{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03155818540433925, 'fraction_numerical': 0.01051939513477975, 'mean_word_length': 5.186991869918699, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The trainer matters: Cross-classified models of trainee reactions.

Despite the common belief that "training is only as effective as the trainer providing it" (Osborn, 2018, para. 1), training theory tends to underemphasize the trainer and instead focuses on training content and design as sources of training effectiveness. In this article, we examine whether the role of the trainer should be more central to training theory. We address this issue using a dataset of trainee reactions from more than 10,000 employees enrolled in professional development courses. We suggest that trainee reactions are more likely to be influenced by the trainer than by the content. Thus, trainee reactions should reflect more between-trainer variance than between-content variance. Across 2 studies in online and face-to-face contexts, cross-classified random-effects models provide general support for our hypotheses, with 1 notable exception: the trainer matters less for trainee reactions in online courses. Our findings suggest the trainer matters more than previously thought and, thus, training theory should incorporate the role of the trainer in training effectiveness. Based on our findings, we suggest that training researchers should (a) model the trainer as a source of variation in training evaluation metrics, (b) examine the effect of the trainer at multiple levels of analysis, and (c) explicitly model the role of the trainer in training theory and design. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).