See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/227629113

The effects of training design, individual characteristics and work

environment on transfer of training. International Journal of Training and
Development, 11(4), 282-294

Article in International Journal of Training and Development · December 2007

DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2419.2007.00286.x

CITATIONS READS

209 11,755

5 authors, including:

Raquel Velada António Caetano

ISCTE-Instituto Universitário de Lisboa ISCTE-Instituto Universitário de Lisboa
7 PUBLICATIONS 542 CITATIONS 172 PUBLICATIONS 2,003 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

John W. Michel Brian D. Lyons

Loyola University Maryland Elon University
33 PUBLICATIONS 1,138 CITATIONS 28 PUBLICATIONS 828 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

ELITE: Emergence of high-impact entrepreneurs View project

Leader Behavior View project

All content following this page was uploaded by John W. Michel on 15 April 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

International Journal of Training and Development 11:4
ISSN 1360-3736

The effects of training

design, individual
characteristics and work
environment on transfer
of training
Raquel Velada, António Caetano,
John W. Michel, Brian D. Lyons
and Michael J. Kavanagh
This study aims to gain insight into some of the factors that
determine the transfer of training to the work context. The
present research examined the relationship between three types
of predictors on transfer of training, including training design,
individual characteristics and work environment. Data was
collected at two points in time from 182 employees in a large
grocery organization. The results indicated that transfer
design, performance self-efficacy, training retention and perfor-
mance feedback were significantly related to transfer of train-
ing. Contrary to expectation, supervisory support was not
significantly related to transfer of training. These results
suggest that in order to enhance transfer of training, organiza-
tions should design training that gives trainees the ability to

❒ Raquel Velada, PhD student, ISCTE – Institute of Social Sciences and Business Studies, Department of
Social and Organizational Psychology, Avenida das Forças Armadas, 1649-026 Lisbon, Portugal. Email:
raquel.velada@netcabo.pt. António Caetano, Associate Professor, ISCTE – Institute of Social Sciences and
Business Studies, Lisbon, Portugal. Email: antonio.caetano@iscte.pt. John W. Michel, Assistant Professor,
Department of Management, College of Business and Economics, Towson University, 8000 York Road,
Towson, MD 21252, USA. Email: jmichel@towson.edu. Brian D. Lyons, Assistant Professor, Department
of Management, Craig School of Business, California State University, Fresno, 5241 N. Maple Ave.,
Fresno, CA 93740, USA. Email: blyons@csufresno.edu. Michael J. Kavanagh, Professor Emeritus,
Department of Management, School of Business, University at Albany, 1400 Washington Ave., Albany,
NY 12222, USA. Email: mickkav@nycap.rr.com
This study was supported by a grant to the first author from the Foundation for Science and Technology
of Portugal (SFRH/BD/10558/2002).

© 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2QD,
UK and 350 Main St., Malden, MA 02148, USA.

282 International Journal of Training and Development

 transfer learning, reinforces the trainee’s beliefs in their ability
to transfer, ensures the training content is retained over time
and provides appropriate feedback regarding employee job per-
formance following training activities.

Introduction
Organizations spend an immense amount of time and money on training in order to
facilitate employees’ learning of job-related competencies (Cascio, 2000; Noe et al.,
2006). According to Training Magazine’s ongoing industry report, US companies spend
more than $50 billion annually on formal training (Dolezalek, 2004). Moreover, invest-
ment in training activities has increased all over the world in recent years. As a result
of the financial investments organizations make in training, it is important to provide
evidence that training efforts are being fully realized (Cascio, 2000; Dowling & Welch,
2005). In other words, it is important for organizations to ensure that training leads to
desired work outcomes such as increases in job performance.
Research has demonstrated that training efforts are unlikely to result in positive
changes in job performance unless the newly trained competencies are transferred
to the work environment (see Baldwin & Ford, 1988; Montesino, 2002; Rouiller &
Goldstein, 1993). As a result, there has been an increased effort to understand the
antecedents and consequences of the transfer of training process.
Baldwin and Ford (1988) define transfer of training as ‘the degree to which trainees
effectively apply the knowledge, skills, and attitudes gained in the training context to
the job’ (p. 63). This suggests that transfer of training first requires a trainee to learn
new job-related competencies (Velada & Caetano, 2007). By learning, we are referring
to a relatively permanent change in knowledge, skills and behaviors of trainees (Weiss,
1990). After learning and retaining the training content, trainees should transfer the
knowledge and/or skills accrued to the work context with the intention of improving
job performance over time (Noe et al., 2006).
However, it has been estimated that only about 10 per cent of all training experi-
ences are transferred from the training environment to the job (Baldwin & Ford, 1988).
Although this is a lower-bound estimate, Wexley and Latham (2002) suggest that
although approximately 40 per cent of content is transferred immediately following
training, the amount transferred falls to 25 per cent after 6 months and 15 per cent
after 1 year. This suggests that as time passes, trainees may be unable or less moti-
vated to retain and use the information gained in the training program. Furthermore,
this indicates that much of the time and money invested in training is never fully
realized, because only a small percentage of the training effectively results in perma-
nent transferability to the workplace. As a result, understanding and improving the
transfer of training process has become a primary concern for training researchers
and practitioners.
Although several studies have been conducted to understand the transfer of training
process, conceptual models for understanding this process are limited. Kavanagh (1998)
developed a multi-level multistage process to help understand the complexities of the
transfer of training process. Specifically, he suggested that training transfer is influ-
enced by several variables at different levels of analysis (e.g. individual, supervisor,
workgroup and organization) and in different stages in the training process (e.g.
pre-training, training and post-training). To date, the extant literature (e.g. Baldwin &
Ford, 1988; Holton, 1996, 2005; Tracey et al., 1995) has identified three main determi-
nants of training transfer: training design or enabling factors, individual factors or trainee
characteristics, and work environment or transfer climate.
Holton et al. (2000) developed the Learning Transfer System Inventory (LTSI) to
evaluate the specific factors on those dimensions affecting the transfer of training
process. Based on the Human Resource Development Research and Evaluation Model
(Holton, 1996), the LTSI includes 16 factors that either facilitate or inhibit training
transfer. It has been argued that the LTSI is the only research-based instrument for

Transfer of training 283

© 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
 TRAINING DESIGN
Transfer design

INDIVIDUAL CHARACTERISTICS
Self-efficacy
Transfer of
Training retention training

WORK ENVIRONMENT
Feedback
Supervisor support

Figure 1: Simplified model of transfer of training.

assessing a comprehensive set of factors affecting transfer of learning (Chen et al.,

2005; Holton et al., 2000). Whereas studies have been conducted to validate the LTSI
measure (Chen et al., 2005; Holton et al., 2000; Khasawneh et al., 2006), little has been
done to empirically demonstrate the relationship between LTSI measures and transfer
of training. Additionally, the LTSI appears to exclude important individual difference
variables such as cognitive ability, locus of control and training retention (e.g. Baldwin
& Ford, 1988), and environmental factors such as continuous learning culture (e.g.
Tracey et al., 1995).
Based on a review of the transfer of training literature, Kavanagh (1998) concluded
that there are significant gaps in the empirical literature for training design, individual
variables and organizational environment factors. This suggests the need for studies to
investigate the impact of these issues on the transfer of training process. Thus, consid-
ering the three main influences on transfer of training previously identified by Holton
(1996, 2005), this study aims to contribute to the theory of training transfer by empiri-
cally analysing how different sets of variables simultaneously influence the transfer of
training.
As depicted in Figure 1, we hypothesize that several variables related to training
design, individual characteristics and work environment affect transfer of training. The
following section provides a brief overview of the literature regarding the influence of
training design, individual characteristics and work environment on transfer of train-
ing, giving special attention and theoretical justification to the relationships that will be
tested in this study.

Influences of training design on transfer of training

According to the training literature, there are several training design factors that
influence transfer of training: instructional techniques and learning principles (e.g.
Alvarez et al., 2004); self-management and relapse prevention strategies (e.g. Tziner
et al., 1991; Wexley & Nemeroff, 1975) and goal setting (e.g. Gist et al., 1990). Thus,
organizations should design their training programs to include such factors that
increase the likelihood of transfer. Accordingly, the LTSI measures such a factor, trans-
fer design. Transfer design refers to the degree to which training has been designed and
delivered in such a way that provides trainees the ability to transfer learning back to the
job (Holton et al., 2000). Holton et al. (2000) argue that part of transfer design is the
degree to which training instructions match job requirements. Trainees are more likely
to transfer the training content to the work context when they perceive that the training
program was designed and delivered in such a way that maximizes the trainee’s ability

284 International Journal of Training and Development

© 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
to transfer the training to the job (Holton, 1996; 2005). Consequently, when trainees
have previous knowledge and practice on how to apply the newly learned knowledge
and skills to the job and when training instructions are congruent with job require-
ments, an increased likelihood of transfer should exist. Based on these assertions, we
hypothesized the following:
H1 Trainees’ perceptions of transfer design will be positively related to transfer of
training.

Influences of individual characteristics on transfer of training

In addition to training design, there are several individual characteristics that affect the
transfer of training process. Some of these characteristics include cognitive ability,
locus of control, conscientiousness, achievement motivation, motivation to learn and to
transfer, anxiety, self-efficacy, and valence (e.g. Colquitt et al., 2000; Mathieu et al., 1992;
Noe, 1986). Others include job involvement, organizational commitment, organiza-
tional cynicism and job satisfaction (e.g. Mathieu et al., 1993; Tannenbaum et al., 1991;
Tesluk et al., 1995; Velada & Caetano, 2007).
Of these characteristics, performance self-efficacy has been found to strongly relate to
both learning (Gist et al., 1991; Mathieu et al., 1992; Quinones, 1995) and transfer of
training (e.g. Ford et al., 1998). Additionally, some studies (e.g. Ford et al., 1998) have
indicated that trainees with higher self-efficacy are more likely to transfer the training to
the job. Holton et al. (2000) defined performance self-efficacy as an individual’s general
belief that they are able to change their performance when desired. Hence, when a
trainee feels confident in his or her ability to perform, the more likely he or she will
transfer such knowledge and/or skill to the job. Thus, we hypothesized the following:
H2 Performance self-efficacy will be positively related to training transfer.
As suggested before, trainees must have the ability to retain the knowledge instilled
during the training program to facilitate the transfer process. Similar to cognitive
ability, training retention is the degree to which trainees retain the content after train-
ing is completed. Baldwin and Ford (1988) argue that learning retention outcomes are
directly associated with the generalization and maintenance of training effects on the
job. They argue that in order for trained skills to be transferred, they first must be
learned and retained. Although we were unable to find any previous research empiri-
cally demonstrating this relationship, we believe it is an important aspect in the transfer
of training process. Therefore, we hypothesized the following:
H3 Training retention will be positively related to training transfer.

Influences of work environment on transfer of training

Work environment variables have been investigated less often than training design and
individual characteristics (Alvarez et al., 2004; Baldwin & Ford, 1988; Holton et al., 1997;
Tannenbaum & Yukl, 1992). However, a number of studies have shown that environ-
mental factors are important for understanding the transfer of training process (e.g.
Baldwin & Ford, 1988; Lance et al., 2002; Rouiller & Goldstein, 1993; Tracey et al., 1995).
Two dimensions of the work environment that have received attention with regard
to transfer of training include organizational culture and climate (e.g. Baldwin & Ford,
1988; Rouiller & Goldstein, 1993; Tracey et al., 1995) Tracey et al. (1995) stressed the
importance of both transfer of training climate and continuous learning culture as work
environment variables that have a significant impact on the post-training behaviors.
Some indicators of transfer climate include performance feedback, peer support, super-
visor support and supervisor sanctions (e.g. Baldwin & Ford, 1988; Holton et al., 2000;
Tracey & Tews, 2005; Tracey et al., 1995).
Research has indicated that when employees perceive that the organizational climate
is supportive, they are more likely to apply their new knowledge in the work environ-

Transfer of training 285

© 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
ment (see Baldwin & Ford, 1988; Tracey et al., 1995). Performance feedback includes an
indication from management about how well one is performing his or her job (Holton
et al., 2000). Specifically, feedback regarding the newly learned knowledge and skills
and how these relate to job performance increases the likelihood of its transfer to the
work context (Reber & Wallin, 1984). Therefore, we hypothesized the following:
H4 Feedback regarding the trainee’s performance after training will be positively
related to training transfer.
Supervisor support can be described as the extent to which supervisors support and
reinforce the use of newly learned knowledge and skills on the job (Holton et al., 2000).
Although there is some contradictory evidence (e.g. Russell et al., 1985), the dominant
literature suggests that when trainees perceive that their supervisors support the appli-
cation of newly developed knowledge and skills, they are more likely to transfer these
competencies back to the job (e.g. Bates et al., 2000; Brinkerhoff & Montesino, 1995;
Colquitt et al., 2000; Noe, 1986; Tracey & Tews, 2005). Thus, we hypothesized the
following:
H5 Supervisor support for training transfer will be positively related to training
transfer.

Method
Procedure
The initial sample consisted of 336 employees from nine stores of a grocery market
company in Portugal. All training occurred in a classroom within each store, although
the training content differed to reflect each store’s job composition. In a period of 1
month, participants attended one of the following training programs: customer service,
environmental issues, security, prevention and hygiene in the workplace. In order to
address all the training objectives and to facilitate the knowledge acquisition as well as
behavior change, different training methods were used including lecture, discussion,
simulations (e.g. role play) and audiovisual techniques (e.g. video tapes).
At the end of the training program, 336 trainees completed a self-report survey to
assess perceptions of transfer design, performance self-efficacy and supervisor support
(Time 1 data collection). Three months after the training sessions, surveys were sent to
the trainees to complete and return (Time 2 data collection). These surveys measured
the trainees’ perceptions of training retention, feedback and training transfer. Of the
336 surveys distributed, 219 were returned. This loss of 117 respondents over the
3-month period was due in part to the high rate of personnel turnover in these jobs. In
addition, due to incomplete survey completion and incorrect coding, 37 more surveys
had to be discarded, leaving a final sample of 182 matched pairs.

Participants
Of the 182 study participants, 62 per cent were female. The mean age for the partici-
pants was 30, with a range of 19–58. The average tenure of the participants in the
company was 4.5 years with 46.6 per cent having been employed in the company for
less than 1 year. In terms of education, 52.3 per cent had a high school degree while
only 5.2 per cent had a college degree. Furthermore, 79 per cent of the participants were
in non-supervisory roles.

Measures
The independent variables of transfer design, performance self-efficacy, supervisor
support and performance feedback were measured with items from the LTSI (Holton
et al., 2000). The measure of training retention was created specifically for this study.

286 International Journal of Training and Development

© 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
The measure of the dependent variable, training transfer, was based on Tesluk et al.’s
(1995) research. All variables were measured using a 5-point Likert scale.

Transfer design
Transfer design is defined as the ‘degree to which (1) training has been designed and
delivered to give trainees the ability to transfer learning to the job, and (2) training
instructions match job requirements’ (Holton et al., 2000, p. 345). Transfer design was
measured with four items with an alpha of 0.78. A sample item is ‘The way the
trainer(s) taught the material made me feel more comfortable I could apply it’.

Performance self-efficacy
Performance self-efficacy was defined as ‘an individual’s general belief that they are
able to change their performance when they want to’ (Holton et al., 2000, p. 346).
Performance self-efficacy was measured with four items with an alpha of 0.76. A
sample item is ‘I am confident in my ability to use new skills at work’.

Supervisor support
Supervisor support was defined as the ‘extent to which supervisors/managers support
and reinforce use of training on the job’ (Holton et al., 2000, p. 345). The measure of
supervisor support consisted of six items with an alpha of 0.89. A sample item is ‘My
supervisor meets with me to discuss ways to apply training on the job’.

Performance feedback
Performance feedback was defined as ‘formal and informal indicators from an organi-
zation about an individual’s job performance’ (Holton et al., 2000, p. 346). The measure
of performance feedback consisted of three items with an alpha of 0.72. A sample item
is‘After training, I received feedback from people on how well I am applying what I
learned’.

Training retention
Because a measure of training retention could not be found in the literature, three items
were created for this study (a = 0.70). The three items included ‘I still remember the
main topics that I have learned in the training course,’ ‘I can easily say several things
that I have learned in the training course’ and ‘I had never thought again about the
training content (reverse coded)’.

Training transfer
Tesluk et al. (1995) developed a three-item scale to measure the extent to which indi-
viduals transfer the knowledge and skills presented in training sessions to their core
jobs (a = 0.87). A sample item is ‘I have been using the skills presented in the training
course to help improve my performance’.

Results
Factor analysis
In order to assess the extent to which each of the variables represents a separate
construct, an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was performed. An EFA is warranted
because some of the items were adapted from previous research to correspond to the
purposes of this study and, as a result, the dimensionality of the survey was not assured
for this sample. A principal component analysis (PCA) followed by varimax rotation
was performed on the 23 survey items. Two decision rules were imposed to ascertain
the number of components and items comprised in the factor analytic model: (1)
eigenvalues over 1.0 were retained and (2) components that discretely loaded from
other factors in the screen plot were retained. As depicted in Table 1, six components
were deduced from the 23 items and these components accounted for 55.43 per cent of
the variance in the items.

Transfer of training 287

© 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
 Table 1: Item means, standard deviations and varimax rotated factor loadings

Item Factor loadings

M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6

Supervisor support
Ways to apply training on 3.47 0.83 0.85 0.09 0.14 0.13 0.09 -0.01
the job
Problems in using 3.56 0.84 0.79 0.12 0.04 0.16 0.08 0.07
training
Interest in the training 3.71 0.82 0.72 0.21 0.06 0.07 0.05 0.05
learning
Feedback on performance 3.73 0.82 0.65 0.20 0.15 -0.04 0.31 0.01
after training
Performance goals based 3.63 0.82 0.63 0.14 0.26 -0.03 0.36 0.03
on training
Goals to apply training on 3.77 0.85 0.56 0.22 0.14 0.08 0.21 0.02
the job
Transfer design
Examples about ways to 4.13 0.59 0.19 0.77 0.19 0.06 0.07 -0.02
use learning on the job
Activities and exercises on 3.98 0.67 0.10 0.63 0.17 0.19 -0.06 -0.03
how to apply learning
Teaching on how to apply 3.84 0.70 0.18 0.61 0.10 0.07 0.04 0.07
learning on the job
Understanding of the 3.98 0.69 0.23 0.54 0.18 0.02 0.17 0.01
training designers on
how to use learning
Performance self-efficacy
Ability to use newly 3.99 0.64 0.08 0.16 0.80 0.08 0.05 0.05
learned skills on the job
Confidence in the ability 4.00 0.61 0.10 0.22 0.71 0.11 0.01 0.07
to use new skills at
work
Using learning even in 3.98 0.61 0.30 0.17 0.51 0.14 0.04 -0.02
difficult situations
Overcoming obstacles to 3.95 0.64 0.17 0.16 0.40 0.21 0.26 -0.01
use new skills or
knowledge
Training transfer
Using new skills to 3.76 0.71 0.01 0.07 0.14 0.75 0.24 0.25
improve performance
Training helped to 3.77 0.69 0.13 0.19 0.15 0.73 0.30 0.16
improve job performance
Incorporating learned 3.77 0.75 0.08 0.17 0.21 0.65 0.31 0.20
skills into daily work
activities
Performance feedback
Post-training conversations 3.38 0.77 0.28 0.08 0.12 0.17 0.72 0.02
with people about how
to improve job
performance
Feedback on how well was 3.20 0.82 0.14 -0.04 0.01 0.21 0.59 0.05
the training application

288 International Journal of Training and Development

© 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
 Table 1: Continued

Item Factor loadings

M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6

People said things that 3.50 0.81 0.17 0.10 0.03 0.26 0.47 -0.08
helped to improve job
performance
Training retention
Remember the main topics 3.90 0.65 0.00 0.06 -0.07 0.08 0.08 0.99
learned in the training
Easily say several things 3.82 0.70 0.02 -0.01 0.09 0.10 0.05 0.67
learned in the training
Never thought again 3.98 0.87 0.05 -0.01 0.04 0.21 -0.12 0.37
about the training
contenta

Note: Higher item loadings on each factor are underlined. A 5-point Likert response scale was
used for all items.
a
item was reversed coded.
n = 182.

Overall, the results of the PCA were consistent with the extant literature. The
first principal component (six items) was labeled ‘supervisor support’ (a = 0.89); the
second principal component (four items) was labeled ‘transfer design’ (a = 0.78);
the third principal component (four items) was labeled ‘performance self-efficacy’
(a = 0.76); the fourth principal component (three items) was labeled ‘training transfer’
(a = 0.87); the fifth principal component (three items) was labeled ‘performance feed-
back’ (a = 0.72); and finally, the last principal component (three items) was labeled
‘training retention’ (a = 0.70). Based on the results from the EFA, we used these 5-factor
scores to test the aforementioned hypotheses.

Hypothesis testing
Means, standard deviations, intercorrelations and reliabilities of the variables are pre-
sented in Table 2. In general, results indicated that all independent variables of our
study were positively and significantly related to training transfer. To determine the
extent to which transfer design, performance self-efficacy, training retention, feedback
and supervisor support affect transfer outcome, hierarchical regression analysis was
performed (Cohen & Cohen, 1983). The independent variables entry was based on the
logic of our hypothesized model. Additionally, demographic variables and the nature
of the training were initially included in the analysis but were subsequently discarded
because they did not significantly predict transfer of training. The results of the hier-
archical regression analysis are presented in Table 3.
The results of step 1 showed that transfer design significantly predicted transfer of
training (b = 0.31, p < 0.01), supporting our first hypothesis. In step 2, we entered the
individual factors. Similarly to transfer design, both performance self-efficacy (b = 0.30,
p < 0.01) and training retention (b = 0.30, p < 0.01) significantly predicted transfer of
training, supporting our second and third hypotheses, respectively. Finally, in step 3 we
entered the environmental variables. As shown in Table 3, only feedback significantly
predicted transfer of training (b = 0.42, p < 0.01), providing support for our fourth
hypothesis. Although the bivariate correlation between supervisor support and train-
ing transfer was positive and significant (r = 0.31, p < 0.001), the hierarchical regression
did not support this hypothesis (b = -0.05, p = ns) Therefore, the fifth hypothesis was
only partially supported. Overall, these variables explained 42 per cent of the total
variance in transfer of training.

Transfer of training 289

© 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
 Table 2: Scale item means, standard deviations, intercorrelations and reliabilities

Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6

(1) Transfer design 3.96 0.51 (0.78)

(2) Performance self- 3.98 0.47 0.43** (0.76)
efficacy
(3) Training retention 3.90 0.58 0.05 0.08 (0.70)
(4) Performance 3.36 0.64 0.19* 0.25** 0.06 (0.72)
feedback
(5) Supervisor 3.65 0.66 0.42** 0.41** 0.08 0.43** (0.89)
support
(6) Training transfer 3.77 0.63 0.31** 0.40** 0.33** 0.50** 0.31** (0.87)

Note: A 5-point Likert scale was used for all variables.

* p < 0.01.
** p < 0.001.

Table 3: Hierarchical regression analysis results

Independent variables Dependent variables

Step 1 Step 2 Step 3

b b b

Transfer design 0.31** 0.17* 0.14*

Performance self-efficacy – 0.30** 0.23**
Training retention – 0.30** 0.29**
Performance feedback – – 0.42**
Supervisor support – – -0.05
R2 0.10 0.27 0.42
Adj. R2 0.09 0.26 0.41

Note: Dependent variable: training transfer.

* p < 0.05.
** p < 0.01.

Discussion
The results of this research demonstrate the importance of training design, individual
characteristics and the influence of the work environment on transfer of training.
The results for H1 indicated that transfer design, which assessed how applicable the
training was to the job, positively influenced transfer of training. These results reinforce
the notion that organizations should be aware of how well the content of the training
program, in terms of the use of activities, examples and exercises, is focused on the
application of on-the-job learning.
The second and third hypotheses involving performance self-efficacy and the reten-
tion of the training content were also significantly related to transfer of training. Such
results suggest that when trainees believe in their capabilities to transfer learning and
when they retain training content, they are more likely to perceive that they have
transferred the training to the work context.
The impact of the work environment in terms of feedback on transfer of training, as
predicted in hypothesis 4, was also supported in this research, indicating that the
feedback from others in the organization regarding the trainee’s performance after
training influences perceptions of training transfer. Contrary to what was predicted,
however, hypothesis 5 was not supported. In this instance, supervisor support did not
significantly predict transfer of training.

290 International Journal of Training and Development

© 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
 One strength of this research was that it allowed us to compare the results of transfer
of training research using two different methodologies. One methodology assumes
that in order to evaluate transfer of training, one must have evaluations of changes in job
performance as measured by persons (sources) other than the trainees (Lance et al.,
2002; Tracey et al., 1995). These other persons could include supervisors, co-workers
and customers. However, it is usually difficult to gain access to and collect data from
persons other than the trainees. The other methodology used in this study is to collect
all data on the research variables from the trainees. Despite the fact that some argue
against the use of self-report ratings of job performance, it is likely that the trainees are
the most important and valid source of the measurement of job performance as their
perceptions will drive their motivation and performance. Whereas using data collected
from other sources (i.e. supervisors, peers and customers) may provide slightly differ-
ent ratings, data collected using only a trainee self-report method can provide similar
results as demonstrated in the present research. Furthermore, because it is so important
to measure transfer of training in order to assess the practical and financial aspects of
training effectiveness (Cascio, 2000), using this latter paradigm may be simpler and less
expensive for human resource and managerial professionals. The important point is
that it may influence more organizations to evaluate transfer of training with empirical
data rather than assuming that transfer always occurs.

Theoretical and practical implications

Results from this study have potentially important implications for future research and
practice. In general, the results of this research argue for examining all aspects of the
training process when conducting research on transfer of training. Hence, these results
provide empirical evidence to the aforementioned theoretical models (e.g. Baldwin &
Ford, 1988; Holton, 1996, 2005; Kavanagh, 1998) suggesting that transfer of training is
impacted by the training design, characteristics of the trainee and contextual factors
such as feedback regarding post-training job performance. Future research should
examine pre-training factors in a similar study in order to determine if the combined
factors provide better prediction of transfer of training. As indicated earlier, without
the effective transfer of training from the training context to the organizational envi-
ronment, the costs and time spent in training is simply wasted.
More specifically, this study supports the theoretical literature (e.g. Holton, 1996,
2005) that suggest the importance of a transfer design that maximizes the trainee’s
ability to transfer in enhancing training transfer. The present study also extends
Baldwin and Ford’s (1988) work by demonstrating empirically that for training to be
transferred, the training content should be retained over time. Finally, the results of this
study reinforce the role of performance self-efficacy (Ford et al., 1998) and performance
feedback (Reber & Wallin, 1984) on the explanation of training transfer.
However, results of this study do not support the dominant literature (e.g. Bates
et al., 2000; Brinkerhoff & Montesino, 1995) that indicate that supervisory support is a
critical variable in transfer of training. The results regarding the hypothesis in which it
was predicted that supervisor support would affect transfer of training could seem
puzzling at first because the previous literature has typically supported this relation-
ship (Baldwin & Ford, 1988; Lance et al., 2002; Rouiller & Goldstein, 1993; Tracey et al.,
1995). However, some gaps persist in the literature regarding the specific supervisory
factors that influence transfer. Like in the prevalent literature, this study considered
only the post-training supervisory dimensions like meetings and feedback. Perhaps
supervisory interventions in pre-training and during the training could have the stron-
ger impact on transfer of training. Clearly, this is an avenue for future research.
An interesting aspect of the findings of this study is a comparison with previous
research using a different methodology (Baldwin & Ford, 1988; Lance et al., 2002;
Rouiller & Goldstein, 1993; Tracey et al., 1995), as well as using participants from a
country other than the United States. Most of the cited transfer of training research has
used pre-post designs using a sample from the United States, whereas this study used
a post-test design with a sample from Portugal. Thus, the different results generated

Transfer of training 291

© 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
with the supervisor support variable could also be attributed to these methodological
and cultural differences. More important, however, are the similarities in findings
between this study and those done in the United States.
Regarding psychometric implications, the results from this study provided some
criterion validation evidence for the LTSI measure. As noted in the hypotheses testing,
the results of this study found strong relationships between some LTSI dimensions and
transfer of training.
Based on the results of this study, we can argue that for organizations to maximize
their return on investment with regards to training and development, they need to
focus on all three determinants of transfer of training: training design, individual
characteristics and work environment. First, organizations need to ensure that training
is designed such that it matches the ability level of trainees. This will help ensure that
trainees have the ability to (1) learn the training material and (2) utilize the knowledge
and skills accrued during training outside of the learning environment. Second, orga-
nizations can improve transfer of training by ensuring that trainees believe that they
have the capabilities to successfully learn the new material and utilize their new
knowledge, skills and abilities (KSAs) on the job. This can be improved by (1) showing
trainees that other employees who have received the training have successfully
improved their job performance, (2) providing trainees the opportunity to experience
mastery of the training material in the training environment and (3) modeling the
appropriate behaviors so that trainees can conceptualize how the KSAs can be utilized
outside of the training context. Organizations should also conduct follow-up assess-
ments after the training to ensure that the training content is retained over the time.
Finally, it is important for organizations to create environments that support the
transfer of newly trained KSAs to the work environment. In other words, trainees
should feel that they will receive the support and feedback necessary regarding their
performance from the organization, supervisor and co-workers in order to effectively
transfer the training. One way this can be accomplished is by creating a climate in
which all employees perceive that training is an important aspect of organizational life
that will help employees become productive members of the organization (Baldwin &
Ford, 1988; Tracey et al., 1995).

Limitations
Several limitations of this study should be noted. First, common method variance could
be an issue as data on the predictor and criterion variables were collected from the same
source. However, we controlled for common method bias using both statistical and
procedural methods. Statistically, we conducted Harman’s single-factor test and exam-
ined the unrotated factor solution (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Results of the EFA demon-
strated that no single factor accounted for the majority of the covariance among the
measures. Procedurally, we controlled for common method bias by collecting our
predictor variables at time 1 and our criterion variables at time 2 as suggested by
Podsakoff et al. (2003).
A second limitation is that transfer of training was measured by self-report rather
than actual behavior and this may have influenced the pattern of results. Nevertheless,
in addition to the above-mentioned argument for using self-report performance
ratings, utilizing specific items and anonymous and confidential surveys might have
enhanced the accuracy of the self-report data. Also, previous research has used similar
self-report measures of training transfer (e.g. Chiaburu & Tekleab, 2005; Facteau et al.,
1995; Tesluk et al., 1995), showing evidence that trainees can accurately self-report their
levels of training transfer. Finally, as mentioned before, the results of this research
using self-report data are in fair agreement with previous transfer of training results
using both self-report and supervisor evaluations of performance (Lance et al., 2002;
Tracey et al., 1995). This convergence of results using different research paradigms
provides evidence that self-report data, collected anonymously, may be adequate for the
evaluation of transfer of training. However, for future research, we do suggest the use
of additional measures collected from several sources (e.g. supervisors, peers and

292 International Journal of Training and Development

© 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
subordinates) in order to reinforce the trainees ratings or, when possible, the use of
direct and objective measures of the trainee’s on-the-job performance.
A third limitation is the attrition rate of our sample between the two points of data
collection. However, our final sample of 182 participants yielded passable statistical
power to conduct our hypotheses testing.
Finally, because we collected data from only one organization, these results may not
generalize to other organizations or industries. This may be especially relevant for the
findings regarding supervisor support. It is likely that in other organizational environ-
ments, supervisory support will have a larger impact on transfer of training as evi-
denced by previous research (Baldwin & Ford, 1988; Lance et al., 2002; Rouiller &
Goldstein, 1993; Tracey et al., 1995). Consequently, future research should examine the
generalizability of our results in different organizational contexts.

Conclusions
Training practitioners and researchers have not yet extensively studied the empirical
and simultaneous effects of the three major determinants (training design, individual
characteristics and work environment) of transfer of training. This study attempted to
fill this gap by analysing the influence of these determinants on training transfer. The
findings indicated that transfer design, performance self-efficacy, training retention
and performance feedback were significantly related to transfer of training over time.
This suggests that it is important that training researchers and practitioners examine all
aspects of the training process when conducting research on transfer of training.

References
Alvarez, K., Salas, E. and Garofano, C. M. (2004), ‘An integrated model of training evaluation and
effectiveness’, Human Resource Development Review, 3, 385–416.
Baldwin, T. T. and Ford, J. K. (1988), ‘Transfer of training: a review and directions for future
research’, Personnel Psychology, 41, 63–105.
Bates, R. A., Holton, E. F. III, Seyler, D. L. and Carvalho, M. A. (2000), ‘The role of interpersonal
factors in the application of computer-based training in an industrial setting’, Human Resource
Development International, 3, 19–42.
Brinkerhoff, R. O. and Montesino, M. U. (1995), ‘Partnerships for training transfer: lessons from
a corporate study’, Human Resource Development Quarterly, 6, 263–74.
Cascio, W. F. (2000), Costing Human Resources: The Financial Impact of Behavior in Organizations, 4th
edn (Cincinnati, OH: South-Western).
Chen, H.-C., Holton, E. F. III and Bates, R. (2005), ‘Development and validation of the learning
transfer system inventory in Taiwan’, Human Resource Development Quarterly, 16, 55–84.
Chiaburu, D. S. and Tekleab, A. G. (2005), ‘Individual and contextual influences on multiple
dimensions of training effectiveness’, Journal of European Industrial Training, 29, 604–26.
Cohen, J. and Cohen, P. (1983), Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral
Sciences, 2nd edn (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum).
Colquitt, J. A., LePine, J. A. and Noe, R. A. (2000), ‘Toward an integrative theory of training
motivation: a meta-analytic path analysis of 20 years of research’, Journal of Applied Psychology,
85, 678–707.
Dolezalek, H. (2004), ‘TRAINING annual industry report’, TRAINING Magazine, 42, 10. Available
at www.trainingmag.com (accessed 27 July 2005).
Dowling, P. J. and Welch, D. E. (2005), International Human Resource Management: Managing People
in a Multinational Context, 4th edn (Mason, OH: Thomson South-Western).
Facteau, J. D., Dobbins, G. H., Russell, J. E. A., Ladd, R. T. and Kudisch, J. D. (1995), ‘The influence
of general perceptions of the training environment on pretraining motivation and perceived
training transfer’, Journal of Management, 21, 1–25.
Ford, J. K., Smith, E. M., Weissbein, D. A., Gully, S. M. and Salas, E. (1998), ‘Relationships of goal
orientation, metacognitive activity, and practice strategies with learning outcomes and trans-
fer’, Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 218–33.
Gist, M. E., Bavetta, A. G. and Stevens, C. K. (1990), ‘Transfer training method: Its influence on
skill generalization, skill repetition, and performance level’, Personnel Psychology, 43, 501–23.
Gist, M. E., Stevens, C. K. and Bavetta, A. G. (1991), ‘Effects of self-efficacy and post-training
intervention on the acquisition and maintenance of complex interpersonal skills’, Personnel
Psychology, 44, 837–61.

Transfer of training 293

© 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
 Holton, E. F. III (1996), ‘The flawed four-level evaluation model’, Human Resource Quarterly, 7, 5–21.
Holton, E. F. III (2005), ‘Holton’s evaluation model: new evidence and construct elaborations’,
Advances in Developing Human Resources, 7, 37–54.
Holton, E. F. III, Bates, R. A, Seyler, D. L. and Carvalho, M. B. (1997), ‘Toward construct validation
of a transfer climate instrument’, Human Resource Development Quarterly, 8, 95–113.
Holton, E. F. III, Bates, R. A. and Ruona, W. E. A. (2000), ‘Development of a generalized learning
transfer system inventory’, Human Resource Development Quarterly, 11, 333–60.
Kavanagh, M. J. (1998), ‘Transfer of Training: A Multi-Stage Model Designed for Practical Use by
Organizations’, in C. Scholz and J. Zentes (eds), Strategisches Euro-Management (Stuttgart:
Schaffer-Poeschel), pp. 301–21.
Khasawneh, S., Bates, R. and Holton, E. F. III (2006), ‘Construct validation of an Arabic version of
the learning transfer system inventory for use in Jordan’, International Journal of Training and
Development, 10, 180–94.
Lance, C. E., Kavanagh, M. J. and Brink, K. E. (2002), ‘Retraining climate as a predictor of retraining
success and as a moderator of the relationship between cross-job retraining time estimates and
time to proficiency in the new job’, Group and Organization Management, 27, 294–317.
Mathieu, J. E., Tannenbaum, S. I. and Salas, E. (1992), ‘Influences of individual and situational
characteristics on measures of training effectiveness’, Academy of Management Journal, 35, 828–47.
Mathieu, J. E., Martineau, J. W. and Tannenbaum, S. I. (1993), ‘Individual and situational influ-
ences on the development of self-efficacy: implications for training effectiveness’, Personnel
Psychology, 46, 125–47.
Montesino, M. (2002), ‘Strategic alignment of training, transfer-enhancing behaviors, and training
usage: a post-training study’, Human Resource Development Quarterly, 13, 89–108.
Noe, R. A. (1986), ‘Trainee’s attributes and attitudes: neglected influences on training effective-
ness’, Academy of Management Review, 11, 736–49.
Noe, R. A., Hollenbeck, J. R., Gerhart, B. and Wright, P. M. (2006), Human Resource Management:
Gaining a Competitive Advantage, 6th edn (Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill Irwin).
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. and Podsakoff, N. P. (2003), ‘Common method biases in
behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies’, Journal of
Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903.
Quinones, M. A. (1995), ‘Pretraining context effects: training assignment as feedback’, Journal of
Applied Psychology, 80, 226–38.
Reber, R. A. and Wallin, J. A. (1984), ‘The effects of training, goal setting, and knowledge of results
on safe behaviour: a component analysis’, Academy of Management Journal, 27, 544–60.
Rouiller, J. Z. and Goldstein, I. L. (1993), ‘The relationship between organizational transfer climate
and positive transfer of training’, Human Resource Development Quarterly, 4, 377–90.
Russell, J. S., Terborg, J. R. and Powers, M. L. (1985), ‘Organizational performance and organi-
zational level training and support’, Personnel Psychology, 38, 849–63.
Tannenbaum, S. I. and Yukl, G. (1992), ‘Training and development in work organizations’, Annual
Review of Psychology, 43, 399–441.
Tannenbaum, S. I., Mathieu, J. E., Salas, E. and 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, 759–69.
Tesluk, P. E., Farr, J. L., Mathieu, J. E. and Vance, R. J. (1995), ‘Generalization of employee
involvement training to the job setting: individual and situational effects’, Personnel Psychology,
48, 607–32.
Tracey, J. B. and Tews, M. J. (2005), ‘Construct validity of a general training climate scale’,
Organizational Research Methods, 8, 353–74.
Tracey, J. B., Tannenbaum, S. I. and Kavanagh, M. J. (1995), ‘Applying trained skills on the job: the
importance of the work environment’, Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 239–52.
Tziner, A., Haccoun, R. R. and Kadish, A. (1991), ‘Personal and situational characteristics influ-
encing the effectiveness of transfer of training improvement strategies’, Journal of Occupational
Psychology, 64, 167–77.
Velada, R. and Caetano, A. (2007), ‘Training transfer: the mediating role of perception of learning’,
Journal of European Industrial Training, 31, 283–96.
Weiss, H. M. (1990), ‘Learning Theory and Industrial and Organizational Psychology’, in M. D.
Dunnette and L. M. Hough (eds), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol 1
(Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press), pp. 171–221.
Wexley, K. N. and Latham, G. P. (2002), Developing and Training Human Resources in Organizations
(Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall).
Wexley, K. N. and Nemeroff, W. (1975), ‘Effectiveness of positive reinforcement and goal setting
as methods of management development’, Journal of Applied Psychology, 64, 239–46.

294 International Journal of Training and Development

© 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

View publication stats