COMSATS Institute of Information & Technology

PRODUCTIVITY GAINS FROM

IMPLEMENTING EMPLOYEE
TRAINING
_________________________________________
Researchers:
MUHAMMAD HAMAD (FA09-BBA-057/B)

UBAID-UR-REHMAN (FA09-BBA-095/B)

TAIMOOR ALI DAR (FA09-BBA-093/B)

WAJIHA ASAD (FA09-BBA-102/B)

_____________________________________________________________________

Submitted to:
Ms. UZMA NAEEM

_____________________________________________________________________

Submission Date:
December 19, 2011.
2.0 TABLE OF CONTENTS:

SECTION DESCRIPTION PAGE #

1.0 ABSTRACT 1

2.0 INTRODUCTION 2

2.1  Problem Statement 2

2.2  Objective 2
2.3  Background Information 2

3.0 BODY 3 – 11

3.1  Literature Review 3–5

3.2  Theoretical Framework 5–6
3.3  Hypothesis Statement 6
3.4  Research Design 7–8
3.5  Data Analysis 8 - 11
4.0 CONCLUSION 12

5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 13

6.0 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 14

7.0 REFERENCES 15 - 16

8.0 APPENDIX 17 - 25

8.1  Questionnaire 17 - 18
8.2  Tables 19 - 25
1.0 ABSTRACT:

The research was undertaken in order to measure the impact of employee training on
employee productivity. The research was started by reading relevant literature by the research
team focusing on the two variables in discussion. A literature review was established after
thorough reading of 25-30 articles. Literature review helped the team to identify the research
problem and design a hypothesis statement. A theoretical framework was established to
diagrammatically represent the relationship of employee training (independent variable),
employee productivity (dependent variable) and age of employees (moderating variable). The
variables were defined later on in the theoretical framework.

On the basis of theoretical framework, a research design was established where purpose of
the study was defined at first. Hypothesis testing was the purpose of study and type of
investigation was initially correlational and later on the causal relationship was also tested
during the analysis stage. Level of interference was kept minimal and employees were
interviewed in their natural work environment. For our sampling, we used probability
sampling and randomly chose employees from banking sector. Data collection method that
was used during the research was Questionnaires. A questionnaire of closed ended questions
was designed and was circulated to 100 employees in different banks (Allied Bank and State
Bank of Pakistan) to gather the information required. Data analysis technique used was a
computer based program named as SPSS.

During the data analysis stage, help of a computer program named SPSS was taken to
accurately measure the result of 100 filled questionnaires from different employees of bank.
Using the software the correlation between the two variables i.e. employee training and
employee productivity was checked at first. The results showed that there is a positive
relationship between employee training and employee productivity. After the relationship
was identified between these variables the causal relationship was tested through regression
lines which also showed positive results. The effect of moderating variable i.e. Age of
employees was also tested along with training and productivity and was found that employees
belonging to the age group of 36-46 were the ones with the highest level of productivity after
being trained. From the same results, it was derived that most experienced employees of
banks, age group 58-60 had comparatively lower level of productivity as compared to other
age groups.

Page 1
2.0 INTRODUCTION

2.1 Problem Statement:

A problem statement is a concise description of the issues that need to be addressed by a

problem solving team and should be created by them before they try to solve the problem.

The intention of this research is to analyze and evaluate the impact of employee training on
employee productivity and how such impact is moderated by age of employees.

2.2 Objective:

The overall objective of this research paper is to provide understanding towards the impact of
employee training programs, implemented by different organizations, on employee
productivity. This research paper will serve as a useful piece of work in understanding the
productivity level of employees after their organizations provide them an opportunity to get
job related training. After this research, it will become more clear that what kind of job
training improves the productivity of employees and how. The information will be gathered
mainly from employees of banking sector to know the trends of employee training programs
and its impact on productivity in this sector. This research will also help the readers to
understand how age of employees moderates the relationship between training and
productivity of employees.

2.3 Background Information:

This research paper is focused towards employee training and its impact on employee
productivity. The relationship is also studied when it is moderated by age of employees. To
get some background information about these variables, articles focused on these variables
were thoroughly read by the research team and wrote a literature review out of it. A
theoretical framework was also designed to show the relationship between the dependent,
independent and moderating variable through a diagram. A detailed research design was also
established for this research where type of investigation and sampling design was discussed.
During this research a sample of 100 employees were taken who were asked a set of close
ended questions. Banking sector was chosen for this research and randomly selected
employees from different banks were provided with the questionnaires to which they
answered according to what they think is the impact on their productivity after they received
some sort of training at work.

Page 2
3.0 BODY
3.1 Literature Review:

Productivity Gains from Implementing Employee Training: Relationship between

employee training and productivity exists, not only at the level of individual employee but on
the organization level as well. The businesses which were operating below their expected
labor productivity levels in 1983 implemented new employee training programs after 1983,
which resulted in significantly large increase in labor productivity between 1983-1986
(Bartel, 1991).

Training is one of the several human resource practices that can have considerable impact on
employee commitment. Employee training helps the organization in retention of employees
and increases employee's commitment to the company. Companies that invest in employee
training programs get a positive relationship between training and commitment, and an
inverse relationship between commitment and turnover. A positive relationship between
training and employee motivation, employee commitment and employee satisfaction has been
found. When employees are motivated, committed and satisfied, they tend to be more skilled,
knowledgeable, dedicated, well experienced and work as one unit to achieve organizational
goals (Brum, 2007 and Nadeem, 2010). Training nowadays is not general and is more
focused on specific skills. A difference exists between general and specific training. General
training is still worthy enough for an individual if he or she quits the organization, but
specific training of a specific technology has no value if trained workers of that technology
leave the organization (Konings & Vanormelingen, 2010).

Training also helps in retaining knowledge within the organization, but may not help in
retaining employees. Sometimes organizations do not gain increased retention rates, but
derive other direct and indirect benefits from training such as improved job performance,
increased job satisfaction and reduced levels of job related stress (Acton & Golden, 2002).
Higher wages is not only the mean of productivity; training has got a very important place in
measuring productivity. The factor of training in the production function was around twice as
large as the factor in the wage equation. Employee training has a positive and significant
effect on productivity and wages, but the effect of training on wages is half the size of the
effect on productivity. Unobserved diverse work force leads to overestimate the impact of
training on productivity, whereas not giving importance to employee training within

Page 3
origination leads to underestimate the impact of training on productivity (Dearden, Reed and
Reenen: 2006, Colombo and Stanca, 2008).

Another view about the employee training is that it is an expensive plan, so in order to get
full value from employee training, organizations need to reinforce training and create such
work environment that supports transfer of new knowledge/skills to the job and the
organization (Asherman, 2010). But it is cheaper for an organization to hire trained workers
from the competitors than to train their own skilled workers. Trained workers are paid more
than untrained workers, but in most organizations wage premium is smaller than extra
productivity net of the cost of training the worker (Bishop, 1994). In today's competitive
business environment, businesses can only survive through training their employees, but
small businesses cannot afford training both monetary as well as in terms of opportunity cost.
It has been obvious that, on job training is still enjoying its higher status as compared to
different training programs. Shifting of business towards services sector require the
companies to polish the skills of employees and communicate well to remain in business
(Fernald & Solomon, 1996). Large businesses that introduce new technology and have high
proportion of internal promotions were more likely to have formal training programs. Formal
training had a positive impact on labor productivity, especially in those businesses that
evaluated their training programs based on productivity indicators. Increase in productivity
attributable to training is largely due to the fact that businesses who undertake employee
training rely on screening of job applicants which significantly enhances labor productivity
(Bartel, 1989). Those businesses which invest in training are more productive than those who
don’t as a positive correlation between training and productivity exists (Gabriella, 2005).
While making investment decisions, the managers have to justify each dollar of investment
and its return. A lot many areas of organizational efficiency and effectiveness can’t be
quantified but a general agreement about the positive relation between training and
productivity exist (Brown 2001). And by linking the positive relation of employee training
with the overall strategy of the organization; many organization are using it as a competitive
advantage (Khera, 2010).

Another aspect of looking at employee training is TQM. TQM is becoming the basic
requirement for the organizations to compete and it demands up-to-date skills of the
employees which are only possible through training which result in better organizational
performance (Cooney, Terziovski, and Samson, 2002). By many studies the positive relation
of employee training and productivity has been proved but managers are still unwilling to

Page 4
invest in training programs because they think that during the tough time of organization,
trained employees can switch to the competitor, and therefore cost and benefits of training
programs are matched (Glance, Hogg and Huberman, 1997). Today’s rapidly changing global
business environment forces the firms to change themselves to keep pace with the industry,
employee training can be used as a tool to make grounds for change. Training is important for
all managerial posts either senior executives or the front line managers because it tells the
management how to best use the scarce resources of the firm. Organizations invest in training
and development programs due to its sure benefit of productivity (Lee & Bruvold, 2003). The
process of training and development starts when organization finds any gap between the
current and desired situation, organizations try to fulfill this gap to achieve higher levels of
productivity (Babaita, 2010).

3.2 Theoretical Framework:

A theoretical framework is a collection of interrelated concepts, like a theory but not

necessarily so well worked-out. A theoretical framework guides the research, determining
what things we will measure, and what statistical relationships we are looking for.

(Moderating Variable)

AGE

Employee Training Employee Productivity

(Independent Variable) (Dependent Variable)

Page 5
Definition of Variables:

 Dependent variable:

Employee Productivity: If an individual takes less time and resources to

perform a specific task he/she is said to be productive. Productivity is the
dependent variable in our research and whether employee training, as an
independent variable, increases or decreases the level of productivity is to be
tested.

 Independent Variable:

Employee Training: Training refers to the acquisition of knowledge, skills, and

competencies as a result of teaching of vocational or practical skills and
knowledge that relate to specific useful competencies. Training can be On -the-
Job or Off-the –Job Training.

A general agreement exists between different school of thoughts that employee

training is providing knowledge and up to date skills to the workers.

 Moderating Variable:

The moderating variable is one that has a strong contingent effect on the
independent variable and dependent variable relations hip. That is the presence of
a third variable modifies the original relationship between the independent and
the dependent variables. In our research the moderating variable is the Age of
employees.

3.3 Hypothesis Statement:

A hypothesis is a tentative statement about the relationship between two or more variables. A
hypothesis is a specific, testable prediction about what you expect to happen in your study.

The hypothesis statement for our research on employee training and productivity is:
“If organizations implement employee training programs, then productivity level of
employees will increase, as moderated by age of employees.”

Page 6
3.4 Research Design:

 Purpose of the Study:

The purpose of this research paper is to examine the relationship between employee training
and its impact on productivity. Hypothesis testing will be used to test the proposed hypothesis
statement in an attempt to answer the research problem question.

 Type of Investigation:

At first we will find whether the relationship between employee training and productivity
exists or not by checking the results of correlational tests. If the correlation is positive and
strong then we will shift our focus towards establishing and analyzing cause-and-effect
relationship among employees training, productivity and their age. This causal study will be
conducted to understand how employee training programs causes the productivity levels of
employees to change.

Extent of Researcher interference:

Due to limited authority and resources, there will be minimum interference by our research
team. The study will be conducted to establish correlation & later cause-and-effect
relationships between employee training and productivity, while manipulating the
independent (Training) and moderating (Age) variable.

 Study Setting:

The research team will use field study in non-contrived settings to establish correlational and
later causal relationship, using the same natural environment in which employees normally
perform their duties.

 Time Horizon:

Due to time constraints and limited resources, the research team intends to collect relevant
data from employees in one visit to the organization. The data collected from cross-sectional
study will be sorted and analyzed to test the proposed hypothesis statement.

Page 7
  Unit of Analysis:

The unit of analysis for our research study will be individual trained employees of banking
sector.

 Sampling Design:

A sampling design specifies for every possible sample its possibility of being drawn. We are
using Probability Sampling for our research where Simple Random Sampling is applied while
selecting employees from banking sector.

 Data Collection Method:

Data collection method that we used for our research paper is Questionnaires. We designed a
questionnaire, mainly consisting of close ended questions using the Likert Scale and gathered
information from almost 100 employees from different banks.

 Data Analytic Technique Used:

For the analysis of the data gathered from questionnaires we are using a software technique.
The software that we are using for data analysis is SPSS. SPSS is a computer program used
for survey authoring and deployment (IBM SPSS Data Collection), data mining (IBM SPSS
Modeler), text analytics, statistical analysis, and collaboration and deployment (batch and
automated scoring services).

3.5 Data Analysis:

After obtaining data from the banking sector of Pakistan, the hypothesis that employee
training and productivity are related to each other was being tested for correlation. The value
of correlation coefficient is +0.557 as shown in Table 1, which means that there is a strong
positive relationship between employee training and productivity in the banking sector of
Pakistan. It means that if we enhance training then there will be a positive change in
productivity of employees.

Page 8
 CORRELATIONS
Total Total
Training Productivity
**
Total Training Pearson Correlation 1 .557
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 100 100
**
Total Productivity Pearson Correlation .557 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 100 100
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

AGE GROUPS REGRESSION LINE VALUE

25 – 35 Y= 1.131+0.661X 1.792

36 – 46 Y= 1.714+0.410X 2.124

47 – 57 Y=1.210+0.583X 1.793

58 – 60 Y=1.069+0.605X 1.674

OVERALL Y=1.268+0.585X 1.835

To check the effect of moderating variable age on the relationship of employee training and
productivity first the relation was tested for age group of 25 to 35 years. R square showed a
40.8% change in employee productivity due to the training programs implemented by the
organization. The linear regression model developed by using Table 2 (d) shows that one unit
increase in training leads to 1.792 units increase in productivity. The ANNOVA test Table
2(c) showed that significance level is below 0.05, which supports the significance of the
study.

Page 9
For the age group 36 to 46, the results obtained showed a new dimension. The results showed
that for this age group R2 is 11.5% Table 3(b). The regression line developed from the results
showed that a unit increase in training leads to 2.124 units change in productivity of the
employees. ANNOVA supports the findings as significance level is 0.040 because it is below
0.05 Table 3(c).

The results of age group 47 to 57 showed 43.9% change in productivity due to independent
variable Table 4(b). The regression line developed from Table 4(d), 1.793 units increase in
productivity due to training being provided to the employees. Significance level is below 0.05
which is 0.01, which is favoring our hypothesis. Table 4(c).

For age group 58 to 60 R2 is 99.4% which is highest among all the age groups, showing
maximum positive change in productivity of Bankers in Pakistan’s banking sector table 5(b).
In the same way regression line developed from table 5(d), 1.674 units show positive change
in productivity if one unit of training is provided. ANNOVA shows 0.048 acceptable level of
significance as it is below 0.05 table 5(c).

After calculating the regression for each age group to check the effect of age on the
relationship of employee training and productivity, regression analysis was conducted. The
results supported our hypothesis and the regression line showed that a unit increase in
training will lead to 1.835 units change in productivity according to Table 6.

COEFFICIENTS
Model Unstandardized Standardized t Sig.
Coefficients Coefficients
B Std. Error Beta
1 (Constant) 1.268 .250 5.062 .000
Total training .585 .088 .557 6.645 .000
a. Dependent Variable: Total Productivity

Interpretations:

There exist a strong positive relation between training and productivity. As showed by the
results, productivity of employees depends upon training. If sufficient training is being
provided to the employees there productivity will increase. The gains from training are higher
for people belonging to the age bracket of 36 to 46 years because such employees want to

Page
10
excel in their respective job descriptions, so for this they opt for training programs to learn
new skills. The age group of 58 to 60 showed comparatively low level of productivity
increase due to training, this is because such employees are in later stages of their
professional life and want a stable job instead of challenging jobs, so they hesitate in getting
into different training programs to increase their productivity. So we can conclude that
employees who are in their middle ages are more productive when provided opportunity to
get into some training programs.

Page
11
4.0 CONCLUSION:

The result that we derived from our data analysis stage showed that there exists a strong

positive relationship between employee training and productivity. When employees are

provided an opportunity to get some work related training, such employees showed

impressive improvement in their productivity level. The age being moderating variable in this

relationship was also tested along with the dependent and independent variables. We divided

the age of employees into 4 groups, 25-35, 36-46, 47-57 and 58-60, and results showed that

employees of age group 36-46 had the highest level of productivity after being trained.

Employees that belong to the last age group i.e. 58-60 showed comparatively low levels of

productivity, this is because they want a stable job rather than a challenging one and are

satisfied with their productivity at work, so they avoid getting into training programs.

Hence, banking sector in Pakistan should invest more in their employee training and

development programs to increase the overall productivity of the organization.

Page
12
5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS:

After working on this research paper we would like to give following recommendations to the

Banking Sector of Pakistan.

 They should invest more on employee training programs.

 The organization should try to retain the highly trained employees by providing them

high prospects within the organization.

 They should provide more training opportunities to newly appointed employees and

employees of age group 36-46, as their productivity levels are the highest as per the

data analysis.

 The organization should provide full support and guidance to employees during the

times they are in training.

 They should encourage the most experienced employees (Age Group: 58 - 60) to take

part in training programs and set an example for newly appointed employees.

 The organization should promote the employees to higher job titles when they show

high levels of productivity due to training.

Page
13
6.0 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT:

“We bow our heads in gratitude to almighty ALLAH, who blessed us with the ability and

energy to complete this work.”

We have put all our sincere efforts in this research paper. However, it would not have been

possible without the kind support and help of some individuals and organizations we

collected data from. We would like to extend our sincere thanks to all of them.

We would like to express our gratitude towards our parents, course instructors, and every

member of the management & employees of different banks that we visited, for their kind co-

operation & encouragement which helped us in completion of our research paper.

Special thanks to our Research Tools & Technique course instructor, Ms. Uzma Naeem, who

provided us an opportunity to work on this project and for her guidance and encouragement

in carrying out this research work.

We are also highly indebted to Mr. Zaheer A. Gureja who is Branch Manager at Humak

Allied Bank and Mr. Arshad Mahmood who is an Audit Officer Grade 2 at State Bank of

Pakistan for their guidance and constant supervision during our data collection stage. We

would also like to thank all the employees of these banks, who showed patience and honesty

while giving us information through questionnaires.

Page
14
7.0 REFERENCES:
 Acton, T., & Golden, W. (2002). Training: the way to retain valuable it employees.
Informing Science. Galway, Ireland.
 Asherman, I. G. (2010). Employee Training: Getting Your Money's Worth. New
York City. Regulatory Focus, Regulatory Affairs Professional's Society.
 Babaita, I. S. (2010). Productivity as a Driving Force for Investment in Training
and Management Development in the Banking Industry. European Journal of Social
Sciences.
 Bartel, A. P. (1991). Productivity Gains from the Implementation of Employee
Training Programs. Working Paper No. 3893. National Bureau of Economic
Research. Cambridge, MA 02138.
 Bartel, A. P. (1989). Formal Employee Training Programs and Their Impact On
Labor Productivity: Evidence From A Human Resources Survey. Working paper
No. 3026. National Bureau of Economic Research. Cambridge, MA 02138.
 Bishop, J. H. (1994). The Impact of Previous Training on Productivity and Wages.
University of Chicago Press.
 Brown, B. L. (2001). Return on Investment in Training. ERIC Clearinghouse on
Adult, Career, and Vocational Education.
 Brum, S. (2007). Training and Employee Commitment. University of Rhode Island,
Schmidt Labor Research Center Seminar Research Series.
 Colombo, E., & Stanca, L. (2008). The Impact of Training on Productivity:
Evidence from a Large Panel of Firms. University of Milan Bicocca.
 Cooney, R., Terziovski, M., & Samson, D. (2002). Employee Training, Quality
Management and the Performance of Australian and New Zealand Manufacturers.
Working Paper 3402. Monash University.
 Dearden, L., Reed H., & Reenen J. V. (2006). The impact of training on
productivity and wages: Evidence from British Panel Data. The Institute for Fiscal
Studies, Houghton Street, London.
 Gabriella. (2005). Training, Productivity and Wages in Italy. Labour Economics,
Elsevier.
 Glance, N.S., Hogg, T., & Bernardo, A. Huberman. (1997). Training and Turnover
in the Evolution of Organizations. Organization Science 8, pg 84-96.

Page
15
 Khera, S. N. (2010). Human Resource Practices and their Impact on Employee
Productivity: A Perceptual Analysis of Private, Public and Foreign Bank
Employees in India. DSM Business Review, 2, 1.
 Konings. J., & Vanormelingen, S. (2010). The Impact of Training on Productivity
and Wages: Firm Level Evidence. Discussion Paper No. 4731. The Institute for the
Study of Labor (IZA).
 Lee, C. H. & Bruvold, N. T. (2003). Creating Value for Employees: Investment in
Employee Development. The International Journal of Human Resource
Management.
 Lloyd, W. Fernald Jr., George, T. Solomon. (1996). Small Business Training and
Development: An Analysis of Manager/Employee Needs and Practices.
International Journal of Organizational Behavior.
 Nadeem, M. (2010). Role of Training in Determining the Employee Corporate
Behavior with Respect to Organizational Productivity. International Journal of
Business and Management, 5, 12.

Page
16
 8.0 APPENDIX:

8.1 QUESTIONNAIRE

The purpose of this survey is to measure the impact of Employee Training on Employee

Productivity. This study is purely for the research purpose and the given information will

be kept confidential. You are requested to kindly provide us accurate information.

Gender: � Female Age: � 25-35

� Male � 36-46
� 47-57
Designation: _________________ � 58-60

Strongly Disagree Neither Agree Strongly

Disagree Agree nor Agree
Disagree
TRAINING & PRODUCTIVITY
1 2 3 4 5
1. Employee training programs provide
me an opportunity to progress within
my organization.
2. Training helps me to define my work
related goals and objectives more
clearly.
3. My organization allows employees to
have the time to learn new skills that
prepare them for future jobs.
4. Training programs have made me
more productive at work.
5. Training helped me in learning new
work specific skills.
6. Training helped me achieving
productivity targets set by my
organization.
7. Essential skills training reduces the
time required to complete work.

Page
17
8. My organization trains employees on
skills that prepare them for future
jobs and career development.
9. My organization provides support
when employees decide to obtain
ongoing training.
10. My organization provides a
systematic program that regularly
assesses employees’ skills and
interests.

11. Violation of rules and regulations reduces after training.

 � Yes
 � No

12. Does training helps in prioritizing the work?

 � Yes
 � No

13. Do you think that number of mistakes by employees can be reduced after sufficient
training?
 � Yes
 � No

14. Does training help employees to bring balance between personal and professional life?
 � Yes
 � No

15. Does Apprenticeships increase productivity?

 � Yes
 � No

16. Is orientation given to new employees?

 � Yes
 � No

Page
18
8.2 Tables:

1) The Correlation between Employee Training and Productivity

Correlations
Total Total
training productivity
**
Total training Pearson Correlation 1 .557
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 100 100
**
Total productivity Pearson Correlation .557 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 100 100
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Table 2:
(a)

b,c
Variables Entered/Removed
Model Variables Variables Method
Entered Removed
1 Total training . Enter
a. All requested variables entered.
b. Dependent Variable: Total productivity
c. Models are based only on cases for which what
is your age = 25-35

(b)

Model Summary
Model R R Adjusted R Std. Error of
what is your Square Square the Estimate
age = 25-35
(Selected)
a
1 .638 .408 .394 .276
a. Predictors: (Constant), Total training

Page
19
(c)

b,c
ANOVA
Model Sum of Df Mean F Sig.
Squares Square
a
1 Regression 2.305 1 2.305 30.268 .000
Residual 3.350 44 .076
Total 5.655 45
a. Predictors: (Constant), Total training
b. Dependent Variable: Total productivity
c. Selecting only cases for which what is your age = 25-35

(d)

a,b
Coefficients
Model Unstandardized Standardized T Sig.
Coefficients Coefficients
B Std. Error Beta
1 (Constant) 1.131 .341 3.317 .002
Total training .661 .120 .638 5.502 .000
a. Dependent Variable: Total productivity
b. Selecting only cases for which what is your age = 25-35

Table 3:
(a)

b,c
Variables Entered/Removed
Mod Variables Variables Method
el Entered Removed
1 Total training . Enter
a. All requested variables entered.
b. Dependent Variable: Total productivity
c. Models are based only on cases for which what
is your age = 36-46

Page
20
(b)

Model Summary
Model R R Adjusted R Std. Error of
what is your Square Square the Estimate
age = 36-46
(Selected)
a
1 .339 .115 .089 0.288
a. Predictors: (Constant), Total training

(c)

b,c
ANOVA
Model Sum of Df Mean F Sig.
Squares Square
a
1 Regression .376 1 .376 4.529 .040
Residual 2.909 35 .083
Total 3.285 36
a. Predictors: (Constant), Total training
b. Dependent Variable: Total productivity
c. Selecting only cases for which what is your age = 36-46

(d)

a,b
Coefficients
Model Unstandardized Standardized t Sig.
Coefficients Coefficients
B Std. Error Beta
1 (Constant) 1.714 .56 3.058 .004
Total training .410 .193 .339 2.128 .040
a. Dependent Variable: Total productivity
b. Selecting only cases for which what is your age = 36-46

Page
21
Table 4:
(a)

b,c
Variables Entered/Removed
Model Variables Variables Method
Entered Removed
1 Total training . Enter
a. All requested variables entered.
b. Dependent Variable: Total productivity
c. Models are based only on cases for which what
is your age = 47-57

(b)

Model Summary
Model R R Adjusted R Std. Error of
what is your Square Square the Estimate
age = 47-57
(Selected)
a
1 .662 .439 .392 .271
a. Predictors: (Constant), Total training

(c)

b,c
ANOVA
Model Sum of df Mean F Sig.
Squares Square
a
1 Regression .688 1 .688 9.375 .010
Residual .880 12 .073
Total 1.568 13
a. Predictors: (Constant), Total training
b. Dependent Variable: Total productivity
c. Selecting only cases for which what is your age = 47-57

Page
22
(d)

a,b
Coefficients
Model Unstandardized Standardized t Sig.
Coefficients Coefficients
B Std. Error Beta
1 (Constant) 1.210 .517 2.341 .037
Total training .583 .190 .662 3.062 .010
a. Dependent Variable: Total productivity
b. Selecting only cases for which what is your age = 47-57

Table 5:
(a)

b,c
Variables Entered/Removed
Mod Variables Variables Method
el Entered Removed
1 Total training . Enter
a. All requested variables entered.
b. Dependent Variable: Total productivity
c. Models are based only on cases for which what
is your age = 58-60

(b)

Model Summary
Model R R Adjusted R Std. Error of
what is your Square Square the Estimate
age = 58-
60
(Selected)
a
1 .977 .994 .989 .020
a. Predictors: (Constant), Total training

Page
23
(c)

b,c
ANOVA
Model Sum of df Mean F Sig.
Squares Square
a
1 Regression 0.073 1 0.073 176.333 .048
Residual 0.000 1 0.000
Total 0.073 2
a. Predictors: (Constant), Total training
b. Dependent Variable: Total productivity
c. Selecting only cases for which what is your age = 58-60

(d)

a,b
Coefficients
Model Unstandardized Standardized t Sig.
Coefficients Coefficients
B Std. Error Beta
1 (Constant) 1.069 .124 8.622 .074
Total training 0.605 .046 .997 13.279 .048
a. Dependent Variable: Total productivity
b. Selecting only cases for which what is your age = 58-60

Table 6:
(a)

b
Variables Entered/Removed
Model Variables Variables Method
Entered Removed
1 Total training . Enter
a. All requested variables entered.
b. Dependent Variable: Total productivity

Page
24
(b)

Model Summary
Mod R R Adjusted R Std. Error of
el Square Square the Estimate
a
1 .557 .311 .304 .282
a. Predictors: (Constant), Total training

(C)

b
ANOVA
Model Sum of Df Mean F Sig.
Squares Square
a
1 Regression 3.501 1 3.501 44.159 .000
Residual 7.770 98 .079
Total 11.270 99
a. Predictors: (Constant), Total training
b. Dependent Variable: Total productivity

(d)

a
Coefficients
Model Unstandardized Standardized t Sig.
Coefficients Coefficients
B Std. Error Beta
1 (Constant) 1.268 .250 5.062 .000
Total training .585 .088 .557 6.645 .000
a. Dependent Variable: Total productivity

Page
25