Joint display of integrated findings
| Training effectiveness evaluation criteria | Quantitative findings (TG = Training; CG = Control) | Qualitative findings (T = Theme) | Integrated analysis |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reactions |
|
|
|
| Learning |
|
|
|
| Transfer |
|
|
|
| Financial results |
|
|
|
| Training effectiveness evaluation criteria | Quantitative findings (TG = Training; CG = Control) | Qualitative findings (T = Theme) | Integrated analysis |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reactions | • TG participants had a positive attitude toward the training content • TG participants were highly satisfied with the instructor and training materials | • Sense of Accomplishment (T1): Pride in passing the certification exam; recognition from coworkers, managers and the corporate team •“ • Defeat (T4): Feelings of disappointment and discouragement upon receiving the exam results •“ | • Immediate reactions to the wine education program were consistently positive, but diverged when the certification exam results were distributed a month later |
| Learning | • Significant increase in TG wine knowledge from pre-test to post-test • 70.5% of TG passed the certification exam | • Sense of Accomplishment (T1): Recognition of learning and knowledge gained •“ | • The wine education program was effective in positively impacting learning |
| Transfer | • TG participants indicated a high level of transfer motivation • No significant difference in reported transfer motivation between participants who passed the certification exam and participants who failed the certification exam | • Enhanced Guest Interaction (T2): Positive changes to guest-facing behavior, including more time with each table and focusing on “ideal” food-wine pairings •“ •“ • Defeat (T4): Uncertain or confused as to how to transfer knowledge to sales •“ | • Participants' transfer motivation was high at the end of the wine education program but motivation to transfer did not lead to actual training transfer for all participants |
| Financial results | • No effect of training on wine sales •No significant difference between TG and CG for wine check average or wine mix •No significant interaction between group (TG vs CG) and time (pre-training to 60 days post-training) for wine check average or wine mix • Within the TG, wine mix was significantly higher for participants who failed the certification exam (16.0%) than for exam (13.2%) | • Tips and Gratuities (T3): Increase in direct compensation from guests as a result of participation in the wine education program •“ • Defeat (T4): Use of a scripted upselling strategy focused on price point •“ | • For participants who passed the certification exam, financial results were achieved but in the impact was to the employee instead of the restaurant • For participants who failed the certification exam, use of a price-driven sales strategy contributed to higher wine mix |
Sharing content requires targeting cookies to be enabled. Please update your cookie preferences to use this feature.