Although transfer of learning was among the very first issues addressed by early psychologists, the extant literature remains characterized by inconsistent measurement of transfer and significant variability in findings. This article presents a meta-analysis of 89 empirical studies that explore the impact of predictive factors (e.g., trainee characteristics, work environment, training interventions) on the transfer of training to different tasks and contexts. We also examine moderator effects of the relationships between these predictors and transfer. Results confirmed positive relationships between transfer and predictors such as cognitive ability, conscientiousness, motivation, and a supportive work environment. Several moderators had significant effects on transfer relationships, including the nature of the training objectives. Specifically, most predictor variables examined (e.g., motivation, work environment) had stronger relationships to transfer when the focus of training was on open (e.g., leadership development) as opposed to closed (e.g., computer software) skills. Other moderators related to the measurement of transfer also influenced transfer relationships, including situations in which transfer outcomes were obtained by the same source in the same measurement context— which consistently inflated transfer relationships. Findings are discussed in terms of their relevance for future research and training practice.
Insufficient effort responding (IER; Huang, Curran, Keeney, Poposki, & DeShon, 2012) to surveys has largely been assumed to be a source of random measurement error that attenuates associations between substantive measures. The current article, however, illustrates how and when the presence of IER can produce a systematic bias that inflates observed correlations between substantive measures. Noting that inattentive responses as a whole generally congregate around the midpoint of a Likert scale, we propose that Mattentive, defined as the mean score of attentive respondents on a substantive measure, will be negatively related to IER's confounding effect on substantive measures (i.e., correlations between IER and a given substantive measure will become less positive [or more negative] as Mattentive increases). Results from a personality questionnaire (Study 1) and a simulation (Study 2) consistently support the hypothesized confounding influence of IER. Using an employee sample (Study 3), we demonstrated how IER can confound bivariate relationships between substantive measures. Together, these studies indicate that IER can inflate the strength of observed relationships when scale means depart from the scale midpoints, resulting in an inflated Type I error rate. This challenges the traditional view that IER attenuates observed bivariate correlations. These findings highlight situations where IER may be a methodological nuisance, while underscoring the need for survey administrators and researchers to deter and detect IER in surveys. The current article serves as a wake-up call for researchers and practitioners to more closely examine IER in their data.
SummaryModern work is frequently characterized by jobs where adaptive performance (AP) is crucial for employees to succeed in light of new or altered task demands. This recognition has fueled growing interest in AP as a dimension of workplace performance. To this point, however, research on AP has evolved from disparate perspectives and methods, resulting in fragmentation and a less than coherent knowledge base. This paper presents a comprehensive review of research studies regarding the nomological network of individual AP.In doing so, we synthesize the current knowledge base surrounding correlates of AP, elucidate current ambiguities, and suggest directions for future research efforts. We conclude that although the extant AP literature has amassed a critical body of studies linking various predictors to successful AP outcomes, much remains unknown, most critically regarding the implications of different methods of assessing AP, the effects of different types of changes in the task environment, the process of AP, and the steps organizations can take to foster AP among their employees. We hope that our synthesis and analysis paves the way for efforts to address these important questions. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.Keywords: adaptive performance; job performance; adaptive transfer Numerous organizational scholars have recognized that traditional models of performance are static and need to be augmented to include "responsiveness to changing job requirements"-labeled adaptive performance (AP; Allworth & Hesketh, 1999, p. 98;Griffin, Neal, & Parker, 2007;Pulakos, Arad, Donovan, & Plamondon, 2000). As a consequence, researchers anticipated that the study of AP would yield a richer understanding of the dynamic nature of employee performance under conditions of change and ambiguity. Researchers also anticipated that the study of AP would offer practical guidance to organizations regarding how to best handle the "continual obsolescence and displacement" of employees' skills and abilities (LePine, Colquitt, & Erez, 2000, p. 564). It has been nearly 15 years since research began on individual AP, and findings have emerged in many domains. For example, empirical research has focused on identifying individual difference factors that predict successful AP (e.g., Griffin & Hesketh, 2003;LePine et al., 2000;Stewart & Nandkeolyar, 2006), the AP requirements of jobs (Pulakos et al., 2000), training techniques that can enhance AP (e.g., Bell & Kozlowski, 2002;, and contextual factors that promote AP (Griffin, Parker, & Mason, 2010;Stewart & Nandkeolyar, 2006). Research has also conceptually and empirically distinguished AP from other performance dimensions (Allworth & Hesketh, 1999;Griffin et al., 2007;Johnson, 2001;Shoss, Witt, & Vera, 2012).With a diverse body of empirical studies on AP, it is a good time to take stock of how far organizational scholars have come in understanding AP and the conditions that foster it. Such a review is particularly valuable given that the AP literature has evolved from disparate res...
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.