{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.039790996784565914, 'fraction_numerical': 0.02572347266881029, 'mean_word_length': 5.414948453608248, '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 Effect of Training Self‐Efficacy on Computer‐Based Training Outcomes: Empirical Analysis of the Construct and Creation of Two Scales

Self-efficacy is among the most popular constructs in the fields of business and psychology (Bandura, 2012, 2015; Beck & Schmidt, 2015; Yeo & Neal, 2013). Researchers have continuously sought personal and environmental factors that cause employees to develop or diminish their selfefficacy, and the construct has been shown to predict a vast amount of beneficial organizational outcomes, further spurring its continued study (Bandura & Locke, 2003; Judge & Bono, 2001; Luthans & Peterson, 2002; Stajkovic & Luthans, 1998). Although the study of self-efficacy has improved our understanding of employees and the workplace, an even deeper understanding may be achieved by analyzing specific forms of self-efficacy. Training self-efficacy (TSE) is the belief in one’s ability to succeed in developmental workplace programs (Carter & Beier, 2010; Chiaburu & Lindsay, 2008; Chiaburu et al., 2010; Guthrie & Schwoerer, 1994, 1996). Training self-efficacy is often believed to be related to trainee reactions, learning, and transfer of training, and each of these outcomes further relates to employee productivity and organizational success (Al-Eisa et al., 2009; Chiaburu & Lindsay, 2008; Tannenbaum et al., 1991). While extant research has provided many noteworthy inferences about the construct, we argue that two factors hamper our understanding of TSE. Authors have shown a strong interest in training self-efficacy (TSE), but two noteworthy concerns are present in the literature. First, existing measures of TSE may contain items that do not gauge their construct of interest. Second, although other forms of self-efficacy may better explain observed relationships, TSE is often studied in isolation. We address these concerns by creating two measures in a four-study process. These measures are shown to have satisfactory psychometric properties and convergent validity. Additionally, we provide an empirical study that investigates, regarding a computer-based training program, the impact of TSE beyond positive selfevaluations, general self-efficacy, and computer-self efficacy. The results demonstrate that TSE is predictive of trainee reactions beyond these other predictors, but it is not predictive of learning. While the specificity of TSE may cause these results, novel theoretical perspectives may better explain the observed relationships.