Biomedical Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
2. See David Jaeger (1997).
3. See Paul Tesluk and R. Jacobs (1998), esp. page 324:
“work experience has been used almost interchangeably
with tenure and seniority.”
4. See Jack Gordon (2007).
5. See James Vesper (2001).
6. This was discussed in Chapter 5.
7. See Clifton Campbell (2000); also Clifton Campbell
(1999).
8. See Harry and Deborah Boone (2005).
9. See 21CFR 211.25 (b), “Personnel Qualifi cations.”
10. See 21 CFR 211.56 (d), “Sanitation.”
11. See Roelof Kuipers (2004).
12. See Boone and Boone, ibid.
13. See 21 CFR 211.56 (b), “Sanitation” for Facilities; 21
CFR 211.67 (b), “Equipment Cleaning and Maintenance.”
14. See David Merrill (2006).
15. See James Popham (2001).
16. See CFR 312.23 (a)(6)(iii)(f) This is true of the study of
training no less than clinical trials.
17. It may be too strong to state that a Training Event
“causes” a Performance; perhaps we should say Training
Events “infl uence” Performances. An important part of
evaluating training programs consists of determining
how substantial that “infl uence” is. But evaluating
programs comes later; for now it is crucial to keep in
mind that the assessment of training involves
performances by an individual or a group (work team).
On the topic of evaluation, see also Kaye Alvarez,
E. Salas, and C M. Garofano (2004).
18. The Training Event/Performance model is overly
general. Between the set of independent variables and
the set of dependent variables is a set of intervening
variables. These intervening variables include cognitive,
￿ ￿ ￿ ￿ ￿
Search WWH ::




Custom Search