Using evidence-based practices to enhance transfer of training: assessing the effectiveness of goal setting and behavioural observation scales
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using evidence-based practices we designed goal setting interventions, used in conjunction with behavioural observation scales (BOS), to facilitate transfer from a 2-day performance coaching programme. A total of 210 managers from public sector organisations took part in the study. Transfer was assessed using self-administered surveys and subordinate feedback (in the form of BOS). Transfer was high across all measures; however, our experimental design did not detect any positive effects for learning or behavioural outcome goals relative to being urged to Do Your Best (DYB). Results suggest that providing managers with BOS that outline the key skills covered in the training programme, having them set goals or urging them to do their best to use these skills back at work, and having workplace colleagues assess their performance at work using these BOS, may be sufficient to bring about transfer.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it