Theory: Classification of Learning Outcomes
Theorists: Kurt Kraiger, J. Kevin Ford, & Eduardo Salas
Biography:
Kurt Kraiger is the department chair and professor at Colorado State University in
Organizational Psychology. He holds a Ph.D. in Industrial Psychology from Ohio State
University. Among his honors, Dr. Kraiger received the Academy of Management, Human
Resources Division Best Paper Award in 1994. His most recent publications include, Creating,
implementing, and managing effective training and development systems in organizations: Stateof-the-art lessons for practice and “The relationship between diversity climate perceptions and
workplace attitudes” in The Psychologist-Manager Journal ("College of Natural Sciences
Psychology, Colorodo State University - Kurt Kraiger," 2011).
Secondly, J. Kevin Ford is employed by the Department of Psychology at Michigan State
University. His most recent publication includes “Reactions to skill assessment: the forgotten
factor in explaining motivation to learn” in the Human Resource Development Quarterly ("UCF
Psychology Department - Eduardo Salas," 2011).
Lastly, Eduardo Salas is the Trustee Chair and Professor of Psychology at the University
of Central Florida. His focus is on Industrial/Organizational and Applied Experimental and
Human Factors. Among his many honors, he was recently awarded the 2010 Excellence in
Research Award ("Michigan State University - J. Kevin Ford," 2011).
Description of Theory:
As Kraiger, Ford, and Salas (1993) convey, training organizations often view learning
outcomes as a change only in verbal knowledge. Through research, they discovered that this was
a restrictive viewpoint on learning transfer and thus created the classification scheme detailed in
this paper. Kraiger, Ford, and Salas’ (1993) classification scheme of learning outcomes was
developed based off of Bloom’s 1956 and Gagne’s 1984 taxonomies. Bloom’s Taxonomy
proposed cognitive based learning outcomes, those beyond the recall of verbal knowledge. The
authors’ research into Gagne’s taxonomy reinforced the need for assessment of cognitive, skilloriented, and attitudinal learning outcomes. Thus, Kraiger, Ford, and Salas (1993) proposed that
learning outcomes could be characterized into 3 groups; cognitive, skill based, and affective
outcomes. Figure 1 further illustrates the 3 groups detailed in this paper. For each of the
categories shown in Figure 1, Kraiger, Ford, and Salas identified constructs for each of the
learning outcome categories.
The first group, cognitive outcomes, includes the quantity and type of knowledge that the
trainee obtains. In Krieger, Ford, and Salas’ (1993) proposed construct, the cognitive outcomes
includes 3 indicators; verbal knowledge, knowledge organization, and cognitive strategies.
Cognitive perspectives focus on the dynamic acquisition, organization, and application of
knowledge. Once the trainees develop a foundation of verbal knowledge, he or she can begin to
focus more on the procedural knowledge acquisition through practice. Once the trainee has built
the foundation, then he or she is then able to begin to apply the skills to real life work situations
(Kraiger, Ford, & Salas, 1993).
The second identified category is skill-based outcomes, the development of technical and
motor skills. In this learning outcomes category, the trainees begin to be able to reproduce the
trained behaviors through what is known as compilation. In this phase of learning transfer, the
performance of the trainee becomes less error-prone and operates in a more fluid and focused
manner. At this point, individuals are more likely to identify the appropriate situations for using
a skill (Kraiger, et al., 1993).
The third identified learning outcomes category is the affective outcome. Kraiger, Ford,
and Salas (1993) used Gagne’s research to support that attitudes can determine behavior and
performance. Having to do with motivational tendency, they identified three other secondary
indicators; motivational dispositions, self-efficacy, and goal setting. They found that trainees
often refer to their own self-perceived capabilities (Kaye Alvarez, Eduardo Salas, & Garofano,
2004; Kraiger, et al., 1993). Additionally, their research found that trainees who committed to
specific, complex goals were more likely to have increased performance (Kaye Alvarez, et al.,
2004; Kraiger, et al., 1993).
Theory Measurement and Instrumentation
Kraiger, Ford, and Salas (1993) stressed the importance of locating and utilizing relevant
testing methods based on the type of training. Based on their research, Kraiger, Ford, and Salas
identified a method called probed protocol analysis. In this measurement theory, an expert in the
field identifies detailed instructions used to solve a problem. The trainees are then asked to
describe what they would do at each step of the problem solving process (Kraiger, et al., 1993).
During the previously discussed compilation phase, trainees are encouraged to modify
learned behaviors to perform new tasks with the skills learned during training. These can be
assessed by observing the trainee’s ability to generalize the modified behaviors to tasks outside
of the training scenarios (Kraiger, et al., 1993).
Prepared By: Brittany M. Bright
References:
College of Natural Sciences Psychology, Colorodo State University - Kurt Kraiger. (2011)
Retrieved September 15, 2011, from
http://psy.psych.colostate.edu/Psylist/detail.asp?Num=162
Kaye Alvarez, Eduardo Salas, & Garofano, C. M. (2004). An Integrated Model of Training
Evaluation and Effectiveness. Human Resource Development Review, 3, 385-415. doi:
10.1177/1534484304270820
Kraiger, K., Ford, J. K., & Salas, E. (1993). Application of cognitive, skill-based, and affective
theories of learning outcomes to new methods of training evaluation. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 78(2), 311-328. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.78.2.311
Michigan State University - J. Kevin Ford. (2011) Retrieved September 15, 2011, from
http://iopsych.msu.edu/jkf/
UCF Psychology Department - Eduardo Salas. (2011) Retrieved September 15, 2011, from
http://www.psych.ucf.edu/faculty_salas.php
Figure 1. Kraiger, Ford, and Salas’ Classification of Learning Outcomes. Adapted from
Kraiger, Ford, and Salas (1993). Application of Cognitive, Skill-Based, and Affective Theories
of Learning Outcomes to New Methods of Training Evaluation. Journal of Applied Psychology,
78, 311-328.