Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 571

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 17 of the 17 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Developing and Validating an Observational Learning Model of Computer Software Training and Skill Acquisition

Yi, Mun Y., Davis, Fred D.·2003·Information Systems Research
DOI 10.1287/isre.14.2.146.16016
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Computer skills are key to organizational performance, and past research indicates that behavior modeling is a highly effective form of computer skill training. The present research develops and tests a new theoretical model of the underlying observational learning processes by which modeling-based training interventions influence computer task performance. Observational learning processes are represented as a second-order construct with four dimensions (attention, retention, production, and motivation). New measures for these dimensions were developed and shown to have strong psychometric properties. The proposed model controls for two pretraining individual differences (motivation to learn and self-efficacy) and specifies the relationships among three training outcomes (declarative knowledge, post-training self-efficacy, and task performance). The model was tested using PLS on data from an experiment (N= 95) on computer spreadsheet training. As hypothesized, observational learning processes significantly influenced training outcomes. A representative modeling-based training intervention (retention enhancement) significantly improved task performance through its specific effects on the retention processes dimension of observational learning. The new model provides a more complete theoretical account of the mechanisms by which modeling-based interventions affect training outcomes, which should enable future research to systematically evaluate the effectiveness of a wide range of modeling-based training interventions. Further, the new instruments can be used by practitioners to refine ongoing training programs.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1287/isre.14.2.146.16016

Cites

17 of 17 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 17 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Yi, M. Y., & Davis, F. D.
Venue
Information Systems Research
Publisher
Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences (INFORMS)
Published
2003-06
Volume
14
Issue
2
Pages
146-169
ISSN
  • 1047-7047 (ISSN-L)
  • 1526-5536
DOI
10.1287/isre.14.2.146.16016
OpenAlex
W2123841990
Cited by
571
References
17
FWCI
14.82
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.