Journal of Information and Knowledge Management (JIKM) Volume 11 Number 1 (2021)

The Effects of Training Transfer on TrainingProgram

Evaluation and Effectiveness of Training Program

1
Romi Rampun@Ramlan, 2Zuraidah Zainol, 3Dewi Tajuddin
1
Department of Library,
Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM),
Sabah, Malaysia
2
Faculty of Management and Economics,
Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris,
Perak, Malaysia
3
Faculty of Management and Business,
Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM),
Sabah, Malaysia

Email: romey9545@sabah.uitm.edu.my

Received Date: 22 December 2020

Publish Date: 1 April 2021

Abstract. Evaluation of training programs is an important aspect in determining

the effectiveness of training programs conducted by an organization. Two di-
mensions of training program evaluation namely response and learning are used
as variables in this study. The design of this study is in quantitative, based on
the survey method. The study was conducted at the Tun Abdul Razak Library,
one of the Public Institutes of Higher Learning in Malaysia. A total of 288 re-
spondents consisting of library staff were involved in this study. Data analysis
was performed using SmartPLS Software (SmartPLS-SEM) using multivariate
analysis technique Structural Equation Modeling (SEM). The results of the
study found that there is a significant relationship between the evaluation of
training programs on the effectiveness of training programs. This study also
found that training transfer acts as a mediating variable between training pro-
gram evaluation and training program effectiveness. This study will be able to
be used by the human resource management division in implementing the eval-
uation of training programs as one of the effectiveness in planning training pro-
grams.
Keywords: Training Program Evaluation, Training Transfer, Training Program
effectiveness.

65
 The Effects of Training Transfer on TrainingProgram Evaluation and Effectiveness  of Training
Program

1 Introduction
The role of human resource development and management in an organization plays
a very important role, and one of those functions is training (DeSimone et al., 2002;
Tannenbaum & Yukl, 1992). Training is also a planned learning process and is done
with the aim of ensuring that employees can solve current or existing problems in the
future; in accordance with their capabilities, developing employee competencies and
developing competitiveness in the future (DeSimoneet et al., 2002; Ibrahim, 2001;
Kraiger et al., 1993). According to Milhem et al. (2014) the purpose of training in a
work environment is to develop students ’abilities and meet the current and future
needs of the organization.
Bowes (2008), defines that training as an investment in productivity and can retain
employees by ensuring career development and long-term job satisfaction. The
training that has been provided by the organization should be valued by the
organization. It also aims to determine the investment that has been spent is an
investment that gives a good return or not to an organization.
There are various interpretations related to the effectiveness of the training that has
been done i.e. effective training is considered when the training is well received,
successfully provide relevant knowledge and skills to the participants and confidence
to apply it in the workplace (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). The ability of the
training program will be able to change the behavior of employees, increase
productivity and improve the performance of work and organization (Chiaburu &
Marinova, 2005), evaluate the results of training experienced by a participant based
on the reaction (trainee limit area). Training assessment ensures that trainees are able
to complete their learning in their respective workplaces or their daily work (Nagar,
2009).
The transfer or transition of training is defined as the extent to which trainees
apply the knowledge, skills and behaviors acquired in training to their work (Wexley
& Latham 2002). Training transfer is to re-achieve the investment targets that have
been made by the organization in the training program (Nijman et al., 2006). Training
transfer occurs after the training program has ended (Goldstein & Ford, 2007) and
most importantly has a relationship in determining the effectiveness of training and
educational programs (Kasim & Ali, 2011).

2 Literature Review

The relationship between training program evaluation and training program

effectiveness.

Response is an important factor in the evaluation stage. The American Society for
Training and Development (ASTD) (2001) states that 77 percent of organizations take
data related to trainee responses, 38 percent information related to measuring aspects
of learning, 14 percent change behavior and 7 percent related to training outcomes

66
Journal of Information and Knowledge Management (JIKM) Volume 11 Number 1 (2021)

(Van Buren, 2001). Ruona et al. (2002) stated that a good and reliable trainee
response shows the effectiveness of the training that has been followed and is also
able to show a good effect on the organization. According to Wang and Wang (2006),
the evaluation of the response is more realistic if obtained from the feedback of the
trainee himself. According to Iyer, Pardiwalla and Bathia (2009), the emphasis on the
Kirkpatrick model is important to understand the need for training evaluation to be
performed. Every organization needs to review investment in training, and the
evaluation of training programs needs to be done to ensure that the justification of
training investment provides good returns to the organization or vice versa as well as
the training process can also be improved.
The concept of self-efficacy in this study is based on social learning theory.
According to this theory, humans learn by looking at others and believing in others.
This theory has credibility and knowledge (Bandura, 1986). The development of
attitudes that show a positive perception (self-efficacy) in training and emphasis on
post-training performance is necessary and can increase the effectiveness of training
(Billari et al., 2009). Al-Eisa et al. (2009) stated that trainees with high confidence
will apply the new knowledge and skills they acquired during on-the-job training. The
way of learning depends on the level of education and skills of the trainees because
these two aspects will help determine the effectiveness of the training program
(Abdullah & Mohammad, 2017).

Based on the literature review of the above study, the hypotheses to be tested are:

H1: There is a positive relationship between Training Program Evaluation (Response)

with Effectiveness of Training Programs, and

H2: There is a positive relationship between Training Program Evaluation (Learning)

with the Effectiveness of the Training Program.

The relationship between training program evaluation, training transfer and training
program effectiveness.

There are several studies showing that supervisor support aids in the transfer of
training Clark et al., 1993; Gregoire et al., 1988; Nijman et al. 2006; Chiaburu et al.,
2010; Bhatti et al., 2013; Bhatti et al., 2014). According to Chiaburu and Tekleab
(2005) and Al-Eisa et al. 2009) stated that supervisors support trainee motivation as
supervisors transfer new skills to the workplace. There are examples where
supervisors play a role as intermediaries (mediators). Nijman (2004) states that the
support of supervisors as a liaison can change the situation in the workplace, and
provide support to trainees provided the training program can be improved.
Good communication management methods by supervisors in the workplace will
produce successful outcome in a higher understanding and also produce successful
outcomes among employees (Mesmer-Magnus et al., 2018). Supervisors use good
means of communication to increase job satisfaction among employees, especially the
relationship between the head and the employee (Robert et al. 2016). According to
Meyer & Allen (1991) stated that good communication among supervisors also
increases employee confidence in organizational commitment because employees feel

67
 The Effects of Training Transfer on TrainingProgram Evaluation and Effectiveness  of Training
Program

comfortable with the situation at work. Humor is the best method in Communication
Management (Cooper et al., 2018) and supervisors use appropriate communication
management to overcome work barriers (McManus and Delany, 2007) and build
effective working relationships (Mesmer-Magnus et al., 2012).
Content validity refers to the level at which the trainee evaluates the content of the
training as accurately reflecting the work requirements (Devos et al., 2007). Trainees
will maximize the transfer of training for training content similar to workplace tasks.
The content of training will influence the transfer of training (Nikandrou et al., 2009).
Lim and Johnson (2002) suggest that the design and content of training and teaching
methods must be related to the transfer of objectives with the aim of transferring
learning can be realized. In addition, trainees also see new knowledge and skills
related to their job performance will be enhanced (Baldwin and Ford, 1998; Clark et
al. 1993). Kauffeld and Lehmman-Willenbrock (2010) found that training transfer can
enhance the atmosphere in the real workplace by applying training content after
training.
Self-efficacy is based on social learning theory. Many researchers focus on the
relationship between self-efficacy and other variables such as motivation transfer and
training transfer. These researchers confirm that self-efficacy can enhance training
transfer (Chiraburu and Marinova, 2005; Kirwan & Birchall, 2006; Latham & Frayne,
1989; Saks, 1995; Mathieu et al., 1992; Tannenbaum et al., 1991; Velada et al., 2007).
Self-efficacy is also related to training transfer variables through trainee intention
variables with the aim of acquiring knowledge (Mullin et al, 1998).
Some researchers stated that the trainees' response focused on the organization and
content of the training program conducted (Russell et al., 1985; Noe & Schmitt, 1986;
Baldwin et al., 1991), in addition, this response focused on other places, namely
trainee satisfaction on the use workplace training (Latham & Saari, 1979; Wexley &
Baldwin, 1986). Alliger et al. (1997) found that utility reactions (training content for
the workplace environment) are more closely related to transfer than affective
reactions (overall satisfaction with training). According to some researchers found
using classification by Alliger et al. (1997) stated that there is a relationship between
response (utility and affective) and training outcomes (Warr et al., 1999; Morgan &
Casper, 2000).
The results of the literature review above have been used as a guide in building the
conceptual framework of the study as shown in Figure 1.

Fig. 1. Training Transfer as a Liaison Variable between Training Program

Evaluation (Response and Learning) and Training Program Effectiveness.

68
Journal of Information and Knowledge Management (JIKM) Volume 11 Number 1 (2021)

Based on the conceptual framework of the hypotheses to be tested are:

H3: Training Transfer as an intermediary variable between Training Program

Evaluation (Response and Learning) and the Effectiveness of the Training Program.

3 Research Methodology
The design of this study is quantitative based on the survey method. The
surveymethod was done by using a questionnaire as the main procedure in the
collection of study data. The data obtained is premier data including Training
Program Evaluation which consists of several dimensions of the evaluation variables
of the training program, namely Response and Learning. Apart from that, aspects
related to the effectiveness of the Training Program and Training Transfer are also
stated in the questionnaire. This questionnaire contains several options of answer
questions provided to be answered by the respondents. According to Lancsaster
(2005) stated that the questionnaire has been widely used and good in terms of data
collection especially involving a large number of respondents.
Before the questionnaire was distributed, the researcher obtained the consent and
data collection rules from the head of the Librarian, Tun Abdul Razak Library. In this
study, stratified random sampling technique was used to distribute the questionnaire
to 483 respondents consisting of 122 management and professional group staff and
361 support group staff. This study is limited to the Library Services Scheme group
only. Of the above, 288 questionnaires were completed and returned to the researcher.
Next, data analysis is done using multivariate analysis techniques Structural
Equation Modeling (SEM) According to Hair, Sarstedt, Ringle and Mena (2012),
basic component combination analysis of factor analysis, multiple regression,
canonical correlation and simultaneous route analysis can also be performed using
SEM techniques. According to Hair, Ringle and Sarstedt (2011) data analysis
techniques using PLS-SEM is a technique that is able to model the concept of study
simultaneously and comprehensively. According to Hair, Ringle and Sarstedt (2011)
also PLS-SEM is involved in the evaluation of measurement model (Measurement
model) and Structural model (Structural model). Reflective and formative
measurements are measurements found in the measurement model in PLS-SEM. The
direction of cause and effect formed as a result of independent variables produces a
Reflective Measurement Model. Formative measurements are the result of indicators
or study items on independent variables. Aspect of prediction (prediction) that refers
to variance and is a data analysis technique emphasized by PLS-SEM. The change in
Rubahan variance is the change of R² in the structural model. Meanwhile, the t value
refers to the significant level and the critical t value in bootsrapping is used as an
indicator.

69
 The Effects of Training Transfer on TrainingProgram Evaluation and Effectiveness  of Training
Program

4 Findings
Findings of Partial Least Square- Sructural Equation Model (PLS-SEM) Model
Evaluation Study
Criteria for conducting PLS-SEM analysis need to be done to ensure that the PLS-
SEM criteria have met the required conditions before hypothesis testing is conducted.

Reflective Model Measurement Assessment

Instrument reliability analysis is done before the analysis for reflective model
evaluation is done which involves several features of the analysis findings, namely the
results of the analysis of the reliability of external load measurement (Factor
Loading), the findings of internal consistency analysis (Composite Realibity, CR),
and the findings of the average analysis of extracted variance (Average Variance).
Extracted, AVE).
Findings of the study results for the reliability of the Cronbach's Alpha dimensional
instrument instrument, The program evaluation variable for response is 0.88 and
learning is also 0.88, while the training transfer variable is 0.94. Cronbach alpha
values exceeding 0.60 are relevant and acceptable studies (Hair et al, 2010).
According to Chua (2012) stated that the cronbach alpha reliability score value of
0.65-0.79 is moderate and the cronbach alpha value of 0.80-0.95 has a high level of
reliability.
The results of the internal consistency analysis (Composite Realibity, CR), for the
dimensions of the program evaluation variables for response and learning are the
same at 0.91 and the CR value of the training transfer variable is 0.95. CR values with
a level value of 0.70 to 0.90 and above have a good level and are acceptable in
research (Gefen, Straub and Boundreu, 2000). Average Variance Extracted (AVE), is
the average value of all items against their respective constructs (Hair et al, 2014). To
achieve convergent validity, each construct must have a value of ≥0.50 for the
specified variance (Bagozzi & Yi, 1988; Fornell & Larkel, 1981; Hair et al., 2017).
The results of the analysis of extracted average variance (Average Variance
Extracted, AVE), for the dimensions The program evaluation variables for response
and learning are 0.59 and 0.63 values respectively while the AVE value for the
training transfer variable is 0.73.

Model Strength Assessment

Model Strength Assessment (Good of Fitness) needs to be done first before

conducting a structural model assessment. The criteria for evaluating the strength of
the model is to look at the value of SRMR (Standardized Root Mean Square
Residual). SRMR is the difference between relationship observation and the implicit
relationship in the model. According to Hu and Bentler (1999) SRMR values less than
≤0.10 or ≤0.08 can be considered as a strong model. According to Henseler et al.
(2014) SRMR value less ≤ 0.08 has a strong model and this SRMR value can help
avoid less robust model (Henseler et al., 2014). the result of the value obtained for the

70
Journal of Information and Knowledge Management (JIKM) Volume 11 Number 1 (2021)

model strength and the model strength value obtained in this study that is for the
SRMR value is 0.051 which is less than ≤ 0.08.

Formative Model Measurement Assessment

In this study, the variables of the effectiveness of the training program is a
formative model and this model needs to be evaluated before being tested with
variables or reflective dimensions. To evaluate this formative model there are three
procedures as stated by Hair et al. (2014) that is to determine the convergence
validity, test the validity of the coherence between the measurement and evaluation of
validation (significance) and relevance (relevance) of formative model items.
To determine the convergence validity in this study, the redundancy analysis
process needs to be carried out and Redundancy analysis can be done i.e. formative
constructs are converted to exogenous constructs with the aim of predicting the same
constructs by making them as reflective items or as a global single item (Hair et al.
2017). According to Hair et al. (2017) the path coefficient value is 0.70 and above
while for R bagi the minimum value is 0.50. The results of Redundancy Analysis
conducted on the formative model in this study found that the value for the path
coefficient is 0.869 and the value of R² is 0.756.
The evaluation of the value of collinearity is also done in the formative model and
the verification of the value of the collinearity refers to the relationship between the
items in the evaluation of the formative model. According to Hair et al., (2014) stated
the relationship between two (2) is known as Collinearity. Variance Inflation Factor
(VIF) is used to see the value of collinearity and the value of ≥VIF 5 or more has a
problem with the value of collinearity (Hair, Ringle & Sarsedt, 2011) while the value
of ≥VIF 3.3 or more has a problem of cholinearity issues as stated by Diamantopoulos
and Siguaw ( 2006). The results of the analysis findings for the value of Collinearity
in for formative models are between is between 2,156 to 4,099. Thus the collinearity
value of formative items can be used because VIF values ≤3.3 (Diamantopoulos &
Siguaw, 2006) and ≤ 5.0 (Hair, Ringle & Sarsedt, 2011).
In this study, the evaluation of significance and relevance is an evaluation of the
formative items that need to be done. Weighting values are an important factor in
determining the contribution of formative items. Outer Loading value (Outer
Loading) can be used to maintain formative items by referring to the boostrapping
result i.e. the value of external load is ≥ 0.5 and the value of t = 1.645 (Hair et al.,
2017). The results of the analysis in this study found that all formative items were
maintained because the value of external load exceeds 0.50 and the value of t is more
than 1.645 and also shows the results of significant relationship of variables.

Model Structure Assessment

One of the structural evaluations of the model performed is the verification of the
value of VIF (Variance Inflation Factor) so that no collinearity issues arise between
two or more variables. The results found that the values for the dimensions of the
evaluation variables of the training program for response and learning are 2.97
and 3.36 respectively. and and both VIF values are less than ≤ 5.0 (Hair, Ringle &
Sarstedt, 2011). Meanwhile, the values for the score determinant (R²) in the training
program evaluation variables against the training program effectiveness variables

71
 The Effects of Training Transfer on TrainingProgram Evaluation and Effectiveness  of Training
Program

were 0.98 (high) and 0.65 (medium) respectively. Hair et al. (2017) explained that R
nilai values = 0.75, 0.50 and 0.25 respectively have strong, medium and weak
predictive accuracy levels. The results of the study showed that the contribution of the
effect size of the effect size (f²) of the response and learning dimensions on the
endogenous variables were 0.03 (moderate) and 0.196 (moderate) respectively while
the contribution of the training transfer variable on the endogenous variable was
moderate with a value of f² 0.03. According to Cohen (1998), the values of f² = 0.35,
0.15 and 0.02 respectively show strong, moderate and weak.

Results of the Test Results of the Hypothesis of Direct Relationship Effects

The direct effect hypothesis test was performed after the analysis was performed
on all PLS-SEM criteria were achieved and met as explained in detail in the previous
section.

H1: There is a positive relationship between Training Program Evaluation

(Response) with Effectiveness of Training Program

The results of the analysis that has been done show that the Response Dimension for
the Training Program Evaluation variable has a positive effect on the Effectiveness of
the Training Program that is a significant level value is p = ≤0.05 with a value of t = t
= 2.127. Significant level values have a direct relationship is at the level of or less
than five percent (α = ≤0.05) for one-tailed test type (one-tailed test, t) and t value is
1.645 or more (Hair et al., 2017).

H2: There is a positive relationship between Training Program Assessment

(Learning) and Effectiveness of Training Program

The results of the analysis that has been done show that the Learning Dimension
for the Training Program Evaluation variable has a positive effect on the
Effectiveness of the Training Program that is a significant level value is p = ≤0.05
with a value of t = t
= 5.205. Significant level values have a direct relationship is at the level of or less
than five percent (α = ≤0.05) for one-tailed test type (one-tailed test, t) and t value is
1.645 or more (Hair et al., 2017).

Results of the Impact of Intermediary Training Transfer Variables on Training

Program Evaluation Relationships (Response and Learning) and Training Program
Effectiveness

Analysis can be done on Training transfer variables as a mediator because there is

a significant positive relationship Exogenous variables Training Program Evaluation
(Reaction and Learning) to endogenous variables of Training Program Effectiveness
as described earlier. According to Baron and Kenny (1986) there are three levels of
testing the effects of intermediate variables namely first test the influence of the direct
effect of exogenous variables on endogenous variables, second test the influence

72
Journal of Information and Knowledge Management (JIKM) Volume 11 Number 1 (2021)

of the direct effects of exogenous variables on endogenous variables and third test the
influence of direct effects of intermediate variables on endogenous variables.

Variance accounted for- VAF is performed if there is a significant direct effect of

exogenous constructs or variables on constructs or endogenous variables (Baron and
Kenny, 1988). VAF values suggested by Hair et al. (2016) to determine the status of
variables as full, partial or no intermediaries. VAF value less than 20% indicates no
mediation (no mediation), for VAF value over 20% and less than 80% is categorized
as partial mediation (partial mediation) and VAF value over 80% indicates full
mediation (Hair et al., 2017).

H3: Training Transfer as a mediating variable between Training Program Evaluation

(Response and Learning) and Training Program Effectiveness

The findings show that the VAF value for training transfer as a mediator between
the response dimension and the effectiveness of the training program is 61.1%, while
for the transfer of training as a mediator between the learning dimension and the
effectiveness of the training program has a VAF value of 62.5%. The VAF value of
training transfer between training program evaluation variables and training program
effectiveness is 44.1%. Therefore, the effect of training transfer as an intermediary
variable on the evaluation variables of the training program and the effectiveness of
the training program is partial mediation (partial mediation) because the VAF value is
more than 20% and less than 80%. (Hair et al., 2017).

5 Conclusion

Response is an important aspect in the evaluation of training programs conducted.

The evaluation of the response is even more realistic if the evaluation is obtained
from the feedback of the trainees themselves (Wang and Wang, 2006). Based on the
findings of the hypothesis of the response dimension of the value of p = ≤0.05 (β = -
0.028, t = 2.127) and it was found that the response dimension has a direct impact on
the effectiveness of the training program on the organization.
The concept of self-effectiveness is based on the theory of social learning and
according to this theory human beings learn by looking at others and believe this
person (model) has credibility and knowledge (Bandura, 1986). For the findings of
thelearning dimension, it is found that the value of p = ≤0.05 (β = 0.080, t = 5.205) as
stated earlier shows that there is a positive significant relationship of the learning
dimension to the effectiveness of the training program. According to Al-Eisa et al.
(2009) stated that trainees with high confidence will apply the new knowledge and
skills they acquired during training and will be used in the workplace. The way of
learning depends on the level of education and skills of the trainees because these two
aspects will help determine the effectiveness of the training program (Abdullah &
Mohammad, 2017).
The results of the hypothesis show that the effect of training transfer between the
evaluation of training programs and the effectiveness of training programs has

73
 The Effects of Training Transfer on TrainingProgram Evaluation and Effectiveness  of Training
Program

contributed to the VAF value between 20 percent to 80 percent that occurs in the
Library at Universiti Teknologi Mara. The results of this hypothesis are supported by
Nijman (2004) states that the support of the supervisor as a mediator (mediator) can
change the situation in the workplace, and the supervisor provides support to the
trainee provided the training program can be improved. Good communication
management methods by supervisors in the workplace will result in higher
understanding and good results among employees (Mesmer-Magnus et al., 2018).
Supervisors use good means of communication to increase job satisfaction among
employees, especially the relationship between the head and the employee (Robert et
al., 2016). According to Kauffeld and Lehmman-Willenbrock (2010) also found that
the transfer of training can improve the atmosphere in the real workplace by trying the
content of training after training.
Therefore, the staff who have undergone training at PTAR Shah Alam need to
share the skills, knowledge and attitudes acquired with friends at their workplace to
further strengthen everything related to the training obtained.

References

Abdullah Al-Swiddi & Mohammad Al Yahya. (2017). Training Transfer Intention and Training
Effectiveness: Assessing the gender differences using multi-group structural equation
modelling approach, International Journal of Organizational AnalysiS 25(5), 839-860.
Alliger, G.M., Tannenbaum, S.I., Bennett, W. Jr, Traver, H. and Shotland, A. (1997). A meta-
analysis of the relations among training criteria, Personnel Psychology 50, 341-58.
Al-Eisa, A.S., Furayyan, M.A. and Alhemoud, A.H. (2009). An empirical examination of the
effects of self-efficacy, supervisor support and motivation to learn on transfer intention,
Management Decision 47 (8), 1221-44.
Baldwin T.T, and Ford, J.K. (1988). Transfer of Training: A Review and Directions for Future
Research, Personnel Psychology 41(2), pp. 63-105.
Bagozzi, R.P. & Yi, Y. (1998). On the evaluation of structural equation model, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing SciencE 16(1), 74-94. http://doi.org/10.1007/BF02723327
Baldwin, T.T., Magjuka, R.J. and Loher, B.T. (1991). The perils of participation: effects of
choice of training on training motivation and learning, Personnel Psychology 44, pp. 51-65
Bandura, A. (1986). Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory,
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Bhatti, M.A., Ali, S., Isa, M., Faizal, M. and Mohamed Battour, M. (2014). Training transfer
and transfer motivation: the influence of individual, environmental, situational, training
design, and affective reaction factors, Performance Improvement Quarterly 27 (1), 51-82.
Bhatti, M.A., Battour, M.M., Sundram, V.P.K. and Othman, A.A. (2013). Transfer of training:
does it truly happen? An examination of support, instrumentality, retention and learner
readiness on the transfer motivation and transfer of training, European Journal of Training
and Development 37(3), 273-297
Billari, F i.C., Philipov, D. and Testa, M.R. (2009). Attitudes, norms and perceived behavioural
control: explaining fertility ntentions in Bulgaria, European Journal of Population 25 (4),
439-465.
Bowes B. (2008). Employees Development Programs Help Companies Achieve Greater
Success, CMA Management, 13-14

74
Journal of Information and Knowledge Management (JIKM) Volume 11 Number 1 (2021)

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 and
Organization Management 18, 292-307
Cohen, J. (1998). Statistical power analysis for the behavirol science (2nd ed). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrance Erlbaum Associates
Cooper, C., Kong, D.T. and Crossley, C., 2018. Leader humor as an interpersonal resource:
integrating three theoretical perspectives, Academy of Management Journal, 61(2), 769-796.
Chiaburu, D.S., Van Dam, K. and Hutchins, H.M. (2010). Social support in the workplace
and training effectiveness: a longitudinal analysis, International Journal of Selection and
Assessment 18 (2), 187-200.
Chiaburu, D.S. and Tekleab, A.G. (2005). Individual and contextual influences on multiple
dimensions of training effectiveness, Journal of European Industrial Training 29 (8), 604-
626.
Chiaburu, D.S. and Marinova, S.V. (2005). What predicts skill transfer? An exploratory studyof
goal orientation, training self-efficacy and organizational supports, International Journal of
Training and Development 9(2), 110-23.
Clark, C.S., Dobbins, G.H. and Ladd, R.T. (1993). Exploratory field study of training
motivation: influence of involvement, credibility, and transfer climate, Group and
Organization Management 18(3), 292-307.
DeSimone, R.L., Werner, J.M. and Harris, D.M. (2002). Human resource development,
Thompson Learning, Inc.
Devos, C., Dumay, X., Bonami, M., Bates, R. and Holton, E. III. (2007). The learning transfer
system inventory (LTSI) translated into French: internal structure and predictive validity,
International Journal of Training and Development 11(3), 181-99.
Diamantopoulos, A. & J.A Siguaw. (2006). Formative versus refletive indicators in
organizational measure development: A comparison and empirical illustration, British
Journal of Management, 17(4), 263-282.
Fornell C., and Larcker, D. (1981). Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable
Variables and Measurement Error. Journal of Marketing Research. 18(3), 39-50.
http://doi.org/10.2307/3151312
Gefen, D. Straud, D., & Boudreau, M-C. (2000). Structural equation modelling and regression:
Guidlelines for research practice. Communication of the Association for Information Systems
4(1), p.7.
Goldstein, I.L. and Ford, J.K. (2007). Training in Organizations, 4th edition, Wadsworth,
New Delhi.
Gregoire, T.K., Propp, J. and Poertner, J. (1998). The supervisor role in the transfer of training,
Administration in Social Work 22 (1), 1-18.
Hair Jr, J.F., Babin, B.J., & Krey, N. (2017). Convariance-Based Structural Equation Modeling
in the Journal of Advertising: Review and Recommendations. Journal of Advertising, p. 1-
15.
Hair, J.F, Hult.T.M Ringle, C.M, & Sarstedt, M. (2017). A Primer on partial least square
structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM). Sage Publications.
Hair, J. F., Sarstedt, M., & Mena J.A. (2012). An Assessment of the use of partial least square
structural equation modelling in matkering research, Marketing Research 7, 414-433
Hair, J.F., Ringle, C.M., & Sarsedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed a Silver Bullet. Journal of
Marketing Theory and Practice, 19(2), 139-151
Hair, J.F, Ringle C.M & Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed a Silver Bullet,
The Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice 19(2), p.139-152.
https://doi.org/10.2753/MTP1069-6679190202
Henseler, J. Dijkstra, T.K, Sarstedt, M., Ringle,C.M, Diamantopoulos,A. Detmar W.

75
 The Effects of Training Transfer on TrainingProgram Evaluation and Effectiveness  of Training
Program

Straub, D.W.,Hair, J.F, Jr., Hult, G.T.M., Calantone, R.J. (2014). Common Beliefs and
Reality About PLS: Comments on Ronkko and Evermann. Organizational Research
Methods, 17 (2), 182-209. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428114526928
Ibrahim Mamat. (2001). Effective design and successful management of training, Kuala
Lumpur, Eastview Publication Sdn. Bhd.
Iyer,R., Pardiwalla, P., and Bathia, J. (2009). Training Evaluation Practices in Indian
Organizations, HRD News Letter 25(8), 35-37
Jessica Mesmer-Magnus, Rebecca Guidice, Martha Andrews and Robert Oechslin. (2018). The
Effect of Supervisor Humour On Employee Attitudes, Journal of ManagementDevelopment
37 (9-10), 697-710.
Kasim, R.S. and Ali, S. (2011). Measuring training transfer performance items among
academic staff of higher education institution in Malaysia using Rasch Measurement 2,
IEEE Colloquium on Humanities, Science and Engineering Research (CHUSER), Penang,
5-6 December.
Kirwan, C. and Birchall, D. (2006). Transfer of learning from management development
programmes: testing the Holton model, International Journal of Training and Development
10 (4), 252-268
Kauffeld, S. and Lehmann-Willenbrock, N. (2010). Sales training: effects of spaced practice
and training transfer, Journal of European Industrial Training 34 (1), 23-37.
Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Kirkpatrick, W. K. (2016). Kirkpatrick's four levels of training
Evaluation, Alexandria, V.A., ATD Press.
Kraiger, K., Ford, J.K. and Salas, E. (1993). Application of cognitive, skill-based, and affective
theories of learning outcomes to new methods of training evaluation, Journal of Applied
Psychology 78, 311-28.
Lancsaster, G., 2005. Research methods in management A concise introduction to research in
management and business consultancy, UK: Elseiver Butterworth-Heinenmann.
Latham, G.P. and Frayne, C. (1989). Self-management training for increasing job attendance: a
follow-up and a replication, Journal of Applied Psychology (74), 411-16.
Latham, G.P. and Saari, L.M. (1979). The application of social learning theory to training
supervisors through behavioral modeling, Journal of Applied Psychology 64 (3), 239- 46.
Lim, D.H. and Johnson, S.D. (2002). Trainee perceptions of factors that influence learning
transfer, International Journal of Training and Development 6 (1), 37-49.
Mathieu, J.E., Tannenbaum, S.I. and Salas, E. (1992). Influences of individual and situational
characteristics on measures of training effectiveness, Academy of Management Journal 35,
828-47.
McManus, T. and Delaney, D. (2007). Dave Delaney’s useful advice for your development asa
manager, Journal of Management Development 26 (5), 468-474.
Mesmer-Magnus, J., Glew, D.J. and Viswesvaran, C. (2012). A meta-analysis of positive
humor in the workplace, Journal of Managerial Psychology 27 (2), 155-190.
Meyer, J.P. and Allen, N.J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational
commitment, Human Resource Management Review 1 (1), 61-89.
Milhem, W., Abushamsieh, K., & Pérez Aróstegui, M. (2014). Training strategies, theories and
types. Journal of Accounting, Business & Management, 21(1), 1226.
Morgan, R.B. and Casper, W.J. (2000). Examining the factor structure of participant reactionsto
training: a multimedia approach, Human Resource Development Quarterly 11(3), 301-17.
Mullins, M.E., Fisher, S.L., Howell, A.W., Schmitt, N. and Kozlowski, S.W.J. (1998).
Motivational and contextual influences on training effectiveness: a field study, Training
Research Journal 4, 11-26.
Nagar,V. (2009). Measuring Training Effectiveness, The Indian Journal of Commerce 62(4),
86-90.

76
Journal of Information and Knowledge Management (JIKM) Volume 11 Number 1 (2021)

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 30(7), 529-549.
Nijman, D.J.J.M. (2004). Supporting transfer of training: effects of the supervisor, Doctoral
Dissertation, University of Twente, Enschede.
Nikandrou, I., Brinia, V. and Bereri, E. (2009). Trainee perceptions of training transfer: an
empirical analysis, Journal of European Industrial Training 33(3), 255-270.
Noe, R.A. and Schmitt, N. (1986). The influence of trainee attitudes on training effectiveness:
test of a model, Personnel Psychology 39, 497-523.
Robert, C., Dunne, T.C. and Iun, J. (2016). The impact of leader humor on subordinate job
satisfaction, The Crucial Role of Leader-Subordinate Relationship Quality 41(1), 375- 456.
Ruona, W.E.A., Leimbach, M., Holton, E.F. and Bates, R. (2002). The relationship between
learner utility reactions and predicted learning transfer among trainees, International
Journal of Training and Development 6(4), 218-28.
Russell, J.S., Terborg, J.R. and Powers, M.L. (1985). Organizational performance and
organizational level training and support, Personnel Psychology 38, 849-63.
Saks, A.M. (1995). Longitudinal field investigation of the moderating and mediating effects of
self-efficacy on the relationship between training and newcomer adjustment, Journal of
Applied Psychology 80, 211-25.
Tannenbaum, S.I., Mathieu, J.E., Salas, E. and Cannon-Bowers, J.A., 1991. Meeting trainees’
expectations: the influence of training fulfillment on the development of commitment, self-
efficacy, and motivation, Journal of Applied Psychology 76, 759-69.
Tannenbaum, S.I., and Yukl, G. (1992). Training and development in work organizations,
Annual Review of Psychology 43, 399-441.
Van Buren, M.E. (2001). The 2001 American Society Traning Development (ASTD) State
of the Industry Report, ASTD, Alexandria, VA.
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 11(4), 282-94.
Wang, G.G. and Wang, J. (2006). HRD evaluation: emerging market barriers, and theory
building, Advances in Developing Human Resource 7(1), 22-36.
Warr, P., Allan, C. and Birdi, K. (1999). Predicting three levels of training outcomes, Journal
of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 72, 351-75.
Wexley, K.N. and Latham, G.P. (2002). Developing and Training Human Resources in
Organizations , 3rd ed., Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New York, NY.
Wexley, K.N. and Baldwin, T.T. (1986). Post-training strategies for facilitating positive
transfer: an empirical exploration, Academy of Management Journal 29, 503-20.

77