European Journal of Training and Development: Article Information

European Journal of Training and Development
Transfer of training: does it truly happen?: An examination of support, instrumentality, retention and
learner readiness on the transfer motivation and transfer of training
Muhammad Awais Bhatti, Mohamed Mohamed Battour, Veera Pandiyan Kaliani Sundram, Akmal Aini Othman,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Muhammad Awais Bhatti, Mohamed Mohamed Battour, Veera Pandiyan Kaliani Sundram, Akmal Aini Othman, (2013)
"Transfer of training: does it truly happen?: An examination of support, instrumentality, retention and learner readiness
Downloaded by BAHAUDDIN ZAKARIYA UNIVERSITY IN PAKISTAN At 20:51 09 April 2017 (PT)
on the transfer motivation and transfer of training", European Journal of Training and Development, Vol. 37 Issue: 3,pp.
273-297, doi: 10.1108/03090591311312741
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03090591311312741
Downloaded on: 09 April 2017, At: 20:51 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 93 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 4230 times since 2013*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2013),"The influence of training and training transfer factors on organisational learning and performance", Personnel
Review, Vol. 42 Iss 3 pp. 324-348 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00483481311320435
(2014),"Transfer of learning: Motivation, training design and learning-conducive work effects", European Journal of Training
and Development, Vol. 38 Iss 8 pp. 728-744 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/EJTD-03-2014-0026
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:537778 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please
visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication
Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/2046-9012.htm
Transfer of
Transfer of training: does it truly training: does it
happen? truly happen?
An examination of support, instrumentality,
retention and learner readiness on the transfer 273
motivation and transfer of training
Received 5 April 2012

Revised 3 June 2012
Muhammad Awais Bhatti 31 October 2012
College of Business, School of Business Management, 21 November 2012
Accepted 15 January 2013
University Utara Malaysia, Sintok-Kedah, Malaysia
Mohamed Mohamed Battour
Faculty of Commerce, Tanta University, Tanta, Egypt
Veera Pandiyan Kaliani Sundram
Faculty of Business Management, Universiti Teknologi MARA,
Segamat, Johor, Malaysia, and
Akmal Aini Othman
Faculty of Business Management, Universiti Teknologi MARA,
Segamat, Johor, Malaysia
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this study is to highlight the importance of selected environmental,
situational and individual factors in the training transfer process.
Design/methodology/approach This study proposes and tests a framework via structural
equation modelling by including supervisor and peer support, instrumentality and learner readiness
on 503 Malaysian bank employees. It proposes a modified and improved scale for learner readiness
previously developed by Holton et al..
Findings As hypothesized, supervisor and peer support increase the motivation level of the trainee
to transfer the learned skills. The findings of this study will help researchers to resolve the conflict
among past researchers about the role of peer and supervisor support in training transfer process. In
addition, an improved scale of learner readiness is used and the result indicates a significant
relationship between learner readiness and transfer motivation. Furthermore, this study explains the
importance of intrinsic rewards and finds that intrinsic rewards make trainees retain more skills and
learned skills are transferred to the work place.
Practical implications The findings of this research would be helpful for human resource
development professionals to develop effective strategies in order to maximize the training transfer
and effectively manage the training program. The findings of this research explained the role of
stakeholders trainers, trainees, supervisors, peers and top management which will maximize the
training transfer at the work place.
Originality/value This paper examines new relationships among different factors which resist
transfer motivation and training transfer at the workplace.
Keywords Environmental support, Instrumentality, Transfer motivation, Training transfer,
Learner readiness, Phased trainee supports, Malaysia, Training European Journal of Training and
Paper type Research paper Development
Vol. 37 No. 3, 2013
pp. 273-297
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
Dr Muhammad Awais Bhatti would like to acknowledge Dr Ayesh Ashfaq for her moral support 2046-9012
and encouragement. DOI 10.1108/03090591311312741
EJTD 1. Introduction
37,3 Training transfer is one of the important elements in the training effectiveness criteria
which help the employees and organizations to improve their performance. Previous
researchers have highlighted numerous factors which affect training effectiveness. In
this regard, studies by Baldwin and Ford (1988) have found that factors such as
trainee, training design, and work environment factors assist in optimising the transfer
274 of training at the workplace. Other factors found to affect the outcomes of training
included career planning, organizational commitment, organizational climate as
pointed by Colquitt et al. (2000). In addition, Holtons (1996) work in the form of
Learning Transfer System Inventory (LTSI) model adds value in the transfer of
training literature.
The main objectives of training activities are the provision of skills, abilities and
knowledge to employees to achieve organizational objectives and organizations. These
objectives can only be achieved when employees transfer the learned skills that impact
firms strategically. However, evidences from various researchers have reported that
such transfers have not taken place. For example, some of the many reasons that
explain the lack of classroom or online training transfer at workplace were highlighted
by Ford (2009). Mackay (2007) pointed out that organizations are not getting their
expected results from employee training. This could be attributed to the choice of
factors in the study of training transfer and as such Scaduto et al. (2008) suggested that
it is important to test those variables which have been ignored or less focused by the
researchers in past studies. In addition, Kauffeldd and Lehmann-Willenbrock (2010)
advocated that researchers and training professionals need to put more efforts on
training transfer. Hence, the purpose of this study is to highlight the role and
importance of those factors such as supervisor- and peer roles, which are proposed to
contribute to the training transfer theory. However, a search of the literature showed
that previous researchers have not been able to get fruitful results from their research
about the roles of supervisor and peer in training transfer. One possible reason behind
these conflicting results could be the lack of understanding about the kind of support at
each level of training. In addition, this study discusses the role of peer and supervisor
support in a slightly different perspective and proposes the relationship between
different variables to build a strong training transfer theory.
2. Factors affecting transfer of training

A well-known framework for the transfer problem put forward by Baldwin and Ford
(1988) posited that transfer is a function of three factors, namely namely, trainee
characteristic (or individual factors), work environment (or environmental factors) and
training design factors (or situational factors). Trainee characteristics include ability or
skills, motivation, and personality factors. Work environment includes climate factors
such as supervisory or peer support as well as constraints and opportunities to perform
learned behavior on the job. Training design factors include principles of learning,
sequencing and training content, learning retention. Baldwin and Ford further argued
that examination of transfer issues requires a clear understanding of what is meant by
transfer as well as the identification of factors that affect transfer.
Holton et al. (1997) explained that learning affects the individual performance which
leads to organizational performance. They also stated that individual characteristics
and perceptions of environmental forces influence individual performance.
Furthermore, environmental factors which include feedback, peer support, supervisor Transfer of
support, openness to change, personal outcomes also affected the individual training: does it
performance.
Another model developed by Guerrero and Sire (2001) was empirically tested by truly happen?
using Baldwin and Fords (1988) foundation that included individual variables
(age/seniority), organizational variables (voluntary action, information on training
program and support of supervisor) training motivation (self-efficacy and 275
instrumentality) and training results (learning and satisfaction). Their model showed
that age (through collinearity, seniority) is negatively related with self-efficacy and
feelings (training will affect my career). Furthermore, they explained that age has no
significant relationship with workers perception that training influences skills
development.
2.1 Training transfer

Training transfer has gained much attention from researchers and training
professionals. Among the four levels of Kirkpatricks training effectiveness model,
reaction and learning play important roles, and training transfer helps organizations
and employees achieve their aims with more effective performance. Based on this
premise, Holton (1996) developed the LTSI model and considered 16 factors, which are
likely to influence the transfer of training in the work place. In addition, other
researchers (Gist et al., 1991; Tracey and Tews, 2005; Tai, 2006) have highlighted many
factors that influence training outcomes using Kirkpatricks model.
Holton et al. (1997) defined transfer of training as the degree to which trainees
apply to their job the knowledge, skills, behavior and attitudes they gained in
training. Huczynski and Lewis (1980) described that the individual characteristics,
work environment and supervisor support influence the transfer of learning and
proposed that the researchers should find out other factors which affect the transfer of
learning for effective learning transfer. Noe (1986) worked on the training transfer
factors and described individual factors which includes individual attitude and
attributes effects on the motivation to learn. A well known framework for the transfer
problem (Baldwin and Ford, 1988) suggested that transfer is a function of three factors:
trainee characteristics which includes ability or skills, motivation, and personality
factors, work environment which includes climate factors such as supervisory or peer
support as well as constraints and opportunities to perform learned behavior on the
job, training design factors which includes principles of learning, sequencing and
training content, learning retention. They further argued that researcher should
highlight the factors which play important role in training transfer.
Kirwan and Birchall (2006) tested the Holton and Bates model and found that
learner readiness affects transfer motivation directly and transfer motivation effect on
the learner personal capacity for transfer. To extend the boundaries of training
transfer, Velada et al. (2007) that transfer design, performance self-efficacy, training
retention and performance feedback were significantly related to transfer of training.
With the further development, Liebermann and Hoffmann (2008) developed another
training transfer model by using (Baldwin and Ford, 1988) work and (Kirkpatrick,
1976) training evaluation model and found that perceived practical relevance effect on
the participant affective reaction and also influence the transfer motivation and actual
transfer. Nikandrou et al. (2009) present an empirical study based on a trainee-oriented
EJTD systematic model for training transfer. With the development of the research, the
37,3 researchers and training professionals further classify these factors. Different
researchers have identified different factors that directly or indirectly affect the
transfer of learning. These factors categorize as individual, situational, environmental
or contextual and training design factors. Holton et al. (1997) explain the concept of
training transfer and define transfer of training as the degree to which trainees apply to
276 their jobs the knowledge, skills behavior, and attitudes they gained in training.
The purpose of this study is to explain and highlight those factors which influence
transfer motivation and transfer of training. This study will be helpful to both
researchers and practitioners to focus more on the important ingredients of the training
program. The ensuing paragraphs illustrate the factors and the respective hypotheses
affecting the transfer of training. The first to be discussed is learner readiness.
2.2 Learner readiness

Holton et al. (2000, 2007) defined learner readiness as the extent to which individuals
are prepared to enter and participate in training (page 183). According to Bates et al.
(2007), there is lack of empirical research between training transfer and other variables
in LTSI like learner readiness, transfer design and performance coaching. From an
earlier study, Facteau et al. (1995) advocated that learner readiness play important role
in order to maintain training reputation. A more recent study by Payne et al. (2008)
measured learner readiness in terms of retention of relevant knowledge and skills; and
disposition or motivation to retrieving and applying such knowledge. They found that
learning transfer is at a higher level when trainees are confident to retain the
knowledge and motivated to apply such knowledge. This showed that trainees who
have knowledge about the training program and are motivated to apply such
knowledge are more likely to transfer learning.
Bates et al. (2007) put forward the learner readiness concept in terms of:
.
a program that affects the performance;
. understanding about job related developments;
.
expectations from training; and
.
expected outcomes at the beginning of the training.
The work of Kirwan and Birchall (2006) showed that motivation to transfer and
performance self-efficacy correlated with similar factors, such as learner readiness,
transfer design, perceived content validity and opportunity to use. There is also some
notion that these factors may work collectively. In a similar study, Kirwan and Birchall
(2006) found that learner readiness exerted a significant effect and proposed that
learner readiness directly affect motivation to transfer.
The concept of learner readiness can be viewed with some other items (Awais and
Sharan, 2010). Furthermore, Awais and Sharan (2010) suggested that researcher
should empirically test the role of learner readiness in training transfer process by
including these two items:
(1) basic skills to perform different activities during training; and
(2) basic knowledge about different tasks which the trainee needs to perform
during training.
In the item (1) basic skills refers to interpersonal skills, team spirit, social grace and IT Transfer of
skills etc. If the trainee have these basic skills, they can better perform training training: does it
activities. In other words, these basic skills enable the learner to be ready to perform
different training task. The possible explanation for including these two factors in the truly happen?
learner readiness scale is to know the level of understanding of the trainee about
training activities, which they need to perform during training. These two factors can
be more important, when, for example, the trainee is about to learn a new technology 277
and when it is required by the management on their trainee to learn the new
technology. In such a scenario, the trainee should have basic knowledge about the
technology to perform well and learn more skills during training. Normally, the trainee
needs these skills when training contents are not similar with the job or the purpose of
the training is to provide new knowledge and skills to the trainee. In this study, the
concept of learner readiness as defined by Bates et al. (2007) is proposed and tested by
including two items to confirm the relationship and role of this factor in the training
transfer theory. These two items are:
(1) Before the training, I had basic skills to perform different tasks during
training; and
(2) Prior to the training, I had basic knowledge about training activities, which
were supposed to be performed during the training.
Past researchers (Payne et al., 2008; Kirwan and Birchall, 2006) examined the role of
learner readiness and found that learner readiness influence training transfer mediated
by transfer motivation. Therefore, this study will examine the similar relationship but
with the modified scale of learner readiness as suggested by Awais and Sharan (2010).
From these two premise, the following hypothesis is developed:
H1. Transfer motivation mediates the relationship between learner readiness and
training transfer.
The subsequent factor proposed to affect the transfer of training is peer support, which
is explained in the next section.
2.3 Peer support

With regard to the effectiveness of training, social support plays an important role.
Peer support has been defined by Holton et al. (1996, p. 183) as the extent to which
peers reinforce and support the use of learning on the job. Hence, social support is
viewed as an important component for effective training. Baldwin and Ford (1988)
argued that social support from top management, supervisor, peers and subordinates
influenced training effectiveness. This viewpoint that top management and colleagues
support play important roles in training effectiveness was reinforced by Chen (2007).
Nijman et al. (2006) suggested that peers behavior in terms of motivation and
support help trainees to maximize the training transfer at the workplace. A review of
the past research showed that peer support positively influences motivation to transfer
(Seyler et al., 1998). A more recent study by Holton et al. (2007) found that among social
support factors, peer support has greater impact on past training behavior and
motivation to transfer. This was in line with the work of Kirwan and Birchall (2006)
who posited that peer support positively influences transfer motivation and these
findings are consistent with Holton et al. (2007). Furthermore, Facteau et al. (1995)
EJTD found that peer support positively influences training transfer but does not influence
37,3 pre-training motivation. However, in contrast to this, Ruona et al. (2002) found that peer
support has positive influence on motivation to transfer. Nevertheless, Bates et al.
(2007) argued that environmental support has not effect on training transfer and these
results are consistent with van der Klink et al. (2001) study. However, the evidences
from Tracey et al. (1995) found that supervisors and co-workers encouragement of
278 learning and the use of trained skills on the job may be crucial elements in the transfer
environment. Thus, the results of past studies are mixed; indicating the need to further
investigate the effects of peer support on transfer, pre-training motivation and transfer
motivation, respectively.
In this study, the factors of time and type of support needed by the trainee at
differing phases were taken into consideration. Social support was divided into three
phases: pre-training, during training and post-training, in which the types of peer
support at each training phase is differentiated. This suggests that a trainee requires
differing types of peer support at each phase. The literature showed that various
researchers differed in their measurement of peer support for each of the stages. In the
study by Noe and Schmitt (1986), they measured peer support as peers caring about
applying new knowledge which was used as a scale by Chiaburu and Marinova
(2005); Chiaburu and Tekleab (2005). From these studies, the researchers found that
peer support was positively related to pre-training motivation and skills transfer.
However, Facteau et al. (1995) measured peer support in terms of peers
encouragement of incorporating new learning and found that peer support is
related with skills transfer but not with pre-training motivation. Pidd (2004) measured
peers support in terms of expectations and behavior and proposed the moderating role
of peers support between trainees identified with workplace groups and training
transfer. Furthermore, Seyler et al. (1998) measured peer support as peers
appreciation for using new skills, peers encouragement for using new skills,
peers expectations and peers behavior against training transfer and found that
peer support influenced transfer motivation and training transfer. Taking into account
the conflicting findings of these researchers, this study proposes that researchers have
to first of all highlight the type of peer support trainees need at each stage of training.
Furthermore, when developing the peer support scale, researchers should classify the
peer support that trainees need before, during and after training. So far this study only
focused on peer support after training and after careful consideration of different
scales, this study have selected Holton (1996) scale in order to examine the influence of
peer support on transfer motivation and training transfer. With this in mind and the
preceding literature on peer support the H2 hypothesis is developed:
H2. Transfer motivation mediates the relationship between peer support and
training transfer.
With regards to social support, supervisor support is an important variable in a
trainees transfer motivation, in which case the past researches are highlighted in the
following paragraphs.
2.4 Supervisor support

Another factor in the concept of social peripheries boundaries is supervisor support.
According to Goldstein and Ford (2002), the role of the supervisor in the area of
training effectiveness is crucial. Transfer of training forms an important part in the Transfer of
training effectiveness criteria and prior research has confirmed the importance of training: does it
supervisor support for transfer of training (Awoniyi et al., 2002; Al Gumuseli and
Ergin, 2002) and the effect of supervisor support on training motivation (Clark et al., truly happen?
1993; Facteau et al., 1995; Gregoire et al., 1998; Chiaburu and Marinova, 2005; Chiaburu
and Tekleab, 2005; Velada et al., 2007). Supervisor support has been defined by Nijman
et al. (2006) as the extent to which the supervisor behaves in a way that optimizes 279
employees use on the job of the knowledge, skills and attitudes gained in training.
Past studies have shown that supervisor support does not directly influence training
outcomes (Facteau et al., 1995; Ven der Klink et al., 2001; Chiaburu and Marinova, 2005;
Chiaburu and Tekleab, 2005). However, it influences training outcomes through
motivation to transfer (Nijman et al., 2006). From a past study by Seyler et al. (1998), it
was identified that within social support criteria, supervisor support was less
significant in predicting transfer motivation against peer support. In a later study,
Bates et al. (2007) found that social factors do not predict the transfer of training. A
recent study by Liebermann and Hoffmann (2008) lends support to this results in
which they posited that social factor criteria did not affect much influence on the
motivation for training transfer. However, in contrast, many other studies found that
social support factors positively influence training transfer (Monesino, 2002;
Smith-Jentsch et al., 2001; Warr et al., 1999). Moreover, Tracey et al. (1995) identified
the conditions for transfer could be positively influenced by elements such as
supervisor and co-workers who encourage learning and the use of trained skills in their
work.
As with other factors in the social support context, supervisor support also faces the
same issues related to the time and type of support required by the trainee at each
training stage. However, past researchers have been overlapping the supervisor
support at each training stage. For example, Chiaburu and Marinova (2005) and
Chiaburu and Tekleab (2005) measured supervisor support in terms of employee
development, practice new skills and constant reminder to apply skills. Their
study showed that there is no relationship between supervisor support and skills
transfer. Conversely, Facteau et al. (1995) measured supervisor support in terms of
supervisor tolerant of changes and found that supervisor support is positively
related to pre-training motivation. Furthermore, Lim and Johnson (2002) evaluation of
supervisor support proposed three factors that were more closely related to the transfer
of training, namely discussion with supervisor to use new learning, supervisors
involvement or familiarization with the training and receiving positive feedback
from supervisor.
After a careful evaluation of the supervisor support at the third stage of training
(after training), we concluded that researchers who found the effect of supervisor
support on transfer (Brinkerhoff and Montesino, 1995; Prop-Huiban and Bouhsina,
1998) measured support in terms of information sharing direct feedback regarding
performance and provision of resource or incentives. In the study by Nijman et al.
(2006), they measured supervisor support in terms of supervisors opportunity to
apply learned skills and found that supervisor support have no direct effect on
training transfer when taking into account the motivation to transfer. Similarly,
Liebermann and Hoffmann (2008) measured supervisor support in terms of supervisor
interest in training and support for transfer and found no considerable influence on
EJTD transfer motivation. Finally, Velada et al. (2007) measured supervisor support in terms
37,3 of ways to apply training on the job, problems in using training, interest in
training, feedback on performance and goals to apply training on the job and
found effects on transfer motivation.
The results discussed in the above sections clearly did not differentiate the type of
assistance required at each phase of training. For instance, the type of elements that
280 influenced the pre-training motivation at the initial phase of training (pre-training) or
the kind of assistance which influenced the transfer motivation criteria or the kind of
superior assistance that increased the level of transfer at the last phase (post-training)
were not studied. Thus, in studying the superior role in these context can beneficial for
scholars in highlighting the level of superior support obtained in the different phase of
training and its consequence implication in the training transfer theory. So far this
study only focused on supervisor support after training and after careful consideration
of different scales, this study have selected Holton (1996) scale in order to examine the
influence of supervisor support on transfer motivation and training transfer.
Therefore, based on this premise, the following hypothesis is developed:
H3. Transfer motivation mediates the relationship between supervisor support
and training transfer.
After learner readiness and social support have been hypothesized to support the level
of transfer motivation, the subsequent variable to be examined is instrumentality,
which is the content of the following section.
2.5 Instrumentality
Instrumentality is defined by Guerrero and Sire (2001) as individuals perceptions that
their efforts in training will enable them to gain rewards at work. According to Sire
(1993), trainees expect two types of rewards for their training efforts which can be
categorized as intrinsic (such as interesting work and content of activity assigned) and
extrinsic (such as remuneration and career possibilities). In a related study by
Tharenou (2001) it was found that instrumentality (intrinsic and extrinsic rewards)
positively influence transfer motivation. Thus, instrumentality (intrinsic and extrinsic
rewards) has been useful in explaining that employees do not transfer the learned skills
at the workplace if they do not believe that their training efforts will lead to
improvement in their work, career or remuneration (Clark et al., 1993; Facteau et al.,
1995; Noe, 1986). The study by Condry (1977) showed that while extrinsically
motivated individuals might appear to work harder, their performance is likely to be of
a lower quality- more error prone and more stereotyped then the intrinsically
motivated counterparts. This finding was substantiated by Kontoghiorghes (2001)
who reported that extrinsic rewards, such as remunerations and commendations, as
well as punishment for failing to use the new skills and knowledge do not influence
training retention. In contrast to extrinsic rewards, intrinsic rewards such as
commendations and acclamation for using the newly acquired skills and knowledge
obtained in training proved to be a more pertinent variable. Guerrero and Sire (2001)
argued that French workers seldom perceive their participation in training as a
stepping-stone to change or to adapt to professional condition and workers do not
necessarily perceive training as beneficial for their personal development. Noe (1986)
posits that the expected consequences of the use of training on the job are believed to
have a major effect on this transfer, if only by means of trainee motivation. This put Transfer of
forward the notion that if the trainee perceives that the skills he/she acquired during training: does it
training will result in intrinsic or extrinsic rewards, then the trainee will be more
motivated to transfer the learned skills to the work place and will keep more skills for truly happen?
transfer.
From instrumentality, the focus shifts to training retention which is suggested to
affect the transfer of training, and is described in the next section. 281
2.6 Training retention

After completion of training, the trainee cannot effectively transfer the training unless
and until he or she has the capacity to retain the training. Velada et al. (2007) advocated
that training retention is similar to the cognitive ability and is the degree to which the
trainee retains the content after training is completed. Wexley and Latham (2002)
suggest that although approximately 40 percent of content is transferred immediately
following training, the amount transferred falls 25 percent after six months and 15
percent after one year. With the progression of time, Velada et al. (2007) reported that
trainees might not be able or become less inclined to keep and use the information
obtained in the training program. This finding was in line with that of Baldwin and
Ford (1988) who argued that only 10 percent of all training experiences are transferred
from the training environment to the job. Hence, Noe et al. (2006) proposed that after
learning and retaining content, the trainee should transfer the knowledge and skills
accrued to the work context with the intention of improving his or her job performance
over time. In order to facilitate the transfer process, Velada et al. (2007) showed that
trainees must have the ability to retain the knowledge instilled during the training
program. In a similar vein, Kontoghiorghes (2001) found that retention of training
material significantly correlated with the development of goals and objectives. In the
same study he found that intrinsic rewards were (praise and recognition) significantly
correlated with training retention. These findings support the work of Baldwin and
Ford (1988) who argued that learning retention outcomes are directly associated with
the generalization and maintenance of training effects on the job. In the same study,
they suggested that in order for trained skills to be transferred, they must be learnt and
retained.
In the past, researchers have been focusing on the concept of retention of knowledge
in the educational sector and highlighted different factors, which resist students to
retain the knowledge. A search of the literature showed that only a few researchers
included this concept in the training transfer theory (Awais and Sharan, 2010).
Unfortunately, Human Resource Development (HRD) professionals and researchers
have in the past ignored the concept of training retention in the training transfer
theory. Thus, it is an opportune time for researchers to determine the factors which
enable trainees to retain more skills. Subsequently, retention of skills will lead to an
increased level of training transfer.
In this research, the dual roles of the instrumentality factor are proposed. The first
of such role is the trainees expectations from training outcomes in terms of intrinsic or
extrinsic rewards, which lead to a rise in the level of transfer motivation. Second, which
type of the two rewards (intrinsic or extrinsic) that will cause higher encouragement on
the trainee to retain the learned skills and transfer to the work place in order to get the
expected outcomes. Within this objective in mind, the researchers proposed to
EJTD empirically test the dual role of instrumentality which will contribute towards building
37,3 a strong training transfer theory. Thus, the proposed hypotheses to be tested are as
follows:
H4a. Transfer motivation mediates the relationship between instrumentality
(intrinsic rewards) and training transfer.
282 H4b. Training retention mediates the relationship between intrinsic rewards and
training transfer.
Transfer motivation is the final variable to be discussed in the following paragraph.
2.7 Transfer motivation

Transfer motivation has been identified as a key element in the training transfer
process. Bates et al. (2007) defined transfer motivation as the direction, intensity and
persistence of effort towards utilizing in a work setting skills and knowledge learned.
In other words, motivation to transfer can be viewed as the trainees desire to use on
the job, the knowledge and skills that have been learned in a training program (Axtell
et al., 1997; Noe, 1986). Within a training context, motivation can influence the
willingness of employees to transfer what they learnt in the programme onto the job
(Baldwin and Ford, 1988). The studies by Axtell et al. (1997) showed that trainee
transfer motivation was positively associated with short-term transfer and long-term
transfer after returning to their work sites. Consequently, there are many factors that
affect a trainees motivation to transfer, such as, learner readiness, supervisor and peer
support, training design and perceived content validity. Transfer motivation has been
proposed by Holton et al. (1997) as the most crucial precondition for the trainee to apply
training contents to the workplace. However, a review of the literature showed that
most of the research work have not added transfer motivation (Colquitt et al., 2000)
except for the work of Kirwan and Birchall (2006) and Liebermann and Hoffmann
(2008) who found a significant relationship between transfer motivation and transfer.
While adding a new group of variables affecting transfer motivation, there is therefore
a need to further probe the effects of transfer motivation on transfer. The following
hypothesis to be tested is:
H5. The higher the transfer motivation, the higher the transfer of training content
on the job.
3. Methodology
The aim of this study is to evaluate the transfer of training in the Malaysian Banking
sector. The data has been collected from 503 employees of 11 Malaysian banks. 46
bank branches have been randomly selected from the Klang valley which is the
economic hub of Malaysia. We have selected every third branch out of 138 bank
branches located within Klang valley. The respondents comprised of those who have
attended the Financial Sector Talent Enrichment Programme (FSTEP) training
program (minimum three months before and maximum 12 months). Among the
different policies and strategies implemented by the government to provide strong
foundation to the Malaysian financial sector. One of the most important initiatives
taken by the government is to provide trained financial professionals to the financial
sector. In this regard, Bank Negara (Central Bank of Malaysia) launched one
programme in collaboration with Institute of Bankers Malaysia (IBBM), namely Transfer of
Financial Sector Talent Enrichment Programme (FSTEP). The objective of this training: does it
programme is to produce highly trained financial industry professionals to have an
exciting career in the financial industry. The institute provides training in four core truly happen?
financial areas which are conventional banking, Investment banking, Islamic banking
and Insurance/Takaful. By following the structure of this programme, FSTEP
provides an intensive one year technical training in the banking sector. 283
A total of 1,000 questionnaires were distributed and 528 completed questionnaires
were returned. Of the questionnaires, 25 were discarded because of illogical and

uncompleted responses. The remaining 503 questionnaires were used for further
analysis. No statistically significant differences were found between the participants of
the study and the complete sample of the trainees, with regard to gender, age, training
period and job position.
3.1 Measurement
To measure the variables, the researcher used 43 statements adopted from previous
research. The respondents were asked to mark a number, on a five-point Likert scale
from 1 to 5 for each statement where 1 indicates strongly disagree to 5, which means
strongly agree. Learner readiness measured with 5 items such as Training will
increase my personal productivity; peer support measured with three items such as
At work my colleagues expect me to use what I learn in training; supervisor support
measured with 3 items such as my supervisor meet with me to discuss ways to apply
learning at the job; and transfer motivation measured with three items such as
training will increase my personal productivity; were assessed as proposed by
Holton (1996). As discussed earlier, researchers should classify peer and supervisor
support before, during and after training and develop scale accordingly. Holton (1996)
scales purely assessed peer and supervisor support after training and all items in these
scales present the kind of training which trainee need after training. Therefore, peer
and supervisor support scale developed by Holton (1996) fulfil the criteria of this study.
Instrumentality was assessed as proposed by Guerrero and Sire (2001) with seven
items such as training increases my autonomy at work. Retention was assessed as
proposed by Velada et al. (2007) with three items such as I still remember the main
topics what I have learned in the training course. Training transfer was assessed as
proposed by Tesluk et al. (1995) with three items such as I have been incorporating
learned skills into daily work activities.
3.2 Statistical techniques

Structural equation modeling (Amos 16) was used to test the suggested model.
Structural equation modeling (SEM) is a family of statistical models that seek to
explain the relationship between multiple variables (Hair et al., 2006). SEM has become
one of the popular statistical tools to test the relationships proposed in a parsimonious
model (Cheng, 2007). In addition, Byrne (2001) pointed out that this technique is
appropriately used:
[. . .] when the researcher has some knowledge of the underlying latent variables structure.
Based on knowledge of the theory, empirical research, or both, he or she postulates relations
between observed measures and the underlying factors a prior and then tests this
hypothesized structure statistically.
EJTD Cheng (2007) suggested that SEM is better statistical technique then other multivariate
37,3 techniques including multiple regression, path analysis and factor analysis. In
addition, Hair et al. (2006) claims that SEM has been advocated because it can expand
the explanatory ability and statistical efficiency for model testing with a single
comprehensive method.
Structural equation modeling researchers propose a two step procedure when testing
284 theoretical models (Medsker et al., 1994). The first step is to examine and validate the
measurement model, with the second step testing the structural model and conducting
hypothesis tests (Garver and Williams, 2009).

CFA defines the relationship between the latent variables and their indicator
variables. Normally CFA used to specify the indicators for each construct by assessing
the extent to which the observed variables are measuring the hypothesized latent
construct as well as measuring something other than the latent construct, and
determining the best indicators for a particular construct. The relationships between
observed and latent variables are expressed by factor loadings that inform researchers
about the extent to which a given indicator is able to measure the variable or functions
as validity coefficients. In addition, CFA compares the solution found against a
hypothetical one (Bryman and Cramer, 2001). Confirmatory factor analysis in
structural equation modeling (SEM) is refine and validate the measurement model
(Garver and Williams, 2009) Awoniyi et al. (2002) proposed that confirmatory factor
analysis (CFA) examine the uniqueness of the construct and test the hypotheses in
more appropriate way.
Therefore, to analyze the research data, two steps method was used by using Amos
16. At first step, measurement model (factor) analyses evaluated the contribution of
each item to the construct (latent variables) being assessed. Then at the second step,
the structural model was tested to determine the strength of the hypothesized
relationships between the constructs.
CFA defines the relationship between the latent and their indicator variables.
Normally CFA used to specify the indicators for each construct by assessing the extent
to which the observed variables are measuring the hypothesized latent construct as
well as measuring something other than the latent construct, and determining the best
indicators for a particular construct. The relationships between observed and latent
variables are expressed by factor loadings that inform researchers about the extent to
which a given indicator is able to measure the variable or functions as validity
coefficients. In addition, CFA compares the solution found against a hypothetical one
Bryman and Cramer (2001). Confirmatory factor analysis in structural equation
modeling (SEM) is refine and validate the measurement model (Garver and Williams,
2009) In addition, Georges (2008) proposed that confirmatory factor analysis (CFA)
examine the uniqueness of the construct and test the hypotheses in more appropriate
way.
3.3 Reliability and validity

Confirmatory factor analysis showed that all factor loadings and path coefficient were
statistically significant. The t values were above the required value of 1.96. Reliability
of all constructs were above 0.60 (Bagozzi and Yi, 1988), as shown in Table I. These
high and significant loadings indicated good convergence validity (Bagozzi et al., 1991).
For all factors, chi-square difference by far exceeded the critical value of chi-square Transfer of
diff 3:84 (p , 0:05; d:f: 1) (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988; Bentler and Bonett, training: does it
1980). Thus, statistically significant differences between the base model and restricted
models, as well as discriminate validity of the measurement scales, can be assumed. truly happen?
4. Results 285
To test the structural model, different measures have been selected for model fit. With
reference to chi-square goodness-of-fit indices statistic, Chin et al. (2008) argued that
chi-square goodness-of-fit indices can be used to evaluate model fit but based on
psychometrics principles, it tend not to be considered as a reliable guide for model
adequacy (Hu and Bentler, 1999). That is because the actual size of the test statistic
depends not only on model adequacy (Chin et al., 2008) but also on which one among
several chi-square tests is used, as well as other conditions (Hu and Bentler, 1999). This
statistic has no upper limit and as such its value is not interpretable in a standardize
way (Kline, 2005). Therefore, we have selected alternative measures of fit like RMSEA,
CFI, AGFI, CMIN/DF, TLI and IFI. For these measures of goodness-of-fit are based on
various cut-off criteria (Byrne, 2001)
For the goodness-of-fit indices like RMSEA, CFI, AGFI, CMIN/DF, TLI and IFI, it is
important to be aware that there is no distinction made in terms of degree of fit for
differences in fit indexes beyond the cut-off point (Chin et al., 2008). For RMSEA, a
value less than 0.05 indicates a good fit (Byrne, 2001, p. 85) while a value which is more
than 0.05 but lesser than 0.11 can indicate average fit (Chen et al., 2008) but a value
above 0.10, the fit is said to be poor (Byrne, 2001, p. 89).
CFI ranges from zero to one (Byrne, 2001). Researchers consider Comparative fit
index (CFI) . 0:90 indicate adequate fit (Cleveland et al., 2009; Chen et al., 2008; Beal
and Dawson, 2007; Chau, 1997). Adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI) . 0:80
indicates good fit (Beal and Dawson, 2007; Chau, 1997). With reference to CMIN/df , 3
indicate good fit (Beal and Dawson, 2007; Byrne, 2001; Chau, 1997). Tucker-Lewis
index (TLI) . 0.89 indicate adequate fit (Loibl et al., 2009). Finally, IFI $ 0.90 can
consider good model fit (Lai, 2009). The results of the goodness of fit measures shown
in Tables II and III indicate a model fit.
Based on Table IV, instrumentality has a stronger direct effect on transfer
motivation (effect 0:313) and at the same time have considerable effect on training
retention (effect 0:226). In addition, peer support, supervisor support and learner
readiness effect training transfer through transfer motivation. Moreover, training
retention and transfer motivation directly affect training transfer.
Constructs Reliability
Instrumentality 0.791
Learner readiness 0.781
Motivation to transfer 0.796
Peer support 0.806
Supervisor support 0.779
Training retention 0.851 Table I.
Training transfer 0.783 Reliability of the Scale
EJTD Table V displays a summary of the hypotheses, which shows that all structural paths
37,3 are statistically significant. H1 postulates that if a trainee has a clear understanding
about the training program before it began, he/she would be more motivated to
transfer the learned skills (H1 0:252). Subsequently, if the trainee has peer support,
he/she would be more motivated to transfer the learned skills (H2 0:277). In
addition, supervisor support in terms of setting goals, discussing ways to apply
286 learned skills and solving the problems also motivate the trainee to increase transfer
(H3 0:206). With reference to instrumentality, intrinsic rewards motivate the trainee
more to maximize the transfer (H4a 0:521) but these rewards also make the trainee
to retain the learned skills and transfer (H4b 0:350). Finally, H5 (0.400) postulates
that the trainees level of transfer motivation increases the training transfer at the
workplace.
The results of this studys t-value (t 2:320; t . 1:96; Hair et al., 2006) indicated
that transfer motivation mediate the relationship between learner readiness and
training transfer and supported the H1. Learner readiness motivate the trainees to
transfer the learned skills and directly influence transfer motivation (effect 0:259).
Overall model measure Model score Acceptable model fit Acceptable baseline
CFI 0.963 Passed .0.90

AGFI 0.874 Passed .0.80
RMSEA 0.052 Passed , 0.10
CMIN/DF 2.361 Passed ,3
Table II. TLI 0.956 Passed .0.89
Measurement model fit IFI 0.963 Passed .0.90
Overall model measure Model score Acceptable model fit Acceptable baseline
CFI 0.956 Passed .0.90

AGFI 0.863 Passed .0.80
RMSEA 0.056 Passed , 0.10
Table III. CMIN/DF 2.586 Passed ,3
Structural model TLI 0.949 Passed .0.89
goodness of fit IFI 0.956 Passed .0.90
Training retention Transfer motivation Training transfer

Direct Indirect Total Direct Indirect Total Direct Indirect Total
Instrumentality 0.226 0.226 0.313 0.313 0.111 0.111

Peer support 0.090 0.090 0.019 0.019
Supervisor support 0.285 0.285
0.172 0.172 0.070 0.070
Learner readiness 0.073 0.073
0.259 0.259 0.106 0.106
Table IV. Retention 0.196 0.196
Summary of effects Motivation 0.213 0.213
Transfer of
Hypotheses P- Accept or
value reject training: does it
H1 Transfer motivation mediates the relationship between learner readiness
truly happen?
and training transfer 0.002 Accept
H2 Transfer motivation mediates the relationship between peer support and
training transfer 0.010 Accept 287
H3 Transfer motivation mediates the relationship between supervisor support
and training transfer 0.012 Accept
H4a Transfer motivation mediates the relationship between Instrumentality

(intrinsic rewards) and training transfer 0.001 Accept
H4b Training retention mediates the relationship between Intrinsic rewards and
training transfer 0.012 Accept Table V.
H5 The higher the transfer motivation, the higher the transfer of training Result of Analyses and
content on the job 0.003 Accept Hypotheses
The p-value (p 0:000; p , 0:05; Garver and Williams, 2009) indicate that the path
(learner readiness effect the transfer motivation) is statistically significant. In other
words, Learner readiness, however, exerted indirect effect on training transfer
mediated by transfer motivation.
The result of hypothesis H4b indicates that training retention mediates the
relationship between instrumentality or intrinsic rewards and training transfer t-value
(t 4:086, t . 1:96; Hair et al., 2006) and influence training transfer (effect 0:196).
The results of this study also indicates the positive relationship between training
retention and instrumentality (intrinsic rewards) p-value (p 0:001, p , 0:05; Garver
and Williams, 2009). Therefore, training retention work as a mediating factor between
instrumentalities (Intrinsic rewards) and training transfer.
The results of this study t-value (t . 1:96; Hair et al., 2006; t 1:96) indicated that
transfer motivation mediates the relationship between peer support and training
transfer H2. In other words, peer support directly influence the transfer motivation
(effect 0:090). The p-value (p , 0:05; Garver and Williams, 2009; p 0:001) indicate
that the path (peer support positively related with transfer motivation) is statistically
significant.
The results of this study indicated that transfer motivation mediates the
relationship between supervisor support and training transfer with t-value (t . 1:96;
Hair et al., 2006; t 2:156) and supported H3. In addition, the results also explain that
supervisor support positively influence transfer motivation (effect 0:172) and
p-value (p , 0:05; Garver and Williams, 2009; p 0:031) indicate that the path
(supervisor support positively related with transfer motivation) is statistically
significant.
The results of this study t-value (t . 1:96; Hair et al., 2006; t 2:794) indicated that
transfer motivation mediates the relationship between instrumentality (intrinsic
rewards) and training transfer H4a. The results of this study also explain that
instrumentality (intrinsic rewards) positively influence transfer motivation
(effect 0:313) and p-value (p , 0:05; Garver and Williams, 2009; p 0:005). In
addition, the results of this study p-value (p , 0:05; Garver and Williams, 2009;
p 0:005) provide evidence and explain that instrumentality (intrinsic rewards)
positively related with training retention (effect 0:226).(see Figure 1)
EJTD
37,3
288
Figure 1.
Complete model
(standardized)
5. Conclusion and suggestion for future research

The purpose of this study is to highlight the role and importance of environmental
factors (peer and supervisor support), a situational factor (instrumentality) and an
individual factor (learner readiness) in the training transfer theory. The above
framework was proposed and tested especially to determine effective transfer of
training to the work place and most importantly to improve the employees and
companys performance. Every variable in this framework represents specific
categories like individual factors, environmental factors and situational factors. We
have included the most important and closely related variables from each category and
tested them by using structural equation modeling (SEM).
Transfer of training is a critical issue and researchers have been focusing on
different factors affecting it for the purpose of providing substantial feedback to
trainers and managers. Furthermore, among the different factors, supervisor and peer
support seems to be important for training transfer. This study found that supervisor
support positively influences transfer motivation and indirectly influence the training
transfer. In other words, transfer motivation plays a mediating role between peer
support, supervisor support and training transfer and these findings are consistent
with other researches (Clark et al., 1993; Facteau et al., 1995; Gregoire et al., 1998;
Chiaburu and Marinova, 2005; Chiaburu and Tekleab, 2005; Velada et al., 2007). In
addition, peer support also influences training transfer through transfer motivation
and these findings are consistent with previous studies (Holton et al., 2007; Kirwan and
Birchall, 2006). However, for further clarification of supervisor and peer role in the
training transfer process, researchers need to test supervisor and peer support in
different dimensions. For example, researchers need to classify supervisor and peer
support before, during and after training, as the timing factor needs to be considered
while examining the effect of supervisor and peer support. Velada et al. (2007) found
that supervisor support, in terms of feedback and meetings, has indicated a weak
relationship with transfer of training. Perhaps this kind of supervisor interruptions
during pre- and ongoing training could have a stronger effect on the transfer of
training. Furthermore, this study proposes that the researchers should distinguish the
types of support which trainees need at each stage of training like pre-training, Transfer of
ongoing training and post-training. Most importantly, at the time of developing the training: does it
scale, researchers should clearly highlight and differentiate the kind of support which
trainees need before, during and after training. truly happen?
Another strong factor affecting training transfer is instrumentality (intrinsic
reward). As found in this study, intrinsic rewards not only increase the motivation
level of the trainee but also influence the training retention. The findings of this study 289
showed that transfer motivation plays a mediating role between instrumentality and
training transfer. In addition, training retention also plays a mediating role between
instrumentality and training transfer but transfer motivation has a more strong
mediating effect as compare to training retention. These rewards make trainees retain
more skills and transfer to the workplace. Training retention is a critical factor in
transferring skills. Prior to transferring the skills, the trainee needs to retain the skills
hence, the more the trainee retains the learned skills the transfer level would be higher.
The concept of training retention is similar with cognitive ability and explains the
degree to which the trainee retains the content after training is completed (Velada et al.,
2007). The training transfer can be maximized, if the trainee retains the learned skills.
The findings of this research showed that training retention is positively related with
training transfer and these results are in support of the work of the earlier researchers
(Velada et al., 2007; Baldwin and Ford, 1988; Kontoghiorghes, 2001). In addition, Noe
et al. (2006) proposed that after learning and retaining content, trainee should transfer
the knowledge and skills accrued to the work context with the intention of improving
job performance over time. Furthermore, May and Kahnweiler (2000) suggested that
lack of training transfer could be inadequate learning and retention. Therefore, the
result of this study also supports the theoretical view point of May and Kahnweiler
(2000) and Noe et al. (2006). Many factors like instrumentality, training design and
social support factors may influence training retention or help trainees to retain the
learned skills, but after the retention it depends on the intention of the trainee to
transfer the learned skills. Trainees may transfer the learned skills with the intention to
improve the performance or to get intrinsic or extrinsic rewards.
With reference to individual factors, learner readiness can be viewed from multiple
perspectives. This study proposed two additional items to be included in measuring
learner readiness which are in terms of basic skills before training and basic
knowledge about the training activities. Therefore, this study empirically tested the
role of learner readiness in the training transfer process and found that learner
readiness positively relates with transfer motivation. In other words, learner readiness
exerted indirect effects on training transfer mediated by transfer motivation. The result
of this study is consistent with Kirwan and Birchall, (2006) and Payne et al.s (2008)
findings. Furthermore, the findings also support Facteau et al.s (1995) and Holton
et al.s (1996) theoretical view point. These two items can expand the boundaries and
effects of learner readiness factors in the training transfer theory.
Rapid change in the business environment and customer expectations force
business and human resource development professionals to focus more on employees
training and development. Researchers and training professionals have been trying
their best to equip their employees with advance skills, knowledge and abilities in
order to cope with the complicated challenges of modern era. In this regards, they are
developing different training models and designing effective training programs.
EJTD Therefore, in the process of developing different training programs, researchers have
37,3 identified different criteria which prevent trainees from transferring their learned skills
at workplace. The purpose of this study is to highlight those factors which restrain
employees to transfer the training at workplace and found that social support elements
(peer and supervisor support) play important role in training transfer process. The
results of this study suggested that training professionals should have different types
290 of peer and supervisor support at each level (pre-training, ongoing-training,
post-training). This study examined the effect of supervisor and peer support on
training transfer after the training and suggested that social support factors (peer and
supervisor support) should be categorized based on time and type of support. The type
of support required by trainees can be different before, during and after the training. In
order to reconcile the conflict in previous studies, the researchers should differentiate
the type of support which trainee require before (pre-training), during
(ongoing-training) and after (post-training). By doing so, and researchers can
ascertain the role of supervisor and peer support in training transfer process.
Future research could highlight the kind of support at each stage (before, during
and after the training) and empirically test the relationships with other training
transfer factors. This practice will help researcher to build on literature on training
transfer and would be helpful for researcher to explain the importance of social support
factors (peer and supervisor support) in the boundaries of training effectiveness.
The data was collected from trainees who have attended FSTEP training program.
Due to particular training structure and duration, the findings of this study may not be
applicable in other training context. In future, the researchers should test this model in
other training setting in order to explain the role of these factors in training transfer
process. Furthermore, this study only examined the post training peer and supervisor
support. Future researchers should examined the peer and supervisor support in before
and during training with appropriate measurement scale.
Implications
The results of this study advocated that the supervisors should assist trainee at each
stage of the training like before (pre-training), during (ongoing-training) and after
(post-training). This study only focused on post training support and suggested that
after training supervisors should discuss different ways with trainee about how to
make use of the learned skills at the workplace. Supervisor can support the trainees
after training by meeting regularly to solve the problems face by the trainees in terms
of applying the learned skills at workplace. In addition, supervisors can discuss
different methods to apply learned skills at workplace and set goals to encourage
trainees to use training on job. Finally, this study posits the notion that if supervisors
play his/her role effectively, the training transfer can be increased.
With reference to the role of peer support in the training transfer process, this study
suggested that peers also can play their role to maximize the training transfer. Peers
should encourage trainees to participate in training activities and help trainees to apply
the learned skills at the workplace in order to improve his performance and to achieve
organizational tasks. In addition, peers should appriciate the trainee, when he/she
using the training on job. Peers appreciation and encouragement motivate trainees to
use training on job. Finally, the peers expectations from trainees also play important
role in training transfer. Peers expectations in terms of using training on job also Transfer of
motivate trainees to apply the learned skills at workplace. training: does it
Another important consideration for trainers and training professionals is that the
learner should be ready to participate in training activities. The findings of this study truly happen?
suggested that before starting training program trainer should make sure that the
trainees have basic skills and knowledge to participate in training activities. Because
prior knowledge and skills about training activities motivate trainees to participate in 291
training activities in order to transfer the learned skills at workplace. For example, if an
employees going to learned new computer software, it is important for that employees
to have basic computer knowledge and skills to operate computer. If the employee have
lack of basic computer knowledge, it would be difficult for the employee to actively
participate in training activities and maximize the learning. In conclusion, the manager
and trainers should provide basic skills to the employees which help them to perfome
training task and actively participate in training activities. Therefore, better learning
during training will further motivate the trainee to transfer the training on job.
Finally, human resource development professionals and trainers should explain
practically to trainee that how they can apply the learned skills at workplace. This
practical exposure increases the efficacy level of the trainee and leads to training
transfer. Therefore, trainers should more practical examples during training session in
order to help trainees understand how the training is closely related with their job.
Therefore, using real life examples can build the trainees confidence and motivate them
to transfer the training on job. In addition, the top management, trainers, supervisor
should appreciate, encourage and motivate the trainee to participate in training
activities.
References
Anderson, J.C. and Gerbing, D.W. (1988), Structural equation modelling in practice: a review and
recommended two-step approach, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 88 No. 3, pp. 588-606.
Awais, M. and Sharan, K. (2010), The role of individual and training design factors on training
transfer, Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 34 No. 7, pp. 656-72.
Awoniyi, E.A., Griego, O.V. and Morgan, G.A. (2002), Person-environment fit and transfers of
training, International Journal of Training and Development, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 25-35.
Axtell, C.M., Maitlis, S. and Yearta, S.K. (1997), Predicting immediate and longer term transfer
of training, Personal review, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 201-13.
Bagozzi, R., Yi, Y. and Phillips, L. (1991), Assessing construct validity in organizational
research, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 421-58.
Bagozzi, R.P. and Yi, Y. (1988), On the evaluation of structural equation models, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 74-94.
Baldwin, T.T. and Ford, J. (1988), Transfer of training: a review and directions for future
research, Personal Psychology, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 63-105.
Bates, R., Kauffeld, S. and Holton, E.F. III (2007), Examining the factor structure and predictive
ability of the German-version of the learning transfer system inventory, International
Journal of Training and Development, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 195-211.
Beal, D.J. and Dawson, J.F. (2007), On the use of Likert-type scales in multilevel data: influence
on aggregate variables, Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 657-72.
EJTD Bentler, P.M. and Bonett, D.G. (1980), Significance test and goodness of fit in the analysis of
covariance structures, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 88 No. 3, pp. 588-606.
37,3
Brinkerhoff, R.O. and Montesino, M.U. (1995), Partnership for training transfers. Lessons from a
corporate study, Human Resource Development Quarterly, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 263-74.
Bryman, A. and Cramer, D. (2001), Quantitative Data Analysis with SPSS Release 10 for
Windows, Psychology Press, London.
292 Byrne, B.M. (2001), Structural Equation Modeling with Amos: Basic Concepts, Applications and
Programming, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.
Chau, P.Y.K. (1997), Reexamining a model for evaluating information center success using a
structural equation modelling approach, Decision Sciences, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 309-34.
Chen, C.-Y. (2007), Exploring potential factors leading to effective training, Journal of
Management Development, Vol. 26 No. 9, pp. 843-56.
Chen, L.S., Kwok, O.-M. and Goodson, P. (2008), US health educators likelihood of adopting
genomic competencies into health promotion, American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 98
No. 9, pp. 1651-7.
Cheng, E.W.L. (2007), SEM being more effective than multiple regression in parsimonious model
testing for management development research, Journal of Management Development,
Vol. 20 No. 7, pp. 650-67.
Chiaburu, D.S. and Marinova, S.V. (2005), What predicts skill transfer? An exploratory study of
goal orientation, training self-efficacy and organizational supports, International Journal
of Training and Development, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 110-23.
Chiaburu, D.S. and Tekleab, A.G. (2005), Individual and contextual influence on multiple
dimensions of training effectiveness, Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 29
No. 8, pp. 604-26.
Chin, W.W., Johnson, N. and Schwarz, A. (2008), A fast form approach to measuring technology
acceptance and other constructs, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 687-703.
Clark, S.C., Dobbins, G.H. and Ladd, R.T. (1993), Exploratory field study of training motivation:
influence of involvement, credibility, and transfer climate, Group & Organization
Management, Vol. 18, September, pp. 292-307.
Cleveland, M., Laroche, M. and Papadopoulos, N. (2009), Cosmopolitanism, consumer
ethnocentrism, and materialism: an eight-country study of antecedents and outcomes,
Journal of International Marketing, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 116-46.
Colquitt, J.A., LePine, J.A. and Noe, R.A. (2000), Towards and integration theory of training
motivation: a meta-analytic path analysis of 20 years of research, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 85 No. 5, pp. 678-707.
Condry, J. (1977), Enemies of exploration: self invented versus other initiated learning, Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 35 No. 7, pp. 459-77.
Facteau, J.D., Dobbins, G.H., Russell, J.E.A., Ladd, R.T. and Kudisch, J.D. (1995), The influence of
general perception of the training environment on pre-training motivation and perceived
training transfer, Journal of Management, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 1-25.
Ford, L. (2009), Improving training transfer, Journal of Industrial and Commercial Training,
Vol. 41 No. 2, pp. 92-6.
Garver, M.S. and Williams, Z. (2009), Examining model of understanding customer value and
satisfaction data, The Marketing Management Journal, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 113-32.
Georges, J.C. (2008), The myth of soft-skills training, Journal of Training and Development,
Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 48-54.
Gist, M.E., Stevens, C.K. and Bavetta, A.G. (1991), Effects of self-efficacy and post-training Transfer of
intervention on the acquisition and maintenance of complex interpersonal skills, Personal
Psychology, Vol. 44 No. 1, pp. 837-61. training: does it
Goldstein, I. and Ford, J.K. (2002), Training in Organization, 4th ed., Wadsworth, Belmont, CA. truly happen?
Gregoire, T.K., Propp, J. and Poertner, J. (1998), The supervisor role in the transfer of training,
Administration in Social Work, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 1-18.
Guerrero, S. and Sire, B. (2001), Motivation to train from the workers perspectives: example of 293
French companies, International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 12 No. 6,
pp. 988-1004.
Gumuseli, A.L. and Ergin, B. (2002), The manager role in enhancing the transfer of training:
a Turkish case study, International Journal of Training and Development, Vol. 6 No. 2,
pp. 80-97.
Hair, J., William, C.B., Barry, J.B. and Rolph, E.A. (2006), Multivariate Data Analysis, 7th ed,
Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Holton, E.F. III (1996), The flawed four-level evaluation model, Human Resource Development
Quarterly, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 5-21.
Holton, E.F., Bates, R. and Kauffeld, S. (2007), Examining the factor structure and predictive
ability of the German-version of the learning transfer system inventory, Journal of
European Industrial Training, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 195-211.
Holton, E.F. III, Bates, R.A. and Ruona, W.E. (2000), Development of generalized learning
transfer system inventory, Human Resource Development Quarterly, Vol. 11 No. 4,
pp. 333-60.
Holton, E. III, Bates, R.A., Seyler, D.L. and Carvalho, M.B. (1997), Towards construct validation
of a transfer climate instrument, Human Resource Development Quarterly, Vol. 8 No. 2,
pp. 95-113.
Hu, L.-T. and Bentler, P.M. (1999), Cut-off criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure
analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives, Structural Equation Modeling,
Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 1-55.
Huczynski, A. and Lewis, W. (1980), An empirical study into the learning transfer process in
management training, The Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 227-40.
Kauffeldd, S. and Lehmann-Willenbrock, N. (2010), Sales training: effects of spaced practice on
training transfer, Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 23-37.
Kirkpatrick, D. (1976), Evaluation of training, in Craig, R.L. (Ed.), Training and Development
Handbook, 2nd ed., McGraw Hill, New York, NY.
Kirwan, C. and Birchall, D. (2006), Transfer of learning from management development
programmes: testing the Holton Model, International Journal of Training and
Development, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 252-68.
Kline, R.B. (2005), Principles and Practices of Structural Equation Modeling, 2nd ed., The Guilford
Press, New York, NY.
Kontoghiorghes, C. (2001), Factors affecting training effectiveness in the context of the
introduction of new technology- a US case study, International Journal of Training and
Lai, K.-h. (2009), Linking exchange governance with supplier cooperation and commitment:
a case of container terminal operations, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 30 No. 1,
pp. 243-60.
EJTD Liebermann, S. and Hoffmann, S. (2008), The impact of practical relevance on training transfer:
evidence from a service quality training program for German bank clerks, International
37,3 Journal of Training and Development, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 74-86.
Lim, D.H. and Johnson, S.D. (2002), Trainee perception of factor that influence learning
transfer, International Journal of Training and Development, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 36-48.
Loibl, C., Cho, S.H., Diekmann, F. and Batte, M.T. (2009), Consumer self-confidence in searching
294 for information, Journal of Consumer Affairs, Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 26-55.
Mackay, R. (2007), Fit for which purpose, Training and Management Methods, Vol. 21 No. 4,
pp. 333-8.
May, G.L. and Kahnweiler, W.M. (2000), The effect of a mastery practice design on learning and
transfer in behaviour modelling training, Personal Psychology, Vol. 53 No. 2, pp. 353-73.
Medsker, G.J., Williams, L.J. and Holahan, P.J. (1994), A review of current practices for
evaluating causal-models in organizational-behavior and human-resources management
research, Journal of Management Development, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 439-64.
Montesino, M.U. (2002), Strategic alignment of training, transfer-enhancing behaviours, and
training usage: a post training study, Human Resource Development Quarterly, Vol. 13
No. 1, pp. 89-108.
Nijman, D.-J.J.M., Nijhof, W.J., Wognum, A.A.M. (Ida) and Veldkamp, B.P. (2006), Exploring
differential effects of supervisor support on transfer of training, Journal of European
Industrial Training, Vol. 30 No. 7, pp. 529-49.
Nikandrou, I., Brinia, V. and Bereri, E. (2009), Perspective on practice: trainee perceptions of
training transfer: an empirical analysis, Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 23
No. 3, pp. 255-70.
Noe, R.A. (1986), Trainee attributes and attitudes: neglected influences on training
effectiveness, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 736-49.
Noe, R.A. and Schmitt, N. (1986), The influence of trainee attitudes on training effectiveness:
test of a model, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 393, pp. 497-523.
Noe, R.A., Hollenbeck, J.R., Gerhart, B. and Wright, P. (2006), Human Resource Management:
Gaining a Competitive Advantage, 6th ed., McGraw-Hill Irwin, Boston, MA.
Payne, S.L., Flynn, J. and Whitfield, J.M. (2008), Capstone business course assessment:
Exploring student readiness perspectives, Journal of Education for Business, Vol. 83 No. 3,
pp. 141-6.
Pidd, K. (2004), The impact of workplace support and identity on training transfer: a case study
of drug and alcohol safety training in Australia, International Journal of Training and
Prop-Huiban, J.-P. and Bouhsina, Z. (1998), Innovation and quality of labour factor: an empirical
investigation in the French food industry, Small Business Economics, Vol. 10 No. 4,
pp. 389-400.
Ruona, W.E.A., Leimbach, M., Holton, E.F. III and Bates, R. (2002), The relationship between
learner utility reactions and predicted learning transfer among trainees, International
Journal of Training and Development, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 218-28.
Scaduto, A., Lindsay, D. and Chiaburu, D.S. (2008), Leader influence on training effectiveness:
motivation and outcome expectation process, International Journal of Training and
Seyler, D.L., Holton, E.F. III, Bates, R.A., Burnett, M.F. and Carvalho, M.A. (1998), Factors
affecting motivation to transfer training, International Journal of Training and
Sire, B. (1993), Gestion strategique des remunerations, editions liaisons, France. Transfer of
Smith-Jentsch, K.A., Salas, E. and Brannick, M.T. (2001), To transfer or not to transfer? training: does it
Investigating the combined effects of trainee characteristics, team leader support, and
team climate, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86 No. 2, pp. 279-92. truly happen?
Tai, W.-T. (2006), Effects of training framing, general self-efficacy and training motivation on
trainees training effectiveness, Personal Review, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 51-65.
Tesluk, P.E., Farr, J.L., Mathieu, J.E. and Vance, R.J. (1995), Generalization of employee 295
involvement training to the job setting: individual and situational effects, Personal
Psychology, Vol. 48 No. 3, pp. 607-32.

Tharenou, P. (2001), The relationship of training motivation to participation in training and
development, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 74 No. 5,
pp. 599-621.
Tracey, J.B. and Tews, M.J. (2005), Construct validity of a general training climate scale,
Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 353-74.
Tracey, J.B., Tannenbaum, S.I. and Kavanagh, M.J. (1995), Applying trained skills on the job:
the importance of the work environment, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 80 No. 2,
pp. 239-52.
Velada, R., Caetano, A., Michel, J.W., Lyons, B.D. and Kavanagh, M.J. (2007), The effects of
training design, individual characteristics and work environment on transfer of training,
International Journal of Training and Development, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 282-94.
Ven der Klink, M.R., Gielen, E. and Nautta, C. (2001), Supervisory support as a major condition
to enhance transfer, International Journal of Training and Development, Vol. 5 No. 1,
pp. 52-63.
Warr, P., Allan, C. and Birdi, K. (1999), Predicting three levels of training outcomes, Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 72 No. 3, pp. 351-75.
Wexley, K.N. and Latham, G.P. (2002), Developing and Training Human Resource in
Organization, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Further reading
Acton, T. (2003), Training the knowledge worker, Journal of European Industrial Training,
Vol. 27 Nos 2/3/4, pp. 137-46.
Bates, R.A. and Khasawneh, S. (2005), Organizational learning culture, learning transfer climate
and perceived innovation in Jordanian organizations, International Journal of Training
and Development, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 96-109.
Borges-Andreade, J.E. (2006), Integrated and Summative Evaluation in TD&E, Training,
Development and Education in Organizations and Work, Foundation for Personal
Management, pp. 343-58.
Broad, M.L. (2005), Beyond Transfer of Training: Engaging Systems to Improve Performance,
John Wiley & Sons, San Francisco, CA.
Brown, T. (2005), Effectiveness of distal and proximal goals as transfer of training intervention:
a field experiment, Human Resource Development Quarterly, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 369-87.
Chen, L.-S., Kwok, O.-M. and Goodson, P. (2008), US health educators likelihood of adopting
genomic competencies into health promotion, American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 98
No. 9, pp. 1651-7.
EJTD Goldstein, I.L. (1991), Training in work organizations, in Dunnette, M.D. and Hough, L.M.
(Eds), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2nd ed., Consulting
37,3 Psychology Press, Palo Alto, CA, pp. 507-619.
Goldstein, I.L. and Gilliam, P. (1990), Training system issues in the year 2000, American
Psychologist, Vol. 45 No. 2, pp. 134-43.
Hawley, J.D. and Barnard, J.K. (2005), Work environment characteristics and implications for
296 training transfer: a case study of the nuclear power industry, Human Resource
Development International, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 65-80.
Jayasuriya, R. and Caputi, P. (2008), Exploring the role of goal theory in understanding training
motivation, International Journal of Training and Development, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 54-72.
Lim, D.H. and Morris, M.L. (2006), Influence of trainee characteristics, instructional satisfaction,
and organizational climate on perceived learning and training transfer, Human Resource
Development Quarterly, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 85-115.
Muhammad, M. and Idris, K. (2005), Workplace learning in Malaysia: the learners perspective,
International Journal of Training and Development, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 62-78.
Olivera, F. and Straus, S.G. (2004), Group-to-individual transfer of learning: cognitive and social
factors, Small Group Research, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 440-65.
Othman, O. (2001), What adults learn, in M. Mazanah and Associates (Ed.), Adult and
Continuing Education in Malaysia, UNESCO Institute for Education and University Putra
Press, Hamburg and Serdang, pp. 85-109.
Pilati, R. and Borges-Andrade, J.E. (2008), Affective predictors of the effectiveness of training
moderated by the cognitive complexity of expected competencies, International Journal of
Training and Development, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 226-37.
Robotham, D. (2004), Developing the competent learner, Industrial and Commercial Training,
Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 66-72.
Tracey, J.B., Tannenbaum, S.I. and Mathieu, J.E. (1997), The influence of individual
characteristics and the work environment on varying level of training outcomes,
Academy of Management Proceedings, p. 210.
Tracey, J.B., Hinkin, T.R., Tannenbaum, S. and Mathieu, J.E. (2001), The influence of individual
characteristics and the work environment on varying levels of training outcomes, Human
Resource Development Quarterly, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 5-23.
About the authors

Dr Muhammad Awais Bhatti MB is currently working as Senior Lecturer in School of Business
Management, College of Business, University Utara Malaysia. He holds Bachelors degree in
Business and Accountancy, MBA in Marketing, Human Resource Management and Information
Technology, PhD in Training and Development. His area of expertise includes international
business, strategic management, human resource development and human resource
management. He is a professional trainer and designs training programmes for managers and
executives around the world. He also reviews work for the European Journal of Training and
Development, and was a member of the program committee for the IBIMA 2011 conference. His
devotion towards training and research activities enabled him to publish books and journals in
different fields mainly in the area of training and development, internationalization, e-learning
and business research. Muhammad Awais Bhatti is the corresponding author and can be
contacted at: awaisbhatti_786@yahoo.com
Dr Mohamed Mohamed Battour is currently working as Senior Lecturer in Tanta University-
Faculty of commerce. Tanta, Egypt. He holds a Bachelors degree in Business Administration,
MBA, and PhD (Marketing). His area of expertise includes marketing, internet marketing, Transfer of
consumer behaviour, and customer relationship management.
Veera Pandiyan Kaliani Sundram is currently working as a Lecturer in Universiti Teknologi training: does it
MARA, Malaysia. He is a graduate member of Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport truly happen?
(CILT), UK. Prior to CILT, he obtained a Bachelors degree in Analytical Economics and an MBA.
He is a Research Fellow of the Malaysia Institute of Transport (MITRANS) and Ministry of
Science, Technology and Innovation (MOSTE). His passion towards research enabled him to
publish books and research articles in different journals of national and international repute, 297
mainly in the area of logistics and supply chain, international trade and technological change. He
also reviews work for the Journal of Business Economics and Management (ISI Thomson Rank)
and Benchmarking: An International Journal (SCOPUS Rank). As such this knowledge and
experience led to being a management and research consultant for several corporate and
government link companies such as PETRONAS, Public Bank, Johor Corporation, Sindora Bhd,
Kulim Bhd. and KPJ Health Care.
Akmal Aini Othman is currently the Head of Studies Center at the Faculty of Business
Management, University Teknologi Mara Johor Malaysia. She holds a PhD in Business
Management specialising in the procurement process and marketing resources in the building
construction industry. Her research interests include issues surrounding supply chain
management, relationship marketing, construction management, and training and development.
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
This article has been cited by:
1. Ragini Chauhan, Piyali Ghosh, Alka Rai, Divya Shukla. 2016. The impact of support at the workplace
on transfer of training: a study of an Indian manufacturing unit. International Journal of Training and
Development 20:3, 200-213. [CrossRef]
2. Ann-Christine Massenberg, Eva-Maria Schulte, Simone Kauffeld. 2016. Never Too Early: Learning
Transfer System Factors Affecting Motivation to Transfer Before and After Training Programs. Human
Resource Development Quarterly 26. . [CrossRef]
3. Piyali Ghosh School of Management Studies, Motilal Nehru National Institute of Technology Allahabad,
India Ragini Chauhan School of Management Studies, Motilal Nehru National Institute of Technology
Allahabad, India Alka Rai School of Management Studies, Motilal Nehru National Institute of
Technology Allahabad, India . 2015. Supervisor support in transfer of training: looking back at past
research. Industrial and Commercial Training 47:4, 201-207. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
4. Kijpokin KasemsapConstructing a Unified Framework and a Causal Model of Occupational Satisfaction,
Trainee Reactions, Perception of Learning, and Perceived Training Transfer 28-52. [CrossRef]
5. Paul DonovanFinding the Critical Few: 127-157. [CrossRef]
6. Mary Stack KohnA Strategic Focus for Educational Leaders: 1276-1298. [CrossRef]

European Journal of Training and Development: Article Information

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

European Journal of Training and Development: Article Information

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

European Journal of Training and Development

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Received 5 April 2012

2. Factors affecting transfer of training

2.1 Training transfer

2.2 Learner readiness

2.3 Peer support

2.4 Supervisor support

2.6 Training retention

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

2.7 Transfer motivation

were returned. Of the questionnaires, 25 were discarded because of illogical and

3.2 Statistical techniques

hypothesis tests (Garver and Williams, 2009).

3.3 Reliability and validity

CFI 0.963 Passed .0.90

CFI 0.956 Passed .0.90

Training retention Transfer motivation Training transfer

Instrumentality 0.226 0.226 0.313 0.313 0.111 0.111

H4a Transfer motivation mediates the relationship between Instrumentality

5. Conclusion and suggestion for future research

Psychology, Vol. 48 No. 3, pp. 607-32.

About the authors

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi