The work described in this paper was conducted under contract F41624-93-5011 with the Air Force Armstrong Laboratory Human Resources Directorate, Technical Training Research Division. An earlier version was presented as part of a symposium, “Meta-analytic investigations of training effectiveness,” (M. Teachout, chair) at the 1995 annual meeting of American Psychological Society, New York.
A META-ANALYSIS OF THE RELATIONS AMONG TRAINING CRITERIA
Article first published online: 7 DEC 2006
Volume 50, Issue 2, pages 341–358, June 1997
How to Cite
ALLIGER, G. M., TANNENBAUM, S. I., BENNETT, W., TRAVER, H. and SHOTLAND, A. (1997), A META-ANALYSIS OF THE RELATIONS AMONG TRAINING CRITERIA. Personnel Psychology, 50: 341–358. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1997.tb00911.x
The views and opinions expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not reflect the official policies or opinions of their respective organizations.
- Issue published online: 7 DEC 2006
- Article first published online: 7 DEC 2006
An augmented framework for training criteria based on Kirkpatrick's (1959a, 1959b, 1960a, 1960b) model divides training reactions into affective and utility reactions, and learning into post-training measures of learning, retention, and behavior/skill demonstration. A total of 34 studies yielding 115 correlations were analyzed meta-analytically. Results included substantial reliabilities across training criteria and reasonable convergence among subdivisions of criteria within a larger level. Utility-type reaction measures were more strongly related to learning or on-the-job performance (transfer) than affective-type reaction measures. Moreover, utility-type reaction measures were stronger correlates of transfer than were measures of immediate or retained learning. These latter findings support recent concurrent thinking regarding use of reactions in training (e.g., Warr & Bunce, 1995). Implications for choosing and developing training criteria are discussed.