FACTOR REASON FOR REMOVAL

Reaction This variable is not significantly correlated with learning (Noe & Schmitt 1986; Alliger & Janak 1989; Dixon 1990) and is not found to moderate the relationship between motivation to learn and learning (Seyler et al. 1998). Further, reaction was not hypothesised in Holton (1996) model to have an influence on motivation to transfer.

Learning The researcher did not have the opportunity to examine whether the material used for the performance test during training were representative measures of the learning that took place during training. external events, organisational performance and linkage to organisational goals

These factors are not related with motivation to transfer training (Holton 1996).

3.2.1 The Research Questions

Based on the conceptual framework, this thesis attempts to answer the six specific research questions:

Research Question One:

Which of these transfer of training variables: • motivation to transfer;

• secondary influences (performance-self efficacy, learner readiness);

• expected utility (transfer effort-performance expectations, performance- outcomes expectations);

59

• transfer climate (feedback, peer support, supervisor support, openness to change, personal outcomes-positive, personal outcomes-negative, supervisor sanctions);

• ability (personal capacity for transfer, opportunity to use); • enabling (content validity, transfer design); and

• TPB (sharing behaviour, intention to share, attitude toward knowledge sharing, subjective norms toward knowledge sharing, perceived behavioural control toward knowledge sharing) are significantly different in terms of their mean score across different training types (general training, management/leadership training, computer training)?

Research Question Two:

Which of these transfer of training variables: • motivation to transfer;

• secondary influences (performance-self efficacy, learner readiness);

• expected utility (transfer effort-performance expectations, performance- outcomes expectations);

• transfer climate (feedback, peer support, supervisor support, openness to change, personal outcomes-positive, personal outcomes-negative, supervisor sanctions);

• ability (personal capacity for transfer, opportunity to use), • enabling (content validity, transfer design); and

• TPB (sharing behaviour, intention to share, attitude toward knowledge sharing, subjective norms toward knowledge sharing, perceived behavioural control toward knowledge sharing) are significantly different in terms of their mean score across trainees’ demographics (gender, age, level of education, work experience, position of employment)?

60 Research Question Three:

Which of these transfer of training variables:

• secondary influences (performance-self efficacy, learner readiness);

• expected utility (transfer effort-performance expectations, performance- outcomes expectations);

• transfer climate (feedback, peer support, supervisor support, openness to change, personal outcomes-positive, personal outcomes-negative, supervisor sanctions);

• ability (personal capacity for transfer, opportunity to use); and

• enabling (content validity, transfer design) serve as key significant predictors of one’s motivation to transfer training?

Research Question Four:

Is the variable: intention to share significantly correlated with sharing behaviour and is sharing behaviour significantly correlated with motivation to transfer?

Research Question Five:

What are the significant predictors of intention to share?

Research Question Six:

What are the direct and indirect relationships (via the significant predictors identified in research question three) between sharing behaviour and motivation to transfer? In order to answer the above research questions, this thesis formulated a series of hypotheses (H1 to H10) and they are stated in Table 3.2:

61 Table 3.2 The Statement of Hypotheses

Hypothesis (H)

1 H1: These transfer of training variables: motivation to transfer; secondary influences (performance-self efficacy, learner readiness); expected utility (transfer effort-performance expectations, performance-outcomes expectations); transfer climate (feedback, peer support, supervisor support, openness to change, personal outcomes-positive, personal outcomes- negative, supervisor sanctions); ability (personal capacity for transfer, opportunity to use), enabling (content validity, transfer design) and TPB (sharing behaviour, intention to share, attitude toward knowledge sharing, subjective norms toward knowledge sharing, perceived behavioural control toward knowledge sharing) are significantly different in terms of their mean score across different training types (general training, management/leadership training, computer training).

2 H2: These transfer of training variables: motivation to transfer; secondary influences (performance-self efficacy, learner readiness); expected utility (transfer effort-performance expectations and performance-outcomes expectations); transfer climate (feedback, peer support, supervisor support, openness to change, personal outcomes-positive, personal outcomes-negative, supervisor sanctions); ability (personal capacity for transfer and opportunity to use), enabling (content validity and transfer design) and TPB (sharing behaviour, intention to share, attitude toward knowledge sharing, subjective norms toward knowledge sharing and perceived behavioural control toward knowledge sharing) are significantly different in terms of their mean score across trainees’ demographics (gender, age, level of education, work experience, position of employment).

3 H3: Secondary influences variables (performance-self efficacy, learner readiness) will explain a significant proportion of variance in motivation to transfer.

H4: Expected utility variables (transfer effort-performance expectations, performance- outcomes expectations) will explain a significant proportion of variance in motivation to transfer.

H5: Transfer climate variables (feedback, peer support, supervisor support, openness to change, personal outcomes-positive, personal outcomes-negative, supervisor sanctions) will explain a significant proportion of variance in motivation to transfer.

H6: Enabling variables (content validity, transfer design) will explain a significant proportion of variance in motivation to transfer.

H7: Ability variables (personal capacity for transfer, opportunity to use) will explain a significant proportion of variance in motivation to transfer.

4 H8: Intention to share will be significantly correlated to sharing behaviour and sharing behaviour will be significantly correlated to motivation to transfer.

5 H9: Attitude, subjective norm and perceived behavioural control toward knowledge sharing will explain a significant proportion of variance in intention to share.

6 H10: Sharing behaviour will have a direct and indirect relationship (via the significant predictors identified in research question three) with motivation to transfer.

62

This section described the conceptual framework developed for this study. The framework was derived from four key HRD models with respect to their contribution to understanding the concept of one’s motivation to transfer training. From the conceptual framework, six research questions and 10 hypotheses were presented as the key areas of inquiry for this study. The next section describes the methodology chosen to test the 10 hypotheses formulated in this thesis in order to answer the six research questions.

3.3

Methodology

This section chronicles the methodology utilised for the thesis commencing with a description of the questionnaire design, the sample chosen and the procedures undertaken for data collection. The chapter then moves to consider how data screening was conducted, how the checking of multivariate assumptions was undertaken and how construct validity and reliability were examined. The final part of this section describes the statistical techniques used for hypothesis testing.

3.3.1 Questionnaire Design

The variables depicted in the conceptual framework were measured using multiple items in the questionnaire. For this reason, the researcher searched the literature to find validated scales for the 21 constructs. However, it was found that only sample of items were reported (normally one item) in the journals and some of the scales were copyrighted (Holton et al. 2000). Thus, the researcher developed the scales to measure the 21 constructs and the leading methodologists in scale development were consulted (Cavana et al. 2001; Churchill 1979; De Vellis 2003; Hinkin 1995; Spector 1992).

The survey instrument was developed in Bahasa Malaysia (Malay Languange) and the English version was included in Appendix A for reporting purposes. It comprised of a 87 Likert item questionnaire designed to measure the constructs under study. The questionnaire utilised a five-point scale that ranged from ‘1=Strongly Disagree’ to

63

‘5=Strongly Agree’. Questionnaire design followed a framework of nine steps which is described below.

The Framework of Questionnaire Design

The framework used to develop the questionnaire was based on Churchill (1979:66), Spector (1992:8) and Cavana et al. (2001:228). Churchill’s (1979) framework was originally developed for marketing research but it has been applied to other disciplines as well such as for developing a measure of knowledge management behaviours and practices (Darroch 2003); for developing a measure of participative decision making (Parnell & Bell 1994); and for developing a measure of online learning (Fortune, Shifflett & Sibley 2006). Spector’s (1992) framework was developed purposely for summated rating scales (multiple item scales) and therefore, was considered appropriate for this thesis. Finally, Cavana et al.’s (2001) framework was used in this study because it takes into account the principle of wording and the general appearance of the questionnaire. The three frameworks were modified to the needs of this thesis. The modified framework consists of nine steps as depicted in Figure 3.2 and detailed below.