Cited by 1,477Human Resource Development and Performance EvaluationInnovative Education and Learning PracticesCompetency Development and Evaluation

Transfer of Training: A Meta-Analytic Review

Blume, Brian D., Ford, J. Kevin, Baldwin, Timothy T., Huang, Jason L.·2010·Journal of Management

Abstract

Although transfer of learning was among the very first issues addressed by early psychologists, the extant literature remains characterized by inconsistent measurement of transfer and significant variability in findings. This article presents a meta-analysis of 89 empirical studies that explore the impact of predictive factors (e.g., trainee characteristics, work environment, training interventions) on the transfer of training to different tasks and contexts. We also examine moderator effects of the relationships between these predictors and transfer. Results confirmed positive relationships between transfer and predictors such as cognitive ability, conscientiousness, motivation, and a supportive work environment. Several moderators had significant effects on transfer relationships, including the nature of the training objectives. Specifically, most predictor variables examined (e.g., motivation, work environment) had stronger relationships to transfer when the focus of training was on open (e.g., leadership development) as opposed to closed (e.g., computer software) skills. Other moderators related to the measurement of transfer also influenced transfer relationships, including situations in which transfer outcomes were obtained by the same source in the same measurement context— which consistently inflated transfer relationships. Findings are discussed in terms of their relevance for future research and training practice.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0149206309352880

Cites

144 of 144 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Les conclusions de Baldwin et Ford (1988) sur le transfert ont été reconfirmées dans une publication plus récente.

    “les conclusions de Baldwin et Ford évoquées en 1988 ont été reconfirmées dans une publication plus récente (Blume, Ford, Baldwin et Huang, 2010).”

    From Enseignement explicite et développement decompétences : antinomie ou nécessité? (2020) · cites this paper as Blume, Ford, Baldwin et Huang, 2010

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Blume, B. D., Ford, J. K., Baldwin, T. T., & Huang, J. L.
Affiliations
  • University of Michigan (US)
  • Michigan State University (US)
  • Indiana University (US)
Venue
Journal of Management
Published
2009-12-16
Volume
36
Issue
4
Pages
1065-1105
ISSN
  • 0149-2063 (ISSN-L)
  • 1557-1211
OpenAlex
W2165041900
Cited by
1,477
References
144
Citations by year
2026: 106 · 2025: 100 · 2024: 88 · 2023: 100 · 2022: 103 · 2021: 125 · 2020: 114 · 2019: 99 · 2018: 114 · 2017: 104 · 2016: 88 · 2015: 95 · 2014: 83 · 2013: 70 · 2012: 50
FWCI
33.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Journal of Management (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Human Resource Development and Performance Evaluation
  • Social Sciences › Human Factors and Ergonomics › Innovative Education and Learning Practices
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Competency Development and Evaluation
Keywords
transfer of training, transfer of learning, cognitive ability, conscientiousness, motivation, supportive work environment, training program, leadership development training, trainee characteristics

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review