A test of Noe's training effectiveness model: A revision and expansion

Date of Completion

January 1995


Psychology, Industrial




Based on the work of Noe (1985; Noe & Schmitt, 1986), a revised and expanded training effectiveness model was tested that investigated the causal role of trainee and environmental characteristics on a trainee's motivation to learn in training. Furthermore, motivation to learn was hypothesized to have a causal effect on both learning (moderated by reaction to training) and affective organizational commitment (mediated by reaction to training). In addition, cognitive ability was predicted to be causally related to learning.^ One hundred employees of a national, private engineering consulting company (PECC) who attended one of 12 courses conducted during the data collection period participated in the study as experimental group members. An additional ninety-four PECC employees who did not attend training during the data collection period participated as control group members. Both sets of participants completed a Phase I and Phase II survey. For the experimental group, training intervened between Phase I and Phase II; for the control group, a comparable length of time intervened between the Phase I and Phase II surveys, although no training took place.^ The proposed model was tested based on structural equation modeling (SEM) techniques using LISREL VIII (Joreskog & Sorbom, 1994). Based on the findings of initial analyses and theoretical support, the model was revised slightly. Analyses of the modified model indicated a good model fit. The results of the study suggest that, as hypothesized, intrinsic incentives for attending training, intellect, and choice to attend training were positive antecedents of motivation to learn. Contrary to prediction, extrinsic incentives for attending training and conscientiousness were negative antecedents of motivation to learn. Job involvement was found to be directly related to affective organizational commitment. The predicted moderated relationship between motivation to learn and learning by reaction to training was not supported; instead, a mediated relationship was found. The predicted mediated relationship between motivation to learn and affective organizational commitment was not found. Practical implications and suggestions for future research are discussed. ^