Post-Training Application and Workplace Support Check for Workshop Participants at 30, 60 and 90 DaysThe smile sheet asked whether you enjoyed the day. This asks whether any of it reached the job, and what around you let it.

Methodology: Forty original items across five formats: fourteen six-point ratings with a named end on each side and no midpoint, nine six-point agreement statements, six true-or-false descriptions of what has and has not happened, six select-every-line checklists of concrete occasions and acts, and five counts on a slider. DECLARED RESPONSE INSTRUCTION: one instruction is declared for the whole instrument and it is a SITUATION-AND-BEHAVIOUR REPORT over a declared recall window, since the workshop, with counts asked over the last two weeks. It is mixed with nothing: no item asks what should be done, none asks what the reader would do in a hypothetical, none tests what the reader knows, and none asks the reader to apply a rule to a new case. CONSTRUCT STATEMENT: this measures whether what one workshop taught has reached the reader's real work since the workshop, how far, and what the workplace around them did or did not do to make that possible, across five named transfer factors: application at work, occasions to use it, manager asking and making room, colleagues and the process, and confidence and intent to continue. It does not measure whether the workshop was any good, whether the reader is any good, the reader's ability, performance, learning, memory, personality, health or wellbeing, and it is not an evaluation of the trainer or the provider. HOW IT DIFFERS FROM THE LEARNING TRANSFER ASSESSMENT IN THIS CATALOGUE: that instrument is an ability test; it states a rule and asks the reader to apply it at increasing surface distance, and it measures whether somebody CAN transfer. This instrument measures whether transfer HAPPENED, for this person, after this workshop, and what the conditions were. Different construct, different response instruction, different moment. SCORING DESIGN: the Reliable Change Index published on a first sitting. Every answered item is reduced to a position toward its high pole, honouring reverse keying; each of the five factors, and the whole form, is the mean position over the items answered, on a scale from 0 to 100 in its own points. The reference on every scale is the ordinary respondent, computed from the declared marginal of every item: the share expected at each scale point, on each checklist line, on each true-or-false side and at each slider value. It is never the scale midpoint and never a uniform draw; the declared marginals are authored assumptions stated in the open and observed shares replace them once live data exists. Reliability is McDonald's omega in its Spearman-Brown form from the answered item count and an assumed average inter-item correlation of .35 within a factor and .22 across factors, printed as an assumption. Each position carries its standard error of measurement from a declared, modelled standard deviation, its 68 and 95 per cent bands, and the change threshold 1.96 times sd times the square root of 2(1 - omega): the movement a re-sitting at the next window would have to exceed, in either direction, to count as real change rather than measurement error. That is a measurement threshold and the report distinguishes it in words from a minimally important difference, the smaller value threshold set by whoever paid for the workshop. Where an earlier sitting exists the RCI is computed and a movement that fails 1.96 is drawn flat and greyed, never as an arrow. THE NULL AND ZERO: zero departure on any factor means the ordinary respondent; zero position means the low pole of that factor entirely. REFUSAL RULES: an unanswered item leaves the denominator and the reference together; an empty sitting scores exactly zero everywhere and is not reportable; fewer than twenty-four of forty answered is not reportable; the flatness test runs on the raw presses of the twenty-three six-point items and refuses every position when their standard deviation is under .35, because eleven of those items are reverse-worded and one button pressed throughout produces a shape the scorer manufactured; a factor with fewer than eight answered items or omega under .70 on the unrounded value carries a placement word and a drawn band, no point figure and no threshold pair, with the refusal printed where the scale would have been; the application strand needs six answered items to place a rung. A rung on the five-rung ladder is assigned only when the whole 95 per cent band sits inside it; otherwise the report prints between the two rungs the band reaches. No percentile appears anywhere and no reader is ranked against anybody. Where application is low, the report states first whether any occasion arose and whether anybody asked, and names that condition before it says anything about the reader. SOURCES: Baldwin and Ford, Transfer of training: a review and directions for future research (Personnel Psychology, 1988), for the trainee, design and work-environment model this instrument's factors follow; Blume, Ford, Baldwin and Huang, Transfer of training: a meta-analytic review (Journal of Management, 2010), for the effect of supervisor support, peer support and opportunity on transfer and for the finding that self-report of use and observed use diverge; Grossman and Salas, The transfer of training: what really matters (International Journal of Training and Development, 2011), for the shortlist of factors with the most consistent evidence; Burke and Hutchins, Training transfer: an integrative literature review (Human Resource Development Review, 2007), for the review of trainee, intervention and work-environment influences; Ford, Quinones, Sego and Sorra, Factors affecting the opportunity to perform trained tasks on the job (Personnel Psychology, 1992), for opportunity to perform as a distinct, measurable factor; Tracey, Tannenbaum and Kavanagh, Applying trained skills on the job: the importance of the work environment (Journal of Applied Psychology, 1995), for transfer climate; Rouiller and Goldstein, The relationship between organizational transfer climate and positive transfer of training (Human Resource Development Quarterly, 1993), for the transfer-climate construct; Bandura, Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change (Psychological Review, 1977), and Colquitt, LePine and Noe, Toward an integrative theory of training motivation (Journal of Applied Psychology, 2000), for post-training self-efficacy and motivation to transfer; Gollwitzer and Sheeran, Implementation intentions and goal achievement (Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 2006), for the if-then action and for treating a named next occasion as the form of intent that predicts behaviour; Jacobson and Truax, Clinical significance: a statistical approach to defining meaningful change in psychotherapy research (Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1991), for the Reliable Change Index; McDonald, Test Theory: A Unified Treatment (1999), for omega; Baumgartner and Steenkamp, Response styles in marketing research (Journal of Marketing Research, 2001), for balanced keying and the acquiescence risk; Kane, Validating the interpretations and uses of test scores (Journal of Educational Measurement, 2013), for stating the claim the report is allowed to make; and Saks and Burke, An investigation into the relationship between training evaluation and the transfer of training (International Journal of Training and Development, 2012), for the finding that evaluating behaviour after training is associated with more transfer than evaluating reactions. A four-level way of thinking about training evaluation, with behaviour on the job as its third level, is public as an idea and is not named here; no proprietary evaluation model, return-on-investment methodology or published transfer inventory is used, reproduced or implied. All forty items are original works written for this instrument. No commercial instrument's items or name are used, no vendor, training provider or competitor is named anywhere, and the instrument is not affiliated with or endorsed by any author or organisation named above.