Suchergebnisse

This paper applies the conceptual work of K. Kraiger, J. K. Ford, and E. Salas (1993) to the evaluation of two training programs. A method known as structural assessment (SA) was described and adapted for use in the evaluation of a training program for computer programming and a PC-based simulation of a naval decision-making task. SA represents and evaluates pairwise judgments of relatedness of concepts drawn from the training content domain. In the first study, SA scores of students (determined by similarity to an expert solution) were significantly higher after training than before but did not predict performance on a take-home exam 12 weeks later. In the second study, we manipulated training content by providing half the students with the goals and objectives of the transfer task (an advance organizer) before training and providing the other half with the same information after training. As hypothesized, SA scores were higher for those receiving the organizers before training; SA scores were also more strongly related to performance on the criterion task for this group. Implications of the results for training evaluation are discussed.

PurposeTo examine how perceptions of complementary and supplementary fit and relationship quality contribute to successful mentorship co-creation.Design/methodology/approachData were collected via cross-sectional survey of 145 mentor–protégé dyads within institutions of higher education in the USA. Mentors evaluated their perceptions of supplementary and complementary fit and relationship quality with their protégés and vice versa. Additionally, mentors evaluated their protégés' performance, whereas protégés reported on their own learning. Data were analyzed using the actor–partner interdependence model.FindingsResults suggest that one's own fit perceptions are most important in predicting one's evaluation of relationship quality. Additionally, for both mentor and protégé, complementary fit and supplementary fit predict evaluations of relationship quality to a similar degree. Finally, each person's perceptions of relationship quality mediated the relationships between their own perceptions of fit and mentor-rated protégé performance, but not the relationships between perceptions of fit and protégé-rated learning.Originality/valueResearch has often studied mentorships from the perspective of one party, which limits our understanding of mentorship co-creation. This study investigates how both parties simultaneously contribute to mentorship success, as indicated by protégé learning and performance. Additionally, the authors clarify the extent to which perceptions of different types of fit are instrumental in co-creating successful mentorships.

Objective: The present study investigated factors that explain when and why different groups of teammates are more likely to request and accept backup from one another when needed in an environment characterized by extreme time pressure and severe consequences of error: commercial air traffic control (ATC). Background: Transactive memory theory states that teammates develop consensus regarding the distribution of their relative expertise as well as confidence in that expertise over time and that this facilitates coordination processes. The present study investigated whether this theory could help to explain between-team differences in requesting and accepting backup when needed. Method: The present study used cross-sectional data collected from 51 commercial ATC teams. Hypotheses were tested using multiple regression analysis. Results: Teammates with greater experience working together requested and accepted backup from one another more than those with lesser experience working together. Teammate knowledge consensus and perceived team efficacy appear to have mediated this relationship. Conclusion: Transactive memory theory extends to high-stress environments in which members' expertise is highly overlapping. Teammates' shared mental models about one another increase the likelihood that they will request and accept backup. Application: Teammate familiarity should be considered when choosing among potential replacement team members. Training strategies that accelerate the development of teammate knowledge consensus and team efficacy are warranted.