The Effect of Mental Practice and Goal Setting as a Transfer of Training Intervention on Supervisors’ Self‐efficacy and Communication Skills: An Exploratory Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mental practice, where goal setting was either implicit or explicit, was investigated in a pulp and paper mill as a post‐training intervention with regard to self‐efficacy and the transfer of newly taught communication skills to the work setting. Six months after the supervisors had been trained, a 2×2 ANCOVA showed that self‐efficacy was significantly higher for the supervisors who engaged in either mental practice or in mental practice combined with goal setting than for those in the goal setting only or control conditions. Self‐efficacy correlated significantly with goal commitment and communication skills on the job. Hierarchical regression analysis indicated that the supervisor’s imagery skills moderated the effect of mental practice on self‐efficacy. Both the supervisors in the mental practice and in the goal setting and mental practice conditions were observed by peers to have improved their communication behaviour on the job. No change in communication behaviour was observed on the part of supervisors who set goals but did not engage in mental practice or were assigned to the control group.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".