pretest and
fourth session posttest item means demonstrated that Item 20, "I am aware of
work situations in which application of the skills learned in this training session will
be appropriate" had an increase between the pretest and fourth session posttest
means of .53.
Correlation analysis on each of the construct scales found that several of
the questions on the self-efficacy and motivation to learn scales were highly
correlated.
The correlation between all items on the motivation to transfer
95
learning scale was unusually high.

Additional research findings from the training and development program by
Smith (1993) were cited to provide evidence of the wide variety of interests and
backgrounds of the program participants.
This research also found that the
majority of participants believed after the fourth training session that the 35
competencies were important to their job function and felt their proficiency levels
were higher in some competency areas.
Conclusions
Following are conclusions from results of this study:
1. The trainees self-efficacy as measured in this study did not appear to
be significantly improved by the training and development program. Ratings of
two items on the self-efficacy scale did appear to have been changed by the
training: trainee self-evaluations of technical knowledge needed for training
assignments and trainee confidence that training skills and abilities equal or
exceed those of colleagues were significantly improved on the fourth session
posttest.
2. The trainees motivation to learn as measured in this study did not
program.
Ratings of one item on the motivation to learn scale did appear to
change as a result of the training; trainee eagerness to learn as much as possible

about training significantly declined.
3. The trainees motivation to transfer as measured in this study did not
96
program. Ratings of one item on the motivation to transfer scale did appear to
change as a result of the training and development program; trainee awareness
of work situations in which application of the skills learned would be appropriate
did significantly increase.
Recommendations for Future Research
1. Further refinement of the scale used to measure self-efficacy is needed
to improve its sensitivity, to improve the specificity of the construct measurement
and to improve its reliability.
2. Further theoretical work on the motivation to learn construct is needed
to identify and determine if other elements are related to the construct such as
fulfillment of learning, time spent in training, preference for training setting,
preference for training method, relevance of training materials.
3. Further refinement of the scale used to measure motivation to learn is
needed to improve its sensitivity, to improve the specificity of the construct
measurement and to improve its reliability.
4. Pretest measures which identify plans and expectations for utilizing
training in more specific terms should be used in studying motivation to learn.
5. Further refinement of the scale used to measure motivation to transfer
is needed to improve its sensitivity, to improve the specificity of the construct
measurement and to improve its reliability.
6. Pretest measures which identify plans and expectations for utilizing
training in more specific terms should be used in studying motivation to transfer.
7. The survey instrument used in this research should be utilized on larger
97
samples with a control group over a variety of training environments and situations
to determine if they are valid and to identify mechanisms for improving them.
8. The independence of the constructs of self-efficacy, motivation to learn,
and motivation to transfer should be studied to look for interrelationships among
them.
9.
Repeated measures designs should be used to explore possible
changes in self-efficacy, motivation to learn, and motivation to transfer learning

over time.
10.
Follow-up assessments with trainees should be used to assess
potential changes in self-efficacy, motivation to learn, and motivation to transfer

learning as they move into work roles armed with knowledge and skills gained
during training.
11.
Post-training behavioral assessment and supervisory assessment
should be used to explore possible relationships between motivation and actual

changes in behavior.
98
REFERENCES
Ajzen, I., & Madden, J. T. (1986, September). Prediction of goal-directed
behavior: Attitudes, intentions and perceived behavioral control. Journal
of Experimental Social Psychology, 22, 453-474.
Alliger, G. M., & Janak, E. A. (1989). Kirkpatricks levels of training criteria: Thirty
years later. Personnel Psychology, 42(2), 331 -341.
Anastasi, A. (1988). Psychological testing (6th ed.). New York: Macmillan.
Baldwin, T. T., & Ford, J. K. (1988). Transfer of training: A review and directions
for future research. Personnel Psychology, 47(1), 63-105.
Baldwin, T. T., Machuka, R. J., & Loher, B. T. (1991). The perils of participation:
Effects of choice of training on trainee motivation and learning. Personnel
Psychology, 44(1), 51-66.
Bandura, A. (1989a). Human agency in social cognitive theory.
Psychologist, 44(9), 1175-1184.
American
Bandura, A. (1989b). Regulation of cognitive processes through perceived selfefficacy. Development Psychology, 25(5), 729-735.
Bandura, A., & Cervone D. (1986). Differential engagement of self-reactive
influences in cognitive motivation. Organizational behavior and human
decision processes, 38, 92-113.
Borg, W. R., & Gall, M. D. (1989). Educational research: An introduction. New
York: Longman.
Bouffard-Bouchard, T. (1990, June). Influence of self-efficacy on performance in
a cognitive task. Journal of Social Psychology, 130, 353-363.
Cacioppo, J. T., Harkins, S. G., & Petty, R. E. (1981). The nature of attitudes and
cognitive responses and their relationships to behavior. In R. E. Petty, T.
M. Ostrom, & T. C. Brock (Eds.). Cognitive responses in persuasion (pp.
5-29). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Callahan, M. R. (1985). Info-line: Be a better needs analyst. Alexandria, VA:
American Society for Training and Development.
Carnevale, A. P. & Schulz, E. R. (1990, September).
Training and Development Journal, 44, 23-29.
Evaluation practices.
99
Cascio, W. F. (1987). Applied psychology in personnel management (3rd ed.).

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Chell, E. (1987).
Macmillan.
The psychology of behaviour in organizations.
London:
Cross, K. P. (1981). Adults as learners. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Dawes, R. M. (1977). Fundamentals of attitude measurement. New York: Wiley.
Eden, D. (1988). Pygmalion, goal setting, and expectancy: Compatible ways to
boost productivity. Academy of Management Review, 13(4), 639-652.
Eden, D. & Kinnar, J. (1991). Modeling galatea: Boosting self-efficacy to
increase volunteering. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(6), 770-780.
Eden D., & Ravid, G. (1982). Pygmalion versus self-expectancy: Effects of
instructor-and self-expectancy on trainee performance. Organizational
Behavior and Human Performance, 30(3), 351-364.
Feldman, D. C. (1989). Socialization, resocialization, and training: Reframing the
research agenda. In I. L. Goldstein (Ed.). Training and development in
organizations (pp. 376-416). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Fishbein, M. & Ajzen, I. (1981). Acceptance, yielding and impact: Cognitive
processes in persuasion. In R. E. Petty, T. M. Ostrom, & T. C. Brock
(Eds.) Cognitive responses in persuasion (pp. 339-359). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Ford, J. K. & Noe, R. A. (1987). Self-assessed training needs: The effects of
attitudes toward training, managerial level, and function. Personnel
Psychology, 40(1) 39-53.
Georgenson, D. L. (1982). The problem of transfer calls for partnership. Training
and Development Journal, 36(10), 75-78.
Gist, M. E. (1987). Self-efficacy: Implications for organizational behavior and
human resource management. Academy of Management Review, 12(3),
472-485.
Gist, M. E. & Mitchell, T. R. (1992). Self-efficacy: A theoretical analysis of its
determinants and malleability. Academy of Management Review, 17(2),
183-211.
100
Gist, M. E., Schwoerer, C., & Rosen, B. (1989, December). Effects of alternative
training methods of self-efficacy and performance in computer software
training. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 884-891.
Gist, M. E., Stevens, C. K., & Bavetta, A. G. (1991). Effects of self-efficacy and
post-training intervention on the acquisition and maintenance of complex
interpersonal skills. Personnel Psychology, 44(4), 837-861.
Goldstein, I. L. (1974). Training:
Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Program development and evaluation.
Goldstein, I. L. (1986).
Training in organizations: Needs assessment,
development, and evaluation (2nd ed.). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Goldstein, I. L. (1989). Training and development in organizations.
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
San
Hicks, W. D., & Klimoski, R. J. (1987). Entry into training programs and its effects
on training outcomes: A field experiment. Academy of Management
Journal, 30(3), 542-552.
Huse, E. F. (1975). Organization development and change. St. Paul, MN: West.
In R. A. Noe (1986). The influence of trainee attitudes on training
effectiveness: Test of a model. Personnel Psychology, 39(3), 497-523.
Jones, G. R. (1986). Socialization tactics, self-efficacy, and newcomers
adjustments to organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 29(2),
262-279.
Kirkpatrick, D. L. (1976). Evaluation. In R. L. Craig (Ed.). Training and
development handbook, (pp. 301-319). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Knowles, M. S. (1970). The modern practice of adult education: Andragogy
versus pedagogy. New York: Association Press.
Latham, G. P. (1989). Behavioral approaches to the training and learning
process.
In I. L. Goldstein (Ed.).
Training and development in
organizations (pp. 376-416). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D. & Larkin, K. C. (1987). Comparison of three
theoretically derived variable in predicting career and academic behavior:
Self-efficacy, interest congruence, and consequence thinking. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 34, 293-298.
101
Mager, R. F. (1991, April). No self-efficacy, no performance. Training, 32-36.

Marcus, B. H. & Owen, N. (1992). Motivational readiness, self-efficacy and
decision-making for exercise. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22(1),
3-16.
Mathieu, J. E., Martineau, J. W., & Tannenbaum, S. I. (1993). Individual and
situation influences on the development of self-efficacy: Implications for
training effectiveness. Personnel Psychology, 46(1), 125-147.
Mathieu, J. E., Tannenbaum, S. I., & Salas, E. (1992). Influences of individual
and situational characteristics on measures of training effectiveness.
Academy o f Management Journal, 35(4), 828-847.
McClagan, P. A., & Suhadolnik, D. (1989). Models for HRD practice. Alexandria,
VA: American Society for Training and Development.
Mehrens, W. A. & Lehmann, I. J. (1984).
education and psychology (3rd ed.).
Winston.
Measurement and evaluation in

New York: Holt, Rinehart and
Noe, R. A. (1986). Trainees attributes and attitudes: Neglected influences on

training effectiveness. Academy of Management Review, 11(A), 497-523.
Noe, R. A., & Schmitt, N. (1986). The influence of trainee attitudes on training
effectiveness: Test of a model. Personnel Psychology, 39(3), 497-523.
Nowlen, P. M. (1988). A new approach to continuing education for business and
the professions: The performance model. New York: Macmillan.
Ozer, M. O. & Bandura, A. (1990). Mechanisms governing empowerment effects:
A self-efficacy analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
58(3), 472-486.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1981). Attitudes and persuasion: Classic and
contemporary approaches. Dubuque, IA: Brown.
Petty, R. E., Ostrom, T. M., & Brock, T. C. (1981). Historical foundations of the
cognitive responses approach to attitudes and persuasion. In R. E. Petty,
T. M. Ostrom, & T. C. Brock (Eds.). Cognitive responses in persuasion
(pp. 5-29). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Rosenthal, T. L., & Zimmerman, B. J. (1978). Social learning and cognition. New
York: Academic Press.
102
Ross, A. O. (1992). Personality: Theories and processes. New York: Harper

Perennial.
Ryman, D. H., & Biesner, R. J. (1975). Attitudes predictive of diving training
success. Personnel Psychology, 28(2), 181-188.
Shelton, S. H. (1990). Developing the construct of general self-efficacy.
Psychological Reports, 66(1), 987-994.
Shrigley, R. L., Koballa, T. R., Jr., & Simpson, R. D. (1988). Defining attitude for
science educators. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 25(8), 659678.
Smith, T. (Ed.). (1992). Training & development certification program faculty
notebook. College Station, TX: Department of Educational Human
Resource Development, Texas A&M University.
Smith, T. (1993). [Participant pre and post assessment findings]. Unpublished
raw data.
SPSS Inc. (1988). SPSS-X users guide (3rd ed.). Chicago: SPSS, Inc.
Stippek, D. J. (1988). Motivation to learn from theory to practice. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Tannenbaum, S. I., Mathieu, J. E., Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J.A. (1991).
Meeting trainees expectations: The influence of training fulfillment on the
development of commitment, self-efficacy, and motivation. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 76(6), 759-769.
Tannenbaum, S. I., & Yukl, G. (1992). Training and development in work
organizations. Training and Development Journal, 43(6), 399-441.
Tesser, A., & Shaffer, D. R. (1990). Attitudes and attitude change.
Review of Psychology, 41, 479-523.
Annual
Walker, H. M., & Lev, J. (1953). Statistical inference. New York: Holt, Rinehart
and Winston.
Wexley, K. N. (1989). Contributions to the practice of training. In I. L. Goldstein
(Ed.). Training and development in organizations (pp. 376-416). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Wexley, K. N. & Latham, G. P. (1981). Developing and training human resources
in organizations. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.
103
Wood, R., & Bandura A. (1989). Social cognitive theory of organizational
management. Academy of Management Review, 14(3), 361-383.
104
APPENDIX A
ATTITUDES TOWARD PROFESSIONAL

DEVELOPMENT:
A SURVEY INSTRUMENT
Please use the enclosed data form to rate the following statements about your
attitudes toward professional development. A rating of 1 means that you strongly
disagree with the statement, 4 means that you are neutral about the statement,
and 7 means that you strongly agree with the statement.
1.
My training job is well within the scope of my abilities.
2.
I do not anticipate any problems in adjusting to training assignments in my

organization.
3.
I am overqualified for the training I will be doing.
4.
I have all the technical knowledge I need to deal with my training

assignments.
5.
I feel confident that my training skills and abilities equal or exceed those
of my future colleagues.
6.
My past experiences and accomplishments in training increase my

confidence that I will be able to perform successfully in my organization.
7.
I could handle a more challenging training job than the one I am doing.
105
8.
Professionally speaking, my training job exactly satisfies my expectations

of myself.
9.
I am motivated to learn as much as possible about training.
10.
I try to learn as much as I can about training.
11.
I have a better chance of learning these training materials than most other
individuals attending.
12.
I am eager to learn more about training.
13.
The knowledge and experience that I gain by learning about training may
advance my career.
14.
Even if I dont understand all the materials, this training will be a valuable
learning experience.
15.
I learn more from training than most people.
16.
If I have difficulty learning training materials, I try harder.
17.
I am better prepared for this training than most people.
18.
I am personally interested in the subject of training.
19.
I am confident I can use the skills taught in this trainingsession.
20.
I am aware of work situations in which application of the skills learned in

this training session will be appropriate.
21.
Improvements in job performance will likely occur from applying the skills
learned in this training session.
22.
The knowledge and skills emphasized in this training program will be

helpful in solving work-related problems.
106
23.
The knowledge and skills emphasized in this training program will be useful
in handling frequent job demands.
24.
The training programs I have attended have been useful for my

development as a trainer.
25.
The material in training programs I have attended has been relevant to

skills I had hoped to develop.
26.
The time spent away from my job to attend this training session will be
worthwhile.
27.
I have opportunities to practice the skills emphasized in this training on my

job.
00
:
00
000
pj
00O
000
0000
0
g
0000
g
00
S
S
00Q
g
000
00
0000
s
000
s;
@0
g
2
00
5
00
=
000
00
s
00
000
0
5
2
0G0
s
00
000
00
000

'
s
0000
2
000
2
0000
2
00
000O
0000
g
0000
g
5
0@00
s
00000
5
0000
00
000G
s
00@
5
@00Q
5
00@0
g
0G0G
000
Z
00
=
00

000
00
00
Q
000
^S C A N TR O N *
O ' 1 0 1 7 17-1AMU
=
=
. . :

000
000
00
000
00
00
0000
000G
000
00G
000
000G
00
000000@
000000
0000O
0000@
00&00000G
000
0G0
00@
G)&0
0G;;.

00G&
00
00G@
00
000G
000
000
00
... .

G 8 S 8 0 B
s
=
s
c
s
=
2
5
=
=
=
a
2
a
a
a
a
s
2
2
s
S
2
2
s
2
s
s
g
2
icj
;.
..
,_,
0.0000H0!
0.E83
..jBBBB
D
ON
O
TW
R
IT
EINM
A
R
G
IN
S
00~0
00O
0Q00.0000
000
'000
00
.
00
00
.
0
00
0Q0
0
0000@
030
o> 6t it
. :
2
S
s
2
s
R
5
2
S
S
2
tum
0.00000
0
.
...
000
00
0
0
..
00
.
@0
..
00G'9
000
0 .
00000
.
00
00010
000
i;
: ' .
GENERAL NUMERIC DATA FORM
a
a
p
a
a
a
a
s
g
g
s
S
m t;
K it 1 9? K h t
TEXAS A& M U N IV E R S ITY
N IO illill
APPENDIX B
CORRELATION MATRICES COMPARING ITEMS AMONG
SELF-EFFICACY, MOTIVATION TO LEARN,
AND MOTIVATION TO TRANSFER SCALES
Correlation Matrix Comparing Motivation to Learn Items with Self-Efficacy Items
Motivation to
Learn Items
Self-Efficacy Items
1
.70*
.83* -.14
.14
.50* .71*
.29
.45*
10
.72*
.86* -.12
.24
.57* .73*
.36
.44*
.27
.19
.15
11
-.04
.45*
.07
-.21
-.21
12
.64*
.71* -.24
.02
.43* .68*
.42*
.55*
13
.80*
.73* -.30
.24
.65* .82*
.36
.38
14
.83*
.72* -.29
.16
.60* .76*
.38
.39
15
.26
.52* -.19
.11
.45* .41*
-.18
16
.61*
.62* -.32
.16
.59* .63*
.42*
.37
.13
.03
.14
.18
.80* -.12
.21
.54* .71*
17
18
-.01
.73*
.22
.37
.20
.47*
-.01
.44*
* denotes significant correlation at .05 level
109
Correlation Matrix Comparing Motivation to Transfer Items with Self-Efficacy Items

Motivation to
Transfer Items
Self-Efficacy Items
1
.81*
.58* -.50*
.07
.48* .68*
.46* .57*
20
.80*
.58* -.50*
.09
.50* .68*
.48* .58*
21
.80*
.54* -.57*
.00
.49* .66*
.43* .61*
22
.74*
.47*
*o
i
.02
.48* .66*
.48* .66*
23
.55*
.28
-.53* -.13
.46*
.50* .65*
24
.84*
.42* -.27
.54* .69*
.63* .45*
25
.68*
.21
-.06
.23
.51*
.58* .48*
26
.69*
.43* -.53* -.08
.35
.51*
.34
27
.70*
.42* -.46*
.35
.54*
.43* .58*
C
D
19
-.32
.18
.05
.20
.54*
110
Correlation Matrix Comparing Motivation to Learn Items with Motivation to

Transfer Items
Motivation to
Transfer
Motivation to Learn Items
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
.70*
.65* -.32
.65*
.71* .87*
.04
.45*
-.02
.64*
20
.69*
.66* -.38
.65*
.66* .81*
-.02
.47*
.03
.66*
21
.66*
.65* -.35
.69*
.73* .84*
.16
.57*
-.11
.65*
22
.58*
.53* -.37
.58*
.62* .70*
.03
.39
-.00
.58*
23
.45*
,41* -.35
.49*
.46* .59*
-.18
.28
-.20
.41*
24
.50*
.55* -.12
.50*
.60* .63*
.09
.56*
-.04
.59*
25
.39
.39
-.24
.45*
.52* .54*
-.17
.34
-.16
.40*
26
.62*
.59* -.50*
.63*
.63* .78*
.01
.46*
-.11
.58*
27
.57*
.56* -.50*
.62*
.49* .66*
-.10
.43*
-.14
.58*
111
VITA
KATHRYNE ANN NEWTON
Education
Ph.D. Industrial Education, Texas A&M University, 1993
M.B.A. Management, Texas A&M University, 1983
B.S. Industrial Distribution, Texas A&M University, 1981
Professional experience
Consultant, Quality Innovation Systems, Inc., Bryan, TX
Assistant Professor, Industrial Distribution Program, Texas A&M University
Consultant, Kathryne Newton, MBA
Professional associations
American Society for Quality Control
American Society for Training and Development
Permanent address: 2524 Arbor Drive, Bryan, TX 77802

Development of Trainee Self-Efficacy, Motivation To Learn, and Motivation To Transfer Learning

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Development of Trainee Self-Efficacy, Motivation To Learn, and Motivation To Transfer Learning

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

INFORMATION TO USERS

University Microfilms International

D evelopm ent o f trainee self-efficacy, m otivation to learn, and

Copyright 1993 by N ew ton , K athryne A nn. All rights reserved.

300 N. Zeeb Rd.

Submitted to the Office of Graduate Studies of

Major Subject: Industrial Education

KATHRYNE ANN NEWTON

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................. vii

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ............................................................7

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

Scales Measuring Self-Efficacy, Motivation to Learn,

Pretest, First Session Posttest and Fourth Session

Survey Instrument and Construct Scale Means and Standard

Self-Efficacy Scale Item Means and Standard Deviations for

Analysis of Difference Scores using /-test for Paired Samples

Correlation Matrix for Self-Efficacy Scale ............................................. 59

Motivation to Learn Scale Item Means and Standard Deviations for

Analysis of Difference Scores using /-test for Paired Samples

10. Correlation Matrix for Motivation to Learn Scale .................................. 65

Motivation to Transfer Learning Scale Item Means and Standard

LIST OF TABLES continued

12. Analysis of Difference Scores using f-test for Paired Samples

primary purpose of skill development, variables such as self efficacy (Latham,

There appears to be a recent increase "in research on the implications of trainee

Trainee self-efficacy will be improved by completion of the training

2(a). Trainee motivation to learn will be improved by participation in the

2(b). Trainee motivation to learn will be improved by completion of the

No attempt was made to assess actual transfer of

training on the job.

"Peoples beliefs in their capabilities to mobilize the

motivation, cognitive resources, and courses of action needed to exercise control

Training and Development Program:

The Training and Development

Certification Program conducted by the Texas A&M University Department of

attitude research, attitudes and their link to

behavior, self-efficacy, motivation, motivation to learn, and motivation to transfer.

practitioners need to assess their organizations training needs to develop

It has been estimated that

New methodologies are necessary to

determine the degree of effectiveness of training programs in improving job

It has also been defined as a

"planned learning experience designed to bring about permanent change in an

Feldman (1989) suggested that

It has also been

Training fulfillment is a function of expectations and desires of the

experience is expected to positively influence posttraining self-efficacy and

an attitude as the amount of affect or feeling for or against a stimulus.

measured attitudes by presenting statements to subjects and asking them to

The concept of attitude was

subsequently broadened to include other dimensions (Cacioppo et al., 1981).

Figure 1. Relationships between Attitudes and

Beliefs are likely to be more enduring than attitudes, particularly when

Social learning theory explains human behavior in terms of interplay

among cognitive, behavioral, and environmental influences; it incorporates the

persons are neither autonomous agents nor simply mechanical

their sources (Eden & Kinnar, 1991).

Gist, Stevens & Bavetta (1991)

distinguished self-efficacy from self-esteem and locus of control.

efficacy is a judgment of task-specific capability, self-esteem is generally

(a) enactive mastery