Home · C33
C33 alive
Organised workplace training for adults raises what they learn and how they behave on the job by about half a standard deviation or more on average, compared with untrained comparison groups.
- Status
- alive
- Last change
- 2026-11-11
- Serves
- Q1 (How do humans actually learn, and what helps them learn best?)
- Ages
- vuxen-livslangt
- Area
- Adult / workplace learning
- Bounds
- Formal training programmes in organisations, judged by learning tests and on-the-job behaviour; not reactions or company results alone. Evidence on file: Lacerenza, Reyes, Marlow, Joseph & Salas 2017 (Journal of Applied Psychology, DOI 10.1037/apl0000241; abstract only): leadership training improved learning (δ = .73) and transfer to the job (δ = .82); stronger with practice, feedback and spaced face-to-face sessions. Arthur, Bennett, Edens & Bell 2003 (Journal of Applied Psychology, DOI 10.1037/0021-9010.88.2.234; full text read 2026-11-07): sample-weighted d = 0.63 for learning (k = 234, N = 15,014) and 0.62 for behavioural criteria (k = 122, N = 15,627); supports the claim's size (not an attack). Weak spots of this meta-analysis (corrected 2026-11-11, from "many evaluations are pre-post or self-report"): single-group before-and-after designs were excluded (p. 237) and self-reported reactions are a separate criterion (k = 15), but whether studies were randomised was never coded, there is no publication-bias check, nearly all effects come from journal articles of 1960–2000, and the intervals printed as "95% CI" (learning −0.53 to 1.79; behaviour 0.05 to 1.19) show how widely effects spread across studies, not how precise the averages are (Table 1, p. 239). Where the same 17 studies (N = 839) measured both, job behaviour came out smaller than learning (d = 0.44 vs 0.66). Without a study-quality filter it cannot test the kill line either way.
- What would kill this
- A meta-analysis of workplace-training evaluations finds learning and on-the-job behaviour effects near zero (below about 0.2 SD) once study-quality filters are applied. Promoted from K62 on 2026-10-29 in the bold expansion Jonatan approved after four empty attack nights (26–29 Oct): new sharp claims in thin areas, each naming a comparison, a rough size or direction and a population.
- Tutor consequence
- none yet
Attack record
No attacks yet
No attack is counted against this claim yet.
Corrections to our notes
These fix a number or a fact in our notes. They are not attacks and do not count toward the floor of 3 survivals.
- — C33's limits name the weak spot of the evidence as "many evaluations are pre-post or self-report", which is not accurate for Arthur et al. 2003, the main full-text source.
Linked sources
4 linked sources (2 supports, 2 limits)
Supports (2)
| Source | Basis |
|---|---|
| WORK-001 · Effectiveness of training in organizations: A meta-analysis of design and evaluation features (2003) | Full text (2026-11-07; checked 2026-11-11): d = 0.63 learning (k = 234), 0.62 behavioural (k = 122); single-group pre-post designs excluded, but randomisation and publication bias not checked; where the same studies measured both, behaviour 0.44 vs learning 0.66 (k = 17). Supports C33 size; not an attack. Powell & Yalcin 2010 still closed. |
| WORK-002 · Leadership training design, delivery, and implementation: A meta-analysis (2017) | Abstract: learning δ = .73, transfer δ = .82. |
Limits (2)
| Source | Basis |
|---|---|
| WORK-004 · Managerial training effectiveness: A meta-analysis 1952-2002 (2010) | Abstract: 85 managerial-training interventions, 4,779 subjects, 1952–2002; effect sizes "remained moderate" and did not improve much over the period; learning outcomes had the largest effects and were consistently significant relative to behaviour and results. No numeric effect sizes in the abstract. Closed; already noted as closed on 2026-11-07. |
| WORK-005 · A Meta-Analytic Review of Behavior Modeling Training (2005) | Abstract: 117 studies of behaviour modelling training; effects largest on learning, smaller on job behaviour, smaller still on results; declarative knowledge decayed while skill and behaviour effects held or grew. No effect sizes in the abstract, so it bounds the "learning and behaviour" bundling rather than testing the size. Closed. |
Review state: first-pass draft, pending human review.