Understanding Frame-of-Reference Training Success: A Social Learning Theory Perspective

Employing the social learning theory (SLT) perspective on training, we analyzed the effects of alternative frame-of-reference (FOR) training protocols on various criteria of training effectiveness. Undergraduate participants (N=65) were randomly assigned to one of four FOR training conditions and a control condition. Training effectiveness was determined via trainee reactions, learning and rating accuracy. The results partially supported the study hypotheses: compared to the control group, the more comprehensive FOR training conditions evidenced: (1) significantly higher rating accuracy' (2) significantly higher levels of learning' and (3) more favorable reactions to the training. The discussion focuses on the implications of the results for protocol development when designing FOR training programs.

[1]  Elaine D. Pulakos,et al.  The development of training programs to increase accuracy with different rating tasks , 1986 .

[2]  Michael J. Burke,et al.  A Cumulative Study of the Effectiveness of Managerial Training , 1986 .

[3]  G. Latham,et al.  Application of social-learning theory to training supervisors through behavioral modeling. , 1979 .

[4]  A. Bandura.  Social Foundations of Thought and Action , 1986 .

[5]  L. Sjodahl.  Evaluation of Training. , 1975 .

[6]  David V. Day,et al.  Effects of frame-of-reference training on rater accuracy under alternative time delays , 1994 .

[7]  L. Sulsky,et al.  Impact of Frame-of-Reference and Behavioral Observation Training on Alternative Training Effectiveness Criteria in a Canadian Military Sample , 2001 .

[8]  Craig Eric Schneier,et al.  Developing and Training Human Resources in Organizations , 1983 .

[9]  L. Cronbach.  Processes affecting scores on understanding of others and assumed similarity. , 1955, Psychological bulletin.

[10]  Walter C. Borman,et al.  Exploring upper limits of reliability and validity in job performance ratings. , 1978 .

[11]  Martha Reeves,et al.  Evaluation of Training , 1993 .

[12]  Rebecca B. Mann,et al.  The Effect of Key Behavior Distinctiveness on Generalization and Recall in Behavior Modeling Training , 1984 .

[13]  William K. Balzer,et al.  Meaning and measurement of performance rating accuracy: Some methodological and theoretical concerns. , 1988 .

[14]  D. Day,et al.  Frame-of-reference training and cognitive categorization: an empirical investigation of rater memory issues. , 1992, The Journal of applied psychology.

[15]  M. Doherty,et al.  Effects of cognitive feedback on performance. , 1989 .

[16]  David V. Day,et al.  Effects of frame-of-reference training and information configuration on memory organization and rating accuracy. , 1995 .

[17]  David J. Woehr,et al.  Understanding frame-of-reference training: the impact of training on the recall of performance information , 1994 .

[18]  Robert M. McIntyre,et al.  Effect of rater training on rater accuracy: Levels-of-processing theory and social facilitation theory perspectives. , 1987 .

[19]  John E. Hunter,et al.  QUESTIONING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF BEHAVIOR MODELING TRAINING IN AN INDUSTRIAL SETTING , 1984 .

[20]  Elaine D. Pulakos,et al.  A comparison of rater training programs: Error training and accuracy training. , 1984 .

[21]  M. Smith,et al.  Training in Organizations , 1991 .

[22]  Robert L. Craig,et al.  Training and development handbook: A guide to human resource development , 1976 .

[23]  Stephen J. Romano,et al.  Role Playing , 2008, Behavior modification.

[24]  Irwin L. Goldstein,et al.  Training in Organizations , 2001 .

[25]  Thomas J. Keefe,et al.  Observational Purpose and Evaluative Articulation in Frame-of-Reference Training: The Effects of Alternative Processing Modes on Rating Accuracy , 1994 .