Suvedha Final Report

EXAMINING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF SKILL GAP TRAINING
PROGRAM USING THE KIRKPATRICK MODEL AT NMC
DONE FOR
Project Report Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirement of

PONDICHERRY UNIVERSITY for the award of the degree of
MASTER OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
Submitted by
SUVEDHA B
(Reg. no. 22397155)
Under the guidance of

Dr. AMOLAK SINGH
Assistant Professor
Department of Management Studies
Pondicherry University
&
MRS. UMA VIJAYANANDKUMAR
HR Manager, New Medical Centre, Puducherry.
DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES

SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT
PONDICHERRY UNIVERSITY
PONDICHERRY-605014
AUGUST – SEPTEMBER 2023
I
DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES
SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT
PONDICHERRY UNIVERSITY
PONDICHERRY-605014
CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that this project report entitled “EXAMINING THE

EFFECTIVENESS OF SKILL GAP TRAINING PROGRAM USING THE
KIRKPATRICK MODEL AT NMC” done for New Medical Center, Puducherry is
submitted by SUVEDHA B (Reg. no. 22397155), II MBA to the DEPARTMENT OF
MANAGEMENT STUDIES, SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT, PONDICHERRY
UNIVERSITY in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the award of the degree of
MASTER OF BUSINESSADMINISTRATION and is a record of an original and
bonafide work done under the guidance of Dr. AMOLAK SINGH, Assistant Professor,
Department of Management Studies, Pondicherry University. This report has not
formed the basis for the award of any degree, diploma, associateship, fellowship or other
similar title to the candidate and that the report represents an independent and original
work on the part of the candidate.
Dr. . R. KASILINGAM Dr. AMOLAK SINGH

Professor & Head of the Department Assistant Professor & Project Guide
Department of Management Studies Department of Management Studies
Pondicherry University. Pondicherry University.
Date:
Place: Puducherry 605 014
Viva-Voce Examination held on _______________________
EXTERNAL EXAMINER
II
COMPANY CERTIFICATE
III
DECLARATION
I hereby, declare that the project report titled “EXAMINING THE

EFFECTIVENESS OF SKILL GAP TRAINING PROGRAM USING THE
KIRKPATRICK MODEL AT NMC” is an original work done by me under the
guidance of under the guidance of Dr. Amolak Singh, Assistant Professor,
Department of Management Studies, Pondicherry University, and Mrs. Uma
Vijayanandkumar, HR Manager, New Medical Centre, Puducherry. This project or
any part thereof has not been submitted for any Degree / Diploma / Associateship /
Fellowship / any other similar title or recognition to this University or any other
University.
I take full responsibility for the originality of this report. I am aware that I may have to
forfeit the degree if plagiarism has been detected after the award of the degree.
Notwithstanding the supervision provided to me by the Faculty Guide, I warrant that
any alleged act(s) of plagiarism in this project report are entirely my responsibility.
Pondicherry University and/or its employees shall under no circumstances whatsoever
be under any liability of any kind in respect of the aforesaid act(s) of plagiarism.
Suvedha B (22397155)
II MBA
Department of Management Studies
Pondicherry University
Date:
Place: Puducherry
IV
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The successful completion of any task would be incomplete without mentioning the
names of the people who helped to make it possible. I take this opportunity to express
my gratitude in a few wordsto all those who helped me in the completion of this project.
I express my heartfelt gratitude to Dr. R. Kasilingam, Head of the Department,

Department ofManagement, Pondicherry University for his constant encouragement
and support.
I thank Dr. Arjun T. Sundaram, Executive Director, New Medical Centre -

Multispeciality Hospital, Puducherry for giving me an opportunity to do my project in
this esteemed organization.
I thank Mrs. Uma Vijayanandkumar, Human Resource Manager, New Medical Centre
- Multispeciality Hospital, Puducherry for giving me an opportunity to do my project
in this esteemed organization.
My project guide Dr. Amolak Singh, Assistant Professor, Department of

Management Studies, Pondicherry University needs to be specially mentioned for his
valuable and constructive criticism and feedback at all stages of the project. It would
have been impossible to successfully complete this project in the stipulated time period
without his most valuable help and guidance.
I also thank all the employees and support staff of New Medical Centre -
Multispeciality Hospital, Pondicherry for their valuable help and support throughout
the course of the project.
V
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER NO. TITLE PAGE NO.
Abstract 1
I 1.1 Introduction 2
1.2 Need for the Study 6
1.3 Objectives of the Study 7
1.4 Research Hypotheses 8
1.5 Limitations of the Study 9
II 2.1 Literature Review 10
2.2 Research Methodology 14
III 3.1 Industry Profile 16
3.2 Company Profile 21
IV DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION
4.1 Percentage Analysis 25
4.2 Descriptive Analysis 34
4.3 Paired Sample T-Test 36
4.4 ANOVA 39
4.5 Correlation Analysis 47
6.6 Hierarchical Regression 48
V FINDINGS OF THE RESEARCH & CONCLUSION
5.1 Research Findings 65
5.2 Conclusion 68
5.3 Scope for future research 69
REFERENCES 70
APPENDIX - 1 72
VI
LIST OF TABLES & CHARTS
TABLE NO. TITLE PAGE NO.

4.1.1 Gender of the respondents 25
4.1.2 Age of the respondents 26
4.1.3 Marital Status of the respondents 27
4.1.4 Educational Qualification of the respondents 28
4.1.5 Departments of the respondents 29
4.1.6 Average hours spent on office work per week 30
4.1.7 Number of years of experience 31
4.1.8 Frequency of undergoing training program 32
4.1.9 Trainer Preference 33
4.2 Descriptive Analysis
4.2.1 Descriptive Analysis of components of Level 1 & 2 34
4.2.2 Descriptive Analysis of components of Level 3 & 4 35
4.3 Paired Sample T-Test 36
4.3.4 Graphical representation of Pre-test and Post-test scores 38
4.4 ANOVA
4.4.1 Gender and Outcome Variables 39
4.4.2 Age and Outcome Variables 41
4.4.3 Education Qualification and Outcome Variables 43
4.4.4 Departments and Outcome Variables 45
4.5 Correlation 47
4.5.1 Correlation Analysis between Level 1 and Level 2 47
4.5.2 Correlation Analysis between Level 3 and Level 4 47
4.6 Hierarchical Regression
4.6.1 Level 1 - Reaction 48
4.6.2 Level 2 – Learning 52
4.6.3 Level 3 – Behaviour 57
4.6.4 Level 4 - Results 61
VII
ABSTRACT
The healthcare sector is known for its fast-paced progress and changing
demands in patient care, which calls for the implementation of training programs for
hospital staff. This project titled “EXAMINING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF
SKILL GAP TRAINING PROGRAM USING THE KIRKPATRICK MODEL
AT NMC” aims to analyse the effectiveness of training programs offered by New
Medical Centre – Multispeciality Hospital in Pondicherry, focusing on application of
the Kirkpatrick Model of Training Evaluation. The Kirkpatrick Model is a widely
recognized framework for evaluating training programs, encompassing four levels:
Reaction, Learning, Behaviour, and Results. This study is descriptive and data
collection was through 5-point scale questionnaire collected from 86 employees who
have been selected by using simple random sampling method and convenience sampling
method. The data collected were analysed using the SPSS Software; the tools used were
Paired T-Test, ANOVA, Correlation and Hierarchical Regression. It is found that there
is no significant difference between gender, age, departments, educational qualification
and all the levels of Kirkpatrick; there is significant difference between pre-test and
post-test scores of the participants. It is also found that the participants demonstrated
positive response for all the levels. It is suggested that the company needs a change in
training environment and training schedule. It is concluded that this study has
demonstrated the positive impact of the training program on the hospital organization
and its employees, aligning with the objectives of improving patient care and
organizational effectiveness.
1
CHAPTER I
1.1 INTRODUCTION
Training
Training is a meticulously planned and executed effort implemented by

companies with the aim of facilitating the acquisition of job-related competencies by
employees. These competencies encompass a wide range of knowledge, skills, or
behaviours that are deemed critical for the successful performance of job duties. The
primary objective of training is to enable employees to effectively and efficiently master
the knowledge, skills, and behaviours that are emphasized in training programs and then
seamlessly apply them to their daily activities.
Companies have incurred monetary losses as a result of inadequately designed

training programs, the absence of linkage to performance-related issues or business
strategies, or deficient evaluation of training outcomes. This implies that companies
have been expending considerable resources on training initiatives, simply due to the
conviction that such undertakings are beneficial. The perception of training as a function
that solely dispenses training programs to employees without a compelling business
justification has been dismissed. At present, the evaluation of training programs is based
not on the number of programs proffered or training activity within the organization,
but rather on the extent to which training meets business needs in terms of learning,
behavioural transformation, and enhancement of performance. Indeed, there has been a
shift towards a more performance-centred approach to training. That is to say, training
is utilized to enhance employee performance, which ultimately leads to a positive
impact on business outcomes.
Purpose of training program
• Meeting manpower needs: In situations where the acquisition of skills that are
of a highly specialized and specific nature is deemed necessary, it may prove to
be an impractical endeavour for an organization to enlist the services of skilled
personnel from the open market. Consequently, the only viable course of action
would be to undertake the task oneself, in a do-it-yourself fashion.
2
• Improved Performance: Best methods are taught to skilled trainees in order to
eradicate incorrect working practice and poor work habits and enhance their
work performance leading to the achievement of organisational goals.
• Reduced Wastage: The reduction of material and equipment costs can
frequently be achieved by the implementation of an effective and optimized
training program.
• Fewer accidents: It has been observed that the incidence of accidents among
individuals who lack proper training is evidently thrice as much in comparison
to the rate of accidents experienced by those individuals who are professionally
trained and possess the relevant knowledge and skills required for their
respective tasks.
• Benefits to employees: Improving one's expertise in a specific profession
undoubtedly enhances the value of an apprentice in the labor market, thereby
facilitating internal and external growth opportunities. Moreover, there is a
likelihood of a pay raise for the worker in certain circumstances, in conjunction
with a sense of accomplishment that comes from performing duties with
precision for the first time.
Purpose of Evaluating Training Program
Training assessment is the methodical procedure of gathering data and utilizing

that data to enhance the training. Assessment furnishes feedback to assist in determining
if the training attained its intended results and aids in making judgments regarding
forthcoming training.
Evaluation of training gives comprehensive feedback on the value of the training

programs and their effectiveness in achieving business goals. It helps the management
to better understand and identify skill gaps to analyze the desired outcomes of training
programs. It also helps the organization to:
• identify issues and improve the overall processes of training programs;

• analyze the effectiveness of training materials and other tools;
• determine the needed leadership competencies to solve critical problems;
• support continuous change in career development; and
• assess the overall training experience of the participants.
3
Kirkpatrick’s Model of Training Evaluation
There are many methods and models to evaluate the effectiveness of a training
program. One of the models is Kirkpatrick’s four levels of training evaluation. The
model, created by Donald L. Kirkpatrick in the 1950s and built upon in subsequent
years, offers a well-organized method for assessing the results of training programs.
This is globally recognized as one of the most effective evaluations of training and
consists of four levels: Reaction, learning, behaviour, and results.
Level 1: Reaction - The first level of criteria is "reaction," which measures if learners
find the training engaging, favourable, and relevant to their work. This is the most
common type of evaluation that departments carry out today. This level is typically
evaluated through a post-training survey asking trainees to rate their experience.
Training practitioners often distribute evaluation forms to participants after a workshop
or e-learning session. This feedback, although valuable, is not the most effective way to
enhance the training program. The main objective of corporate training is to enhance
employee performance, and while it is good to know that participants enjoyed the
experience, it does not indicate if our performance targets or business goals are being
met. The bulk of the effort should be devoted to levels 2, 3, and 4.
4
Level 2: Learning – Level-two evaluation is an integral part of most training
experiences. This level assesses the acquisition of knowledge, skills, attitude,
confidence, and commitment to the training by each participant. The evaluation of
learning can be accomplished through a variety of approaches, including formal and
informal methods. Assessment is a cornerstone of training design: think multiple choice
quizzes and final exams. It is recommended that learning be assessed through pre-
learning and post-learning assessments in order to ascertain the accuracy and
comprehension of the acquired knowledge.
Level 3: Behaviour - One of the most critical stages in the Kirkpatrick Model is Level
3, the high-value evaluation data that helps us make informed improvements to the
training program, which evaluates the extent to which learners have been genuinely
influenced by the learning experience and the degree to which they are implementing
the acquired knowledge. Level 3 evaluation data tells us whether or not people are
behaving differently on the job as a consequence of the training program. The
assessment of behavioural modifications enables us to ascertain not only the
comprehension of the acquired skills, but also the feasibility of their practical
application within the work environment. While this data is important, it is also harder
to gather than the data in the first two levels of the model. On-the-job measures are
required to determine if behaviour has been altered due to the training.
Level 4: Results – Level 4 evaluation is the most demanding and intricate. This assesses
direct outcomes by comparing learning with established business outcomes. These
outcomes, known as Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), include higher ROI, fewer
accidents, and increased sales quantity. To generate valuable data at this level, it is
recommended to collaborate with a control group. Choose two groups with as many
common factors as possible, and subject one group to the training experience. Analyze
and compare the data generated by each group to enhance the training experience in a
manner that is meaningful to the business. Employing control groups can be costly and
not always feasible. Despite the complexities involved, level 4 information is
undeniably the most precious. This particular level of data provides insights into the
effectiveness of your training endeavours on the overall business. If these training
initiatives are indeed contributing to tangible outcomes, then the value generated by
these efforts will become evident. However, if they are not yielding any positive results,
then it might be more beneficial for the business to forgo the training altogether.
5
1.2 NEED FOR THE STUDY
Healthcare workers are picking up the slack from staffing shortages - it’s hard
to find the time to upskill or reskill so they can keep up with the demands of advancing
technology. Skill gaps are cause for concern in healthcare, where patient care and safety
are paramount. When healthcare workers don’t have the skills they need, patient safety
and satisfaction are affected. Healthcare professionals become more likely to make
medical errors, which affects patient trust and the provider’s reputation. Skill gaps can
also lead to increased costs due to inefficient work and corrective training. In light of
the necessity to promptly deliver skill gap training to employees, it is inevitable to assess
and gauge the efficacy of the training programs furnished to them. This present study
aims to analyse the effectiveness of the training programs provided to the employees of
NMC, employing the Kirkpatrick Model of Training Evaluation. The Kirkpatrick
model, which is still in use more than sixty years after its development, is one of the
oldest and undoubtedly the most famous model. It remains useful, appropriate, and
applicable in various contexts. The model demonstrates adaptability in many training
environments and achieves high performance in evaluating training.
6
1.3 OBJECTIVES
Primary Objectives
• To measure the effectiveness of training programs offered at NMC, using the

Kirkpatrick Model of Training Evaluation
Secondary Objectives
• To measure the level of Reaction of the Kirkpatrick Model at NMC

• To measure the level of Learning of the Kirkpatrick Model at NMC
• To measure the level of Behavioural change of the Kirkpatrick Model at NMC
• To measure the level of Results achieved of the Kirkpatrick Model at NMC
7
1.4 RESEARCH HYPOTHESES
Null Hypothesis (H01):
The mean difference between the two paired scores is equal to zero.
There is no difference between Gender and outcome variables.
There is no difference between Age and outcome variables.
There is no difference between Education Qualifications and outcome variables.
There is no difference between Departments and outcome variables.
Null Hypothesis (H06) :
There is no impact of Independent variables on Level 1 - Reaction
There is no impact of Independent variables on Level 2 - Learning
There is no impact of Independent variables on Level 3 - Behaviour
There is no impact of Independent variables on Level 4 - Results
8
1.5 LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY
• It is assumed that the participants understood the statements presented for rating
and were honest with their responses.
• The limitations of the study are:
o Due to the time constraint of the study, the participants who had
previously attended the same training program 3 months prior to the
study provided their responses for levels 3 and 4. This method ensures
the reliable acquisition of the effectiveness of levels 3 and 4.
o Most participants were on duty time, making it challenging to engage
with them effectively.
9
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
1. Maye Omar, Nancy Gerein, Ehsanullah Tarin, Christopher Butcher, Stephen Pearson
and Gholamreza Heidari (2008) in their research paper titled “Training evaluation: a
case study of training Iranian health managers” aims to study the competences of
participants in their current management roles and responsibilities in order to enable
them to do their jobs better and to enable participants to organise and manage the
training of others using a range of methods and approaches. Data collection was
through structured questionnaire to 23 participants who had between one and 13
months of training course.
2. Mohammed Rejaul Karim, Kazi Nazmul Huda & Rehnuma Sultana Khan (2012) in
their research paper titled “Significance of Training and Post Training Evaluation for
Employee Effectiveness” aims to find of how training refers to the acquisition of
knowledge, skill and attitudes, facilitates the organization to better understand the
necessity of post-training evaluation leading to effective employee engagement. Data
collection was done through semi-structured interviews and surveys. It is advised
that Sainsbury’s New Cross Gate identify the purpose of post-training evaluation
before deciding what information needs to be collected.
3. Shahrooz Farjad (2012) in his research paper titled “The Evaluation Effectiveness of
Training Courses in University by Kirkpatrick Model” aims to evaluate the
effectiveness of Job-based Training in Islamshahr University. Through descriptive
data collection method from population of personnel (40), managers (11) and
teachers (30). The study shows that the efficiency of instructional programs is not up
to par. Additionally, information collected regarding the evaluation of efficiency
indicated that reaction, learning, behaviour and organizational levels require
enhancement. The research demonstrated that the evaluation of efficiency in the
subject center needed improvement by implementing the optimization of
instructional design, redefining instructional responsibilities, allocating sufficient
funds, commitment from management, consideration for individual, job, and
organizational needs, motivational methods, and utilization of ongoing and final
evaluation.
10
4. Imran Raza (2015) in his paper titled “Impact of Training and Development on
Employee Performance” aims to examine the influence of training and human
resource development on employee performance. The case company is Salt’n Pepper
Pvt. Ltd. Lahore and research strategy includes quantitative and qualitative analysis
from responses of 100 employees. The study showed that as the age of the employee
increases the effectiveness of training on employee performance and employee
willingness decreases; as the professional experience of employees increases, the
likelihood of employee motivation to undergo training and effectiveness of training
on employee performance decreases; the impact of training shows positive affect on
job performance of employees, also there was a link of training and its impact on
performance with education, gender, and designation was observed. The study was
conducted only in one city due to the limited budget and time, so its effectiveness
could be checked by conducting study in the different branches of the company
located in the other cities to see if the factors show different results.
5. Bailee Jo Miller (2018) in his research paper titled “Utilizing the Kirkpatrick Model
to Evaluate a Collegiate High-Impact Leadership Development Program” conducted
a study to determine the effectiveness of the leadership development program - The
Dr. Joe Townsend ’67 Leadership Fellows. They took census study of 108 fellow
program participants, which contained 24-question survey that included participant
personal characteristics, and the four level of Kirkpatrick’s Evaluation model. In the
Reaction section of Kirkpatrick’s Evaluation Model, the participants overall thoughts
on the program were very positive; in the learning section, it is inferred that
participation in the Fellows program was beneficial both during their time as a
Fellow and also in preparation for their futures; in Behaviour section, the Fellows’
views of themselves as leaders, on average, changed due to their participation in the
program. The study shows that the participants scored statistically significant scores
on all four levels of Kirkpatrick’s model. The overall effectiveness of the Fellows
program was said to be successful and the results from the participants were both
positive and promising for the program.
6. Marzieh Zare and Fatemeh Vizeshfar (2018) in their research paper titled
“Evaluation of Health Education Volunteering Program based on Kirkpatrick
Model” aims to evaluate the health education volunteering program. The method
used was quasi-experimental study wherein 30 health volunteers at one of Shiraz’s
comprehensive health centers, participated in the training program related to the
11
Antibiotic Resistance Book. The data collection was through questionnaire,
containing demographic characteristics of the samples and the second part of
Knowledge, Attitude and Practice about Antibiotics Resistance Questionnaire
designed by the Ministry of Health and Medical Education. The results showed that
the majority of the volunteers were satisfied with the company at that time and at the
second level, the knowledge of volunteers increased significantly after the training.
7. Aljawharah Alsalamah and Carol Callinan (2021) in their research paper titled
“Adaptation of Kirkpatrick’s Four-Level Model of Training Criteria to Evaluate
Training Programmes for Head Teachers” aims to evaluate 12 training programs for
female head teachers in Saudi Arabia, comprising of 250 trainee head teachers and
12 supervisors. The adapted model consists of four levels, with first 2 levels (reaction
and learning) evaluated by quantitative data (a survey) with trainee head teachers,
the behaviour level was evaluated by qualitative and quantitative data (open- and
closed-ended questions) with trainee head teacher, the results level was evaluated by
qualitative, semi-structured interviews with supervisors. The study shows that the
trainee female head teachers generally reported satisfaction with the training
programmes they received through the training centres in Saudi Arabia in level 1,
the participants believed that their knowledge, information and practical skills had
improved as a result of undertaking training programmes in level 2, in level 3 the
results showed a positive change of behaviour including increase in self-confidence
and motivation of head teachers, the result level showed that the training has a
positive effect on the improvement and development of the administrative work of
the head teachers. The study encountered several limitations such as only female
participants were asked to respond since there is strict separation of males and
females in education environment in Kingdom of Saudi Arabia for religious and
cultural reasons, also this study only assessed the impact of individual characteristics
of trainee head teachers on training outcomes and did not consider the effects of
other factors, such as environmental factors.
8. Sarah Louise Gillanders, Alison McHugh, Peter D. Lacy and Mona Thornton (2022)
in their research paper titled “Safe Surgical Training: Evaluation of a National
Functional Endoscopic Sinus Surgery Model Simulation Course using
the Kirkpatrick Evaluation Model” aims to evaluate the simulation training as a tool
for higher surgical training in functional endoscopic sinus surgery (FESS). The study
involves qualitative survey and multiple-choice questionnaire which is distributed to
12
21 otolaryngology trainees pre- and post-FESS training course using simulation
models. The trainee’s reaction section found the pre-course material was helpful and
agreed simulation afforded the opportunity to catch up on missed operative exposure.
The knowledge section resulted in an average increase of their knowledge in post-
course compared to the pre-course. The behaviour section showed that the trainees
had a positive view of the simulation and felt this would positively impact their future
operations. The study concludes that simulation training is an effective method of
postgraduate FESS training.
9. Nurulita Imansari, Umi Kholifah, Akbar Mukti Sasono (2023) in their paper titled
“Evaluation of Programmable Logic Controller Training Implementation Using
Kirkpatrick (4 Levels)” conducted a study to evaluate the implementation of the
Programmable Logic Controller (PLC) training conducted by HMPS Comet. The
research subjects were 32 electrical engineering education study program students,
who attended PLC training. The instruments used were questionnaire for levels 1 to
3 and pretest-posttest for level 4. The findings of the study show that students were
content and engaged in this PLC training activity, at level 2, the findings indicate
that there was a growth in understanding, proficiency, and adjustments in student
perspectives, at level 3 the result was a change in students' behaviour, especially
work attitude behaviour after students have taken part in PLC training. Finally, at
level 4 the evaluation results show that there is an increase in students' abilities from
previously attending training and after participating in training, in which the results
of the increase are in the high category. This indicates that the executed PLC training
has successfully fostered students' comprehension, skills, and work attitudes.
13
2.2 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
TYPE OF RESEARCH
The research method used is survey method and the type of research is
descriptive research.
SOURCES OF DATA
Primary and Secondary Data
AGENCY FOR STUDY
The target respondents of the study are the employees of NMC - Multispeciality
Hospital, Puducherry. The total number of respondents for Levels 1 and 2 were 46
respondents – employees who attended the training program during the study, and for
Levels 3 and 4 were 40 respondents – employees who attended the same training
program 3 months before the study. In total, respondents for all the Levels were 86.
DESCRIPTION OF SAMPLE
The sample consists of 86 employees of NMC - Multispeciality Hospital,

Puducherry. This includes respondents of executive employees from 4 departments –
Lab, Pharmacy, Nurse and Front Office. The demographic details of each of the samples
were collected which does not include their names in order to protect the identity of the
subjects of the study.
SAMPLING METHOD
The samples were selected using convenience sampling method. The

respondents are those employees who are readily available and willing to take part in
this survey.
14
DATA COLLECTION PROCEDURE
The data collection sources are Primary data and Secondary data. The tool used
to collect data from the respondents was through questionnaire having 5-point rating
scale. The questionnaire consists of 4 levels – Reaction, Learning, Behaviour and
Results. Level 1 – Reaction comprises of Engagement, Relevancy and Satisfaction;
Level 2 – Learning comprises of Knowledge, Skill, Attitude, Confidence and
Commitment; Level 3 – Behaviour comprises of Knowledge Utilization, Skill
Application, Ability and Organisational Support; Level 4 – Results comprises of Work
Quality, Cooperation, Teamwork and Patient Satisfaction.
Secondary Data Collection
The secondary data were collected : pre-test and post-test scores of respondents
from the HR department, to carryout the data analysis.
TOOLS & TECHNIQUES USED FOR DATA ANALYSIS
The various statistical tools used for the analysis of data are SPSS & MS Excel. The
various techniques used for data analysis are as follows:
• Frequency tables
• Charts
• Descriptive statistics
• Paired T-Test
• ANOVA
• Correlation
• Hierarchical Regression
15
CHAPTER III
3.1 INDUSTRY PROFILE
Healthcare Industry in India
Healthcare has become one of India's largest sectors, both in terms of revenue
and employment. The industry is growing tremendously due to its strengthening
coverage, service and increasing expenditure by public and private players. Over the
past two years, technology and innovation in healthcare have become more prominent,
and 80% of healthcare systems plan to increase their investment in digital healthcare
technologies over the next five years.
The Healthcare sector in India comprises of hospitals, medical devices, clinical

trials, outsourcing, telemedicine, medical tourism, health insurance, and medical
equipment. Growing incidence of lifestyle diseases, rising demand for affordable
healthcare delivery systems due to the increasing healthcare costs, technological
advancements, the emergence of telemedicine, rapid health insurance penetration and
government initiatives like e-health together with tax benefits and incentives are driving
the healthcare market in India. Due to improved services, coverage, and rising spending
by both public and private entities, the Indian healthcare industry is expanding quickly.
India has a vast health care system, but there remain many differences in quality
between rural and urban areas as well as between public and private health care. India's
Ministry of Health was established with independence from Britain in 1947. The
government has made health a priority in its series of five-year plans, each of which
determines state spending priorities for the coming five years. The National Health
Policy was endorsed by Parliament in 1983. The policy aimed at universal health care
coverage by 2000 and the program was updated in 2002.
The health care system in India is primarily administered by the states. India's
Constitution tasks each state with providing health care for its people. In order to
address lack of medical coverage in rural areas, the national government launched the
National Rural Health Mission in 2005. This mission focuses resources on rural areas
16
and poor states that have weak health services in the hope of improving health care in
India's poorest regions.
Some of the Insights of Indian Healthcare Sector
o As of 2021, the Indian healthcare sector is one of India’s largest employers as it

employs a total of 4.7 million people. The sector has generated 2.7 million
additional jobs in India between 2017-22 -- over 500,000 new jobs per year.
o As of May 11, 2023, more than 2.20 billion COVID-19 vaccine doses have been
administered across the country.
o Rising income levels, an ageing population, growing health awareness and a
changing attitude towards preventive healthcare are expected to boost healthcare
services demand in the future.
o The low cost of medical services has resulted in a rise in the country’s medical
tourism, attracting patients from across the world. Moreover, India has emerged
as a hub for R&D activities for international players due to its relatively low cost
of clinical research.
o India has the world’s largest Health Insurance Scheme (Ayushman Bharat)
supported by the government.
o Conducive policies for encouraging FDI, tax benefits, and favourable
Government policies coupled with promising growth prospects have helped the
industry attract private equity (PE), venture capitals (VCs) and foreign players.
o The budgeted spending on the health sector by the federal and state governments
was 2.1% of Gross Domestic Production (GDP) in FY23 and 2.2% in FY22, up
from 1.6% in FY21.
o India’s medical educational infrastructure has grown rapidly in the last few
decades. As of May 2023, the number medical colleges in India stood at 654.
o Multinational healthcare company Abbott has committed to converting 75
Primary Health Centers (PHCs) to Health and Wellness Centers (HWCs) in nine
Indian States, in collaboration with Americares India Foundation, a non-profit
organisation dedicated to relief and development in the field of health. This will
benefit over 2.5 million people from under-resourced communities every year
17
Competitive Advantage
The growth of healthcare centers in India will be driven by factors such as rising
income, increased health awareness, lifestyle diseases, and greater access to insurance.
The healthcare sector, as of 2021, is one of India’s largest employers, employing a total
of 4.7 million people.
India’s public expenditure on healthcare touched 2.1 % of GDP in FY23 and 2.2%
in FY22, against 1.6% in FY21, as per the Economic Survey 2022-23.
Two vaccines (Bharat Biotech's Covaxin and Oxford-AstraZeneca’s Covishield

manufactured by the Serum Institute of India) were instrumental in medically
safeguarding the Indian population and those of 100+ countries against COVID-19
The Indian Government plans to establish India as a worldwide healthcare center.

The enhancement of public health surveillance in India will reinforce the healthcare
systems.
In the Union Budget 2023-24, the government allocated Rs. 89,155 crore (US$
10.76 billion) to the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (MoHFW).
A multitude of highly skilled medical professionals are readily accessible within the
nation.
Major Healthcare Centers in India
➢ Delhi ➢ Chennai
➢ Mumbai ➢ Bengaluru
➢ Hyderabad ➢ Ahmedabad
➢ Kolkata
Top Government Hospitals in India
• All India Institute Of Medical Sciences, Delhi

• Sir Ganga Ram Hospital
• Safdarjung Hospital, Delhi
• Sir JJ Hospital
• KEM Hospital
• Rajiv Gandhi Government General Hospital (RGGGH)
18
• Government Kilpauk Medical College Hospital (GKMC)
Top Private hospitals in India
• Medanta The Medicity, Gurgaon

• Artemis Hospital
• Apollo Hospitals
• Max Hospitals
• Fortis Memorial Research Institute
Trends in the Indian Healthcare Sector
• Due to urbanization and modern living issues, half of in-patient bed spending is
for lifestyle diseases, leading to a rise in specialized care demand. In India,
traditional health problems have been replaced by lifestyle diseases
• Vaatsalya Healthcare prioritizes expansion in tier II and III cities, setting a
precedent for hospital chains. The Government has provided tax exemptions for
private sector hospitals in these areas for their first five years to promote
establishment.
• Telemedicine is a swiftly developing industry in India. Virtual care, which
includes teleconsult, telepathology, teleradiology, and epharmacy, is gaining
momentum in the country. Several major hospitals, such as Apollo, AIIMS, and
Narayana Hrudayalaya, have implemented telemedicine services and
established several public-private partnerships.
• The increasing use of AI-based applications allows individuals to communicate
directly with medical professionals and receive top-notch treatment.
Additionally, it has the potential to tackle issues faced by patients, doctors,
hospitals, and the healthcare industry as a whole.
• In July 2021, India released its open-source CoWIN vaccination platform. Many
countries have shown interest in using it for their own vaccination efforts.
• Various technologies like Digital Health Knowledge Resources, Electronic
Medical Record, Mobile Healthcare, Electronic Health Record, Hospital
Information System, PRACTO, technology-enabled care, telemedicine and
Hospital Management Information Systems are increasingly being adopted in
the healthcare sector.
19
The following are the policy support and initiatives of government to develop the
healthcare sector:
• Pradhan Mantri Jan Arogya Yojana (PMJAY) scheme

• Pradhan Mantri Swasthya Suraksha Yojana (PMSSY) scheme
• PM Ayushman Bharat Health Infrastructure Mission (PM-ABHIM)
• Intensified Mission Indradhanush (IMI) 3.0
• Tax incentives are provided to all healthcare education and training services and
many more
• Availing credit incentives for healthcare infrastructure
• National Nutrition Mission (NNM) to monitor, supervise, fix targets and guide
the nutrition related interventions across ministries.
• National Health Mission (NHS)
• National Digital Health Mission (NDHM), developed to provide the necessary
support system for integrated digital health infrastructure of the country
• Various Incentives in the medical travel industry
• Initiatives in Tele-medicine
• Vision 2035: Public Health Surveillance in India - To make the public health
surveillance system in India more flexible and predictive to strengthen action
preparedness at all levels.
• The Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) has proposed to set up a single
window system for start-ups and innovators seeking approvals, consents, and
information regarding regulatory requirements.
• Establishment of health system capacities at airports under the Aatmanirbhar
Swasth Bharat Yojana
20
3.2 COMPANY PROFILE
New Medical Centre – Multispeciality Hospital
The initiation of the new medical centre, which is the primary undertaking of
Auro Care Private Limited, was officially set into motion on the 11 th of May in the year
1995. At the new medical centre, there exists an unwavering dedication towards the
welfare and betterment of the patients whom they have the privilege of serving. Within
the confines of this institution, doctors hailing from various fields of specialization
come together harmoniously as a cohesive unit, placing the utmost importance on the
provision of comprehensive care for their esteemed patients. This collaborative effort is
guided by their philosophy “The welfare of patients comes first”.
The organisation was founded by Dr. M.V. Thayumana Sundaram, MBBS.,

MS., FRCS who served in India, various parts of England and the Middle East believed
in various specialists working as a unit.
NMC is dedicated to providing the finest healthcare for each patient, exploring
their concerns and ceaselessly searching for solutions until they discover them. They
will individualize treatments for every patient which will enable them to understand the
differences in disease patterns. Their culture is built on teamwork and quality so that
the best care and service are delivered through every practice.
Departments
The following are the departments functioning in the organisation:
• Cardiology • Neurosurgery
• Cosmetology • Obstetrics and Gynecology
• Chest Medicine & Pulmonology • Oncology
• Dental & Maxillofacial • Orthopedics & Spine
• Dermatology • Pediatrics
• Emergency and Critical Care • Psychiatry
• ENT • Thoracic & Vascular
• Gastroenterology • Urology
• General Medicine • Physiotherapy
• General Surgery • Radiology
21
Quality Policy
New Medical Centre is committed to achieve excellence in health care by setting high
standards, continually improving them and thereby satisfying our patients by
providing world class service through integrated employee participation in our
effective quality management system
Mission Statement
New Medical Centre is committed to achieve excellence in medical care by

setting high standards, continually improving them and thereby satisfying our
customer by providing world-class service through integrated employee participation.
Vision Statement
New Medical Centre’s vision “To be a leader in patient care, research and
education” and “Service is our life time”
Values
These values are a reflection of the vision and intent of their founder, Dr. M.V.
Thayumana Sundaram
➢ Respect:
They treat the patients, their families and their relatives with dignity.
➢ Compassion:
They demonstrate commitment towards excellence in medical care by

providing an environment that treats the patients with sensitivity and empathy.
➢ Integrity:
They adhere to the highest standards of moral principles, professionalism and

ethics by a commitment to honesty, trust, respect, transparency and confidentiality.
➢ Teamwork:
They share knowledge, blend the skills of each staff in the spirit of true
collaboration to benefit patients and caregivers for the enhancement of their mission.
22
➢ Quality:
They strive to deliver the best outcomes and exceed their patients’ expectations
through the dedicated team effort of their staff.
Facilities
They offer various facilities such as:
• 24 x 7 Intensive Cardiac Care Unit • Operation theaters

• General Ward • 24 x 7 medical facilities
• Single rooms • Delux rooms
• 24 Hours Pharmacy • TMT
• Echo Cardiogram • 24 hours laboratory
• Holter monitoring • Ultrasound and colour doppler
• 24 hours X-Ray • Preventive Health Check ups
• Occupational health services • Vaccination clinic
• Ambulance service • Sleep study
• Mobi Lab • Biomedical waste management
23
CHAPTER IV
DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION
INTRODUCTION
Data analysis is a process of inspecting, cleansing, transforming and modelling

data with the goal of discovering useful information, informing conclusions and
supporting decision making. The process of evaluating data using analytical and
logical reasoning to examine each component of the data provided. The purpose of
data analysis is to extract useful information from data and take the decisions based
upon the data analysis. This form of analysis is just one of the many steps that must be
completed when conducting a research experiment. Data from various sources is
gathered, reviewed and then analysed to form somesort of findings and conclusions.
Data analysis has multiple facts and approaches, encompassing diverse techniques
under a variety of names, while being used in different business, science and social
science domains. The tools/techniques used are Percentage, Mean, Correlation, T –
test and ANOVA.
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS
Descriptive Statistics is used to summarise the data and bring forth the
underlying information. Descriptive Statistics are brief descriptive coefficients that
summarise a givendata set, which can be either a representation of the entire or sample
population.
24
4.1 PERCENTAGE ANALYSIS
4.1.1 Gender
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid Male 26 30.2 30.2 30.2
female 60 69.8 69.8 100.0
Total 86 100.0 100.0

.
GENDER
Female,
30.20%
Male,
69.77%
Inference
From the above table, it can be inferred that, out of 86 respondents (from all the
levels), 30.2% of the respondents were male and 69.8% of the respondents were female.
25
4.1.2 Age
Valid Cumulative
Valid less than 30 51 59.3 59.3 59.3
30-45 31 36.0 36.0 95.3
more than 45 4 4.7 4.7 100.0
Total 86 100.0 100.0
AGE
59.3%
60
50 36%
40
30
20
4.7%
10
0
Less than 30 30-45 More than 45
Inference
From the above table, it can be inferred that 59.30% of the respondents are aged
less than 30, 36.0% of the respondents fall within the 30-45 age range and about 4.7%
are more than 45 years of age.
26
4.1.3 Marital Status
Valid Cumulative
Valid unmarried 48 55.8 55.8 55.8
married 38 44.2 44.2 100.0
Total 86 100.0 100.0
MARITAL STATUS
44.19%
55.81%
Unmarried Married
Inference
The above table shows that 55.8% of the respondents are not married and 44.2%
of the respondents are married.
27
4.1.4 Educational Qualification
Valid Cumulative
Valid Degree 48 55.8 55.8 55.8
Pg and Above 2 2.3 2.3 58.1
Others
36 41.9 41.9 100.0
Diploma/Technical
Total 86 100.0 100.0
EDUCATION QUALIFICATION
60 55.81 %
50
36 %
40
30
20
10
2.33 %
0
Degree PG and above Others Diploma/Technical
Inference
From the above table, it can be inferred that 55.8% of the respondents have
completed degree, 2.3% of the respondents have completed Post graduation and 41.9%
of the respondents have completed Diploma/ technical or others
28
4.1.5 Department
Valid Cumulative
Valid Lab 21 24.4 24.4 24.4
Pharmacy 17 19.8 19.8 44.2
Nurse 30 34.9 34.9 79.1
Front
18 20.9 20.9 100.0
Office
Total 86 100.0 100.0
DEPARTMENTS
Front Office 20.9 %
Nurse 34.9 %
Pharmacy 19.8 %
Lab 24.4 %
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Inference
From the above table, it can be inferred that Nurse department makes up the
largest proportion, accounting for 34.9% of the total, followed by the Lab department
at 24.4%, department Front Office with 20.9% of respondents and Pharmacy
department with 19.8% of the respondents.
29
4.1.6 Average hours spent on office work per week
Valid Cumulative
Valid upto 48 hours 51 59.3 59.3 59.3
more than 48
35 40.7 40.7 100.0
hours
Total 86 100.0 100.0
AVERAGE HOURS SPENT ON OFFICE WORK PER

WEEK
upto 48 hours more than 48 hours
40.7 %
59.3 %
Inference
From the above table, it can be inferred that 59.3% of the respondents work upto
48 office hours per week and 40.7% of the respondents work more than 48 office hours
per week.
30
4.1.7 Number of years of experience
Valid Cumulative
Valid less than 2 years 42 48.8 48.8 48.8
2-5 years 20 23.3 23.3 72.1
5-10 years 11 12.8 12.8 84.9
more than 10
13 15.1 15.1 100.0
years
Total 86 100.0 100.0
NUMBER OF YEARS OF EXPERIENCE

60
48.8%
50
40
30
23.3%
20 15.1%
12.8%
10
0
1
less than 2 years 2-5 years 5-10 years more than 10 years
Inference
From the table, it can be inferred that the majority of employees in this
organization have less than 2 years of experience, accounting for 48.8% of the total,
23.3% of the workforce falls within the 2-5 years category, 12.8% of employees with
5-10 years of experience and 15.1% of employees with more than 10 years of experience
in the organization.
31
4.1.8 Frequency of undergoing training program
Valid Cumulative
Valid Weekly 30 34.9 34.9 34.9
Monthly 56 65.1 65.1 100.0
Total 86 100.0 100.0
FREQUENCY OF UNDERGOING TRAINING
Monthly 65.1%
Weekly 34.9%
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Inference
From the above table, it is inferred that 65.1% of the respondents attend the
training program on a monthly basis and 34.9% of the respondents attend the training
program on a weekly basis, in the organisation.
32
4.1.9 Trainer preference
Valid Cumulative
Valid internal trainer 20 23.3 23.3 23.3
external trainer 4 4.7 4.7 27.9
both 62 72.1 72.1 100.0
Total 86 100.0 100.0
TRAINER PREFERENCE
Internal
trainer, 23.3
External
trainer, 4.7
Both, 72.1
Inference
From the table, it can be inferred that 23.3% prefer internal trainers, 4.7% prefer
external trainers, and a majority of 72.1% prefer both internal and external trainers,
indicating a strong preference for a combination of training sources among the
respondents.
33
4.2 DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS OF COMPONENTS OF LEVEL 1 & 2
4.2.1 Descriptive Statistics
Std.
N Minimum Maximum Mean
Deviation
Engagement_lv1 46 3 5 4.59 .371
Relevancy_lv1 46 4 5 4.70 .326
Satisfaction_lv1 46 4 5 4.68 .328
Knowledge_lv2 46 4 5 4.62 .315
Skill_lv2 46 4 5 4.63 .383
Attitude_lv2 46 4 5 4.68 .343
Confidence_lv2 46 4 5 4.69 .352
Commitment_lv2 46 4 5 4.68 .351
Valid N (listwise) 46
Inference
The mean values of all the components range from 4.59 to 4.70, which
indicates that on average, respondents reported favourable ratings for all these
attributes.
The standard deviation of all the components ranges from .315 to .383,
indicating lower standard deviations leading to a relatively low degree of
variability or dispersion in the dataset.
34
4.2 DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS OF COMPONENTS OF LEVEL 3 & 4
4.2.2 Descriptive Statistics
Std.
N Minimum Maximum Mean
Deviation
Knowledge_utilization_lv3 40 4.00 5.00 4.55 .366
Skill_application_lv3 40 4.00 5.00 4.60 .330
Ability_lv3 40 4.00 5.00 4.60 .266
Organisational_support_lv3 40 4.00 5.00 4.54 .303
Work_quality_lv4 40 4.00 5.00 4.16 .298
Cooperation_lv4 40 4.00 5.00 4.21 .352
Teamwork_lv4 40 4.00 5.00 4.11 .243
Patient_satisfaction_lv4 40 4.00 5.00 4.04 .096
Valid N (listwise) 40
Inference
The mean values of all the components range from 4.04 to 4.6, which
indicates that on average, respondents reported favourable ratings for all these
attributes.
The standard deviation of all the components ranges from .096 to .366,
indicating lower standard deviations leading to a relatively low degree of
variability or dispersion in the dataset.
35
4.3 PAIRED SAMPLE T-TEST
4.3.1 Paired Samples Statistics

Std. Error
Mean N Std. Deviation Mean
Pair 1 Pre-test scores 7.33 46 1.687 .249
Post-test scores 8.80 46 1.204 .178
The mean difference between the two paired scores is equal to zero.
Alternate Hypothesis (H1):
The mean difference between the two paired scores is not equal to zero.
Inference
The results show that the paired samples statistics reveal a statistically
significant improvement in scores from the pre-test to the post-test. The mean pre-test
score was 7.33, while the post-test mean score was 8.80. There is an increase of 1.47
points in the post-test scores, therefore the null hypothesis (H01) is rejected. Further
this increase in mean scores suggests that the training program had a positive impact on
the participants.
36
4.3.2 Paired Samples Correlations
N Correlation Sig.
Pair 1 Pre-test scores & Post-
46 .579 .000
test scores
Inference
The paired t-test correlation (r = 0.579), comparing pre-test and post-test scores
of 46 participants, indicates a statistically significant positive relationship between the
two sets of scores (p < 0.001). This suggests that individuals who scored higher on the
pre-test tended to have higher scores on the post-test, highlighting a consistent
improvement or performance retention due to the training program
4.3.3 Paired Samples Test

Sig. (2-
Paired Differences tailed)
95% Confidence
Std. Interval of the
Std. Error Difference
Mean Deviation Mean Lower Upper t df
Pair 1 Pre-
test
scores
-1.478 1.394 .206 -1.892 -1.064 -7.191 45 .000
- Post-
test
scores
Inference
From the above data, it can be inferred that, there is a significant difference
between pre-test and post-test scores (p = .000 < .05) and the mean difference between
pre-test and post-test scores is approximately -1.478. The negative t-value (-7.191) and
the confidence interval (Lower: -1.892, Upper: -1.064, which does not include zero)
indicate that the pre-test scores are significantly lower than the post-test scores.
37
4.3.4 GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION OF PRE-TEST POST-TEST SCORES
LAB PHARMACY
10 10
8 8
6 6
4 4
2 2
0 0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
PRETEST POSTEST PRETEST POSTEST
NURSING FRONT OFFICE

12 12
10 10
8 8
6 6
4 4
2 2
0
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
PRETEST POSTEST
PRETEST POSTEST
The above charts depict a visual representation of the pre-test and post-test
scores conducted in Lab, Pharmacy, Nursing and Front Office departments. The number
of respondents in each department who have undergone pre-test and post-test: Lab –
11, Pharmacy – 7, Nurse – 20, Front Office – 8
38
4.4 ANOVA
4.4.1 GENDER AND OUTCOME VARIABLES
ANOVA
Sum of Mean
df F Sig.
Squares Square
Level1_Reaction Between Groups .026 1 .026 .271 .605
Within Groups 4.249 44 .097
Total 4.275 45
Level2_Learning Between Groups .039 1 .039 .406 .527
Total 4.293 45
Null Hypothesis
H02a : There is no difference between Gender and Level 1
H02b : There is no difference between Gender and Level 2
Alternate Hypothesis
H2a : There is a difference between Gender and Level 1
H2b : There is a difference between Gender and Level 2
Inference
• There is no significant difference between Gender and Level 1, since sig = 0.605
is greater than .05 (p < 0.05). Therefore, H02a is accepted
is greater than .05 (p < 0.05). Therefore, H02b is accepted
39
4.4.1 GENDER AND OUTCOME VARIABLES
ANOVA
Sum of Mean
df F Sig.
Squares Square
Level3_Behaviour Between Groups .124 1 .124 2.402 .129
Total 2.082 39
Level4_Results Between Groups .009 1 .009 .243 .625
Total 1.491 39
Null Hypothesis
H02c : There is no difference between Gender and Level 3
H02d : There is no difference between Gender and Level 4
H2c : There is a difference between Gender and Level 3

H2d : There is a difference between Gender and Level 4
Inference
is greater than .05 (p < 0.05). Therefore, H02c is accepted
is greater than .05 (p < 0.05). Therefore, H02d is accepted
40
4.4.2 AGE AND OUTCOME VARIABLES
ANOVA
Sum of Mean
Squares df Square F Sig.
Level1_Reaction Between
.772 2 .386 2.387 .104
Groups
Total 4.275 45
Level2_Learning Between
.007 2 .004 .037 .964
Groups
Total 4.293 45
Null Hypothesis
H03a : There is no difference between Age and Level 1
H03b : There is no difference between Age and Level 2
H3a : There is a difference between Age and Level 1
H3b : There is a difference between Age and Level 2
Inference
• There is no significant difference between Age and Level 1, since sig = 0.104 is
greater than .05 (p < 0.05). Therefore, H03a is accepted.
greater than .05 (p < 0.05) Therefore, H03b is accepted
41
4.4.2 AGE AND OUTCOME VARIABLES
ANOVA
Sum of Mean
Level3_Behaviour Between Groups .230 2 .115 2.292 .115
Total 2.082 39
Level4_Results Between Groups .149 2 .075 2.058 .142
Total 1.491 39
Null Hypothesis
H03c : There is no difference between Age and Level 3
H03d : There is no difference between Age and Level 4
H3c : There is a difference between Age and Level 3

H3d : There is a difference between Age and Level 4
Inference
greater than .05 (p < 0.05). Therefore, H03c is accepted.
greater than .05 (p < 0.05). Therefore, H03d is accepted
42
4.4.3 EDUCATION QUALIFICATION AND OUTCOME VARIABLES
ANOVA
Sum of Mean
Level1_Reaction Between Groups .213 2 .106 1.125 .334
Total 4.275 45
Level2_Learning Between Groups .269 2 .134 1.437 .249
Total 4.293 45
Null Hypothesis
H04a : There is no difference between Education Qualification and Level 1
H04b : There is no difference between Education Qualification and Level 2
H4a : There is a difference between Education Qualification and Level 1
H4b : There is a difference between Education Qualification and Level 2
Inference
• There is no significant difference between Education Qualification and Level 1,

since sig = 0.334 is greater than .05 (p < 0.05). Therefore, H04a is accepted
since sig = 0.249 is greater than .05 (p < 0.05). Therefore, H04b is accepted
43
4.4.3 EDUCATION QUALIFICATION AND OUTCOME VARIABLES
ANOVA
Sum of Mean
Level3_Behaviour Between Groups .041 1 .041 .757 .390
Total 2.082 39
Level4_Results Between Groups .039 1 .039 1.022 .318
Total 1.491 39
Null Hypothesis
H04c : There is no difference between Education Qualification and Level 3
H04d : There is no difference between Education Qualification and Level 4
H4c : There is a difference between Education Qualification and Level 3
H4d : There is a difference between Education Qualification and Level 4
Inference

since sig = 0.390 is greater than .05 (p < 0.05). Therefore, H04c is accepted
since sig = 0.318 is greater than .05 (p < 0.05). Therefore, H04d is accepted
44
4.4.4 DEPARTMENTS AND OUTCOME VARIABLES
ANOVA
Sum of Mean
Level1_Reaction Between Groups 1.240 3 .413 2.470 .075
Total 4.275 45
Level2_Learning Between Groups .685 3 .228 2.658 .061
Total 4.293 45
Null Hypothesis
H05a : There is no difference between departments and Level 1
H05b : There is no difference between departments and Level 2
H5a : There is a difference between departments and Level 1
H5b : There is a difference between departments and Level 2
Inference
• There is no significant difference between departments and Level 1, since sig =

0.075 is greater than .05 (p < 0.05). Therefore, H05a is accepted.
0.061 is greater than .05 (p < 0.05). Therefore, H05b is accepted
45
4.4.4 DEPARTMENTS AND OUTCOME VARIABLES
ANOVA
Sum of Mean
Level3_Behaviour Between Groups .067 3 .022 .402 .753
Total 2.082 39
Level4_Results Between Groups .033 3 .011 .272 .845
Total 1.491 39
Null Hypothesis
H05c : There is no difference between departments and Level 3
H05d : There is no difference between departments and Level 4
H5c : There is a difference between departments and Level 3

H5d : There is a difference between departments and Level 4
Inference

0.753 is greater than .05 (p < 0.05). Therefore, H05c is accepted.
0.845 is greater than .05 (p < 0.05). Therefore, H05d is accepted
46
4.5 CORRELATION ANALYSIS
4.5.1 Correlation Analysis between Level 1 and Level 2
Correlations
Level1_Reaction Level2_Learning
Level1_Reaction Pearson Correlation 1 .751
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 46 46
Level2_Learning Pearson Correlation .751 1
N 46 46
Inference
From the table, it can be inferred that Level 1 – Reaction positively correlates to
Level 2 – Learning with a magnitude of .751.
It can also be inferred that the correlation between Level 1 – Reaction and Level
2 – Learning is significant among the respondents
4.5.2 Correlation Analysis between Level 3 and Level 4
Correlations
Level3_Behaviour Level4_Results
Level3_Behaviour Pearson Correlation 1 .092
N 40 40
Level4_Results Pearson Correlation .092 1
N 40 40
Inference
From the table, it can be inferred that Level 3 – Behaviour positively correlates
to Level 4 – Results with a magnitude of .092.
It can also be inferred that the correlation between Level 3 – Behaviour and
Level 4 – Results is not significant among the respondents (p = .571 > .05)
47
4.6 HIERARCHICAL REGRESSION
4.6.1 LEVEL 1 - REACTION

The hierarchical regression test was adopted to perform data analysis and the
results were exhibited in table 6.6.1
4.6.1 ANOVAa
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 3.428 1 3.428 178.020 .000b
Residual .847 44 .019
Total 4.275 45
2 Regression 4.064 2 2.032 413.172 .000c
Residual .211 43 .005
Total 4.275 45
3 Regression 4.275 3 1.425 . .d
Residual .000 42 .000
Total 4.275 45
a. Dependent Variable: Level1_Reaction
b. Predictors: (Constant), Engagement_lv1
c. Predictors: (Constant), Engagement_lv1, Relevancy_lv1
d. Predictors: (Constant), Engagement_lv1, Relevancy_lv1, Satisfaction_lv1
Hypothesis
Null Hypothesis (H06) : There is no impact of Independent variables on
Reaction
Alternate Hypothesis (H6) : There is an impact of at least one Independent
variable on Reaction
Inference
From the results, it can be observed that firstly, Engagement was tested on
Reaction and Model 1 results exhibited f-calculated value as 178.020. Whereas, f- table
value for given 1,44 df is 18.30. As, the f-calculated value is greater than f-table value,
it falls into the rejection region. Therefore, we reject the null hypothesis (H06).
Similarly, Relevancy impact on Reaction results is presented in Model 2. It exhibited f-
calculated value of 413.172. Whereas, f- table value for given 2,43 df is 11.50. As, the
f-calculated value is greater than f-table value, it falls into the rejection region.
Therefore, we reject the null hypothesis (H06).
Further, it is inferred that the significance level is 0.000 (p < 0.05). Hence the
regression model is fit.
48
4.6.1 Correlations
Level1_Reaction Engagement_lv1 Relevancy_lv1 Satisfaction_lv1
Pearson Level1_Reaction 1.000 .895 .925 .888
Correlation Engagement_lv1 .895 1.000 .747 .652
Relevancy_lv1 .925 .747 1.000 .770
Satisfaction_lv1 .888 .652 .770 1.000
Sig. (1- Level1_Reaction . .000 .000 .000
tailed) Engagement_lv1 .000 . .000 .000
Relevancy_lv1 .000 .000 . .000
Satisfaction_lv1 .000 .000 . 000 .
Inference
From the table, it can be inferred that Level 1 – Reaction positively correlates to
Engagement, Relevancy and Satisfaction with a magnitude of 0.895, 0.925 and 0.888
respectively. Engagement positively correlates to Relevancy and Satisfaction with a
magnitude of 0.747 and 0.652 respectively. Relevancy positively correlates to
Satisfaction with a magnitude of 0.770
It can also be inferred that the correlation between Level 1 – Reaction and
Engagement, Relevancy, Satisfaction are significant among the respondents (p < 0.05).
Correlation between Engagement and Relevancy, Satisfaction are significant among the
respondents. Also, the correlation between Relevancy and Satisfaction is significant
among the respondents.
49
4.6.1 Model Summary
Change Statistics
Std. Error R
R Adjusted R of the Square Sig. F
Model R Square Square Estimate Change F Change df1 df2 Change
a
1 .895 .802 .797 .139 .802 178.020 1 44 .000
b
2 .975 .951 .948 .070 .149 129.287 1 43 .000
c
3 1.000 1.000 1.000 .000 .049 . 1 42 .
a. Predictors: (Constant), Engagement_lv1

b. Predictors: (Constant), Engagement_lv1, Relevancy_lv1
c. Predictors: (Constant), Engagement_lv1, Relevancy_lv1, Satisfaction_lv1
Inference
The model summary results indicate “Reaction” is considered as dependent
variable whereas, Relevancy, Engagement and Satisfaction as Independent variables.
From the results, it is observed that 80.2% of variance in Reaction can be explained
through Engagement with R-square value of 0.802. Further, Relevancy is observed with
addition of 0.149 variance on reaction, while Satisfaction could be able to show very
less variance on reaction with addition of 0.049
50
4.6.1 Coefficientsa
Unstandardized Standardized
Coefficients Coefficients
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
1 (Constant) 1.244 .257 4.846 .000
Engagement_lv1 .744 .056 .895 13.342 .000
2 (Constant) .314 .153 2.049 .047
Engagement_lv1 .384 .042 .462 9.067 .000
Relevancy_lv1 .548 .048 .580 11.370 .000
3 (Constant) -2.220E-15 .000 .000 1.000
Engagement_lv1 .333 .000 .401 117876059.014 .000
Relevancy_lv1 .333 .000 .352 87052319.906 .000
Satisfaction_lv1 .333 .000 .355 99898096.937 .000
a. Dependent Variable: Level1_Reaction
Inference
From the table, it can be inferred that all the independent variables (Engagement,
Relevancy and Satisfaction) have significance < 0.05, hence they affect the dependent
variable (Reaction). From the results of Model 3, if there is one unit increase in
Engagement, that will increase Reaction by 0.333 units, if there is one unit increase in
Relevancy, that will increase Reaction by 0.333 units and if there is one unit increase in
Satisfaction, that will increase Reaction by 0.333 units.
Regression Equation:
Model 3: Level1_Reaction = -2.220E-15 + 0.333 (Engagement_lv1) + 0.333
(Relevancy_lv1) + 0.333 (Satisfaction_lv1)
51
4.6.2 LEVEL 2 - LEARNING
4.6.2 ANOVAa
1 Regression 2.696 1 2.696 74.303 .000b
Residual 1.597 44 .036
Total 4.293 45
2 Regression 3.828 2 1.914 177.260 .000c
Residual .464 43 .011
Total 4.293 45
3 Regression 4.069 3 1.356 254.680 .000d
Residual .224 42 .005
Total 4.293 45
4 Regression 4.243 4 1.061 868.524 .000e
Residual .050 41 .001
Total 4.293 45
5 Regression 4.293 5 .859 . .f
Residual .000 40 .000
Total 4.293 45
a. Dependent Variable: Level2_Learning
b. Predictors: (Constant), Knowledge_lv2
c. Predictors: (Constant), Knowledge_lv2, Skill_lv2
d. Predictors: (Constant), Knowledge_lv2, Skill_lv2, Attitude_lv2
e. Predictors: (Constant), Knowledge_lv2, Skill_lv2, Attitude_lv2, Confidence_lv2
f. Predictors: (Constant), Knowledge_lv2, Skill_lv2, Attitude_lv2, Confidence_lv2, Commitment_lv2
Hypothesis
Learning
variable on Learning
Inference
From the results, it can be observed that firstly, Knowledge was tested on
Learning and Model 1 results exhibited f-calculated value as 74.303. Whereas, f- table
52
Similarly, Skill impact on Learning results is presented in Model 2. It exhibited f-
Therefore, we reject the null hypothesis (H07).
Attitude impact on Learning results is presented in Model 3. It exhibited f-calculated
value of 254.680. Whereas, f- table value for given 3,42 df is 9.01. As, the f-calculated
value is greater than f-table value, it falls into the rejection region. Therefore, we reject
the null hypothesis (H07). Likewise, Confidence impact on Learning results is presented
in Model 3. It exhibited f-calculated value of 868.524. Whereas, f- table value for given
4,41 df is 7.71. As, the f-calculated value is greater than f-table value, it falls into the
rejection region. Therefore, we reject the null hypothesis (H07).
Further, it is inferred that the significance level is 0.000 (p < 0.05). Hence the regression
model is fit.
53
4.6.2 Correlations
Level2_Lea Knowledg Skill_lv Attitude_lv Confidenc Commitme
rning e_lv2 2 2 e_lv2 nt_lv2
Pearson Level2_Learning 1.000 .793 .911 .877 .927 .906
Correlation Knowledge_lv2 .793 1.000 .666 .586 .644 .643
Skill_lv2 .911 .666 1.000 .773 .787 .772
Attitude_lv2 .877 .586 .773 1.000 .793 .712
Confidence_lv2 .927 .644 .787 .793 1.000 .865
Commitment_lv2 .906 .643 .772 .712 .865 1.000
Sig. (1- Level2_Learning . .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
tailed) Knowledge_lv2 .000 . .000 .000 .000 .000
Skill_lv2 .000 .000 . .000 .000 .000
Attitude_lv2 .000 .000 .000 . .000 .000
Confidence_lv2 .000 .000 .000 .000 . .000
Commitment_lv2 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .
Inference
From the table, it can be inferred that Level 2 – Learning positively correlates
to Knowledge, Skill, Attitude, Confidence and Commitment with a magnitude of 0.793,
0.911, 0.877, 0.927 and 0.906 respectively. Knowledge positively correlates to Skill,
Attitude, Confidence and Commitment with a magnitude of 0.666, 0.586, 0.644 and
0.643 respectively. Skill positively correlates to Attitude, Confidence and Commitment
with a magnitude of 0.773, 0.787 and 0.772 respectively. Attitude positively correlates
to Confidence and Commitment with a magnitude of 0.793 and 0.712 respectively.
Confidence positively correlates to Commitment with a magnitude of 0.865.
It can also be inferred that the correlation between Level 2 – Learning and
Knowledge, Skill, Attitude, Confidence and Commitment are significant among the
respondents (p < 0.05). Correlation between Knowledge and Skill, Attitude,
Confidence, Commitment are significant among the respondents. Also, the correlation
between Skill and Attitude, Confidence, Commitment is significant among the
respondents. The correlation between Attitude and Confidence, Commitment is
significant among the respondents. Further, the correlation between Confidence and
Commitment is significant among the respondents.
54
4.6.2 Model Summary
Std. Error Change Statistics
R Adjusted of the R Square F Sig. F
Model R Square R Square Estimate Change Change df1 df2 Change
a
1 .793 .628 .620 .190 .628 74.303 1 44 .000
b
2 .944 .892 .887 .104 .264 104.848 1 43 .000
c
3 .974 .948 .944 .073 .056 45.190 1 42 .000
4 .994d .988 .987 .035 .040 142.160 1 41 .000
5 1.000e 1.000 1.000 .000 .012 . 1 40 .
a. Predictors: (Constant), Knowledge_lv2

b. Predictors: (Constant), Knowledge_lv2, Skill_lv2
c. Predictors: (Constant), Knowledge_lv2, Skill_lv2, Attitude_lv2
d. Predictors: (Constant), Knowledge_lv2, Skill_lv2, Attitude_lv2, Confidence_lv2
e. Predictors: (Constant), Knowledge_lv2, Skill_lv2, Attitude_lv2, Confidence_lv2, Commitment_lv2
Inference
The model summary results indicate “Learning” is considered as dependent
variable whereas, Skill, Knowledge, Attitude, Confidence and Commitment as
Independent variables. From the results, it is observed that 62.8% of variance in
Learning can be explained through Knowledge with R-square value of 0.628. Further,
Skill is observed with addition of 0.264 variance on Learning, while Attitude could be
able to show addition of 0.056 variance on Learning. Confidence is observed with
addition of 0.040 variance on Learning, whereas Commitment could be able to show
very less variance of 0.012 on Learning.
55
4.6.2 Coefficientsa
Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients Coefficients
1 (Constant) 1.072 .417 2.571 .014
Knowledge_lv2 .777 .090 .793 8.620 .000
2 (Constant) .582 .233 2.501 .016
Knowledge_lv2 .327 .066 .334 4.963 .000
Skill_lv2 .555 .054 .689 10.240 .000
3 (Constant) .177 .174 1.018 .315
Knowledge_lv2 .280 .047 .286 5.980 .000
Skill_lv2 .345 .049 .429 7.022 .000
Attitude_lv2 .340 .051 .378 6.722 .000
4 (Constant) .071 .084 .847 .402
Knowledge_lv2 .221 .023 .225 9.613 .000
Skill_lv2 .239 .025 .297 9.504 .000
Attitude_lv2 .193 .027 .215 7.116 .000
Confidence_lv2 .332 .028 .379 11.923 .000
5 (Constant) -2.554E-15 .000 . .
Knowledge_lv2 .200 .000 .204 . .
Skill_lv2 .200 .000 .248 . .
Attitude_lv2 .200 .000 .222 . .
Confidence_lv2 .200 .000 .228 . .
Commitment_lv2 .200 .000 .228 . .
a. Dependent Variable: Level2_Learning
Inference
From the table, it can be inferred that all the independent variables (Knowledge,
Skill, Attitude, Confidence and Commitment) have significance < 0.05, hence they
affect the dependent variable (Learning). In Model 3, if there is one unit increase in
Knowledge that will increase Learning by 0.200 units, if there is one unit increase in
Skill that will increase Learning by 0.200 units, if there is one unit increase in Attitude
that will increase Learning by 0.200 units, if there is one unit increase in Confidence
that will increase Learning by 0.200 units and if there is one unit increase in
Commitment that will increase Learning by 0.200 units.
Regression Equation: Model 3: Level2_Learning = -2.554E-15 + 0.200
(Knowledge_lv2) + 0.200 (Skill_lv2) + 0.200 (Attitude_lv2) + 0.200 (Confidence_lv2)
+ 0.200 (Commitment_lv2)
56
4.6.3 LEVEL 3 - BEHAVIOUR
4.6.3 ANOVAa
1 Regression 1.171 1 1.171 48.833 .000b
Residual .911 38 .024
Total 2.082 39
2 Regression 1.734 2 .867 92.127 .000c
Residual .348 37 .009
Total 2.082 39
3 Regression 1.888 3 .629 116.859 .000d
Residual .194 36 .005
Total 2.082 39
4 Regression 2.082 4 .521 . .e
Residual .000 35 .000
Total 2.082 39
a. Dependent Variable: Level3_Behaviour

b. Predictors: (Constant), Knowledge_utilization_lv3
c. Predictors: (Constant), Knowledge_utilization_lv3, Skill_application_lv3
d. Predictors: (Constant), Knowledge_utilization_lv3, Skill_application_lv3, Ability_lv3
e. Predictors: (Constant), Knowledge_utilization_lv3, Skill_application_lv3, Ability_lv3,
Organisational_support_lv3
Hypothesis
Behaviour
variable on Behaviour
Inference
From the results, it can be observed that firstly, Knowledge Utilization was
tested on Behaviour and Model 1 results exhibited f-calculated value as 48.833 .
Whereas, f- table value for given 1,38 df is 18.90. As, the f-calculated value is greater
than f-table value, it falls into the rejection region. Therefore, we reject the null
hypothesis (H08). Similarly, Skill Application impact on Behaviour results is presented
in Model 2. It exhibited f-calculated value of 92.127. Whereas, f- table value for given
57
2,37 df is 11.93. As, the f-calculated value is greater than f-table value, it falls into the
rejection region. Therefore, we reject the null hypothesis (H08). Likewise, Ability
impact on Behaviour results is presented in Model 3. It exhibited f-calculated value of
116.859. Whereas, f- table value for given 3,36 df is 9.41. As, the f-calculated value is
greater than f-table value, it falls into the rejection region. Therefore, we reject the null
hypothesis (H08).
Further, from the table, it can be inferred that the significance level is 0.000 (p
< 0.05). Hence the regression model is fit.
4.6.3 Correlations
Knowledge_
Level3_B utilization_l Skill_appli Ability_ Organisational_
ehaviour v3 cation_lv3 lv3 support_lv3
Pearson Level3_Behaviour 1.000 .750 .842 .717 .599
Correlation Knowledge_utilization_l
.750 1.000 .538 .362 .175
v3
Skill_application_lv3 .842 .538 1.000 .550 .347
Ability_lv3 .717 .362 .550 1.000 .273
Organisational_support_
.599 .175 .347 .273 1.000
lv3
Sig. (1- Level3_Behaviour . .000 .000 .000 .000
tailed) Knowledge_utilization_l
.000 . .000 .011 .139
v3
Skill_application_lv3 .000 .000 . .000 .014
Ability_lv3 .000 .011 .000 . .044
Organisational_support_
.000 .139 .014 .044 .
lv3
Inference
From the table, it can be inferred that Level 3 – Behaviour positively correlates
to Knowledge Utilization, Skill Application, Ability and Organisational Support with a
magnitude of 0.750, 0.842, 0.717 and 0.599 respectively. Knowledge utilization
positively correlates to Skill application, Ability and Organisational support with a
magnitude of 0.538, 0.362 and 0.175 respectively. Skill Application positively
correlates to Ability and Organisational support with a magnitude of 0.550 and 0.347
respectively. Ability positively correlates to Organisational support with a magnitude
58
of 0.273
It can also be inferred that the correlation between Level 3 – Behaviour and
Knowledge utilization, Skill application, Ability, Organisational support are significant
among the respondents (p < 0.05). The correlation between Knowledge utilization and
Skill application, Ability is significant among the respondents, whereas it is not
significant with Organisational support. The correlation between Skill Application and
Ability, Organisational support is significant among the respondents. Also, the
correlation between Ability and Organisational support is significant among the
respondents.
4.6.3 Model Summary

Std. Error Change Statistics
R Adjusted of the R Square Sig. F
Model R Square R Square Estimate Change F Change df1 df2 Change
a
1 .750 .562 .551 .155 .562 48.833 1 38 .000
b
2 .913 .833 .824 .097 .270 59.826 1 37 .000
c
3 .952 .907 .899 .073 .074 28.647 1 36 .000
4 1.000d 1.000 1.000 .000 .093 . 1 35 .
a. Predictors: (Constant), Knowledge_utilization_lv3

b. Predictors: (Constant), Knowledge_utilization_lv3, Skill_application_lv3
c. Predictors: (Constant), Knowledge_utilization_lv3, Skill_application_lv3, Ability_lv3
d. Predictors: (Constant), Knowledge_utilization_lv3, Skill_application_lv3, Ability_lv3,
Organisational_support_lv3
Inference
The model summary results indicate “Behaviour” is considered as dependent
variable whereas, Knowledge utilization, Skill application, Ability and Organisational
support as Independent variables. From the results, it is observed that 56.2% of variance
in Behaviour can be explained through Knowledge utilization with R-square value of
0.562. Further, Skill application is observed with addition of 0.270 variance on
Behaviour, while Ability could be able to show very less variance on Behaviour with
addition of 0.074 and Organisation support with addition of 0.93 variance on Behaviour.
59
4.6.3 Coefficientsa
1 (Constant) 2.418 .309 7.828 .000
Knowledge_utilization_lv3 .473 .068 .750 6.988 .000
2 (Constant) 1.382 .235 5.872 .000
Skill_application_lv3 .432 .056 .617 7.735 .000
3 (Constant) .690 .220 3.138 .003
Skill_application_lv3 .318 .047 .453 6.705 .000
Ability_lv3 .284 .053 .327 5.352 .000
4 (Constant) -3.109E-15 .000 . .
Knowledge_utilization_lv3 .250 .000 .396 . .
Skill_application_lv3 .250 .000 .357 . .
Ability_lv3 .250 .000 .288 . .
Organisational_support_lv3 .250 .000 .327 . .
a. Dependent Variable: Level3_Behaviour
Inference
From the table, it can be inferred that all the independent variables (Knowledge
utilisation, Skill application, Ability and Organisational support) have significance <
0.05, hence they affect the dependent variable (Behaviour). In Model 4, if there is one
unit increase in Knowledge utilization, that will increase Behaviour by 0.250 units, if
there is one unit increase in Skill application, that will increase Behaviour by 0.250
units, if there is one unit increase in Ability that will increase Behaviour by 0.250 units
and if there is one unit increase in Organisational support that will increase Behaviour
by 0.250 units.
Model 3: Level3_Behaviour = -3.109E-15 + 0.250 (Knowledge_utilization_lv3) + 0.250
(Skill_application_lv3) + 0.250 (Ability_lv3) + 0.250 (Organisational_support_lv3)
60
4.6.4 LEVEL 4 - RESULTS
4.6.4 ANOVAa
1 Regression 1.168 1 1.168 137.109 .000b
Residual .324 38 .009
Total 1.491 39
2 Regression 1.360 2 .680 191.470 .000c
Residual .131 37 .004
Total 1.491 39
3 Regression 1.473 3 .491 967.613 .000d
Residual .018 36 .001
Total 1.491 39
4 Regression 1.491 4 .373 . .e
Residual .000 35 .000
Total 1.491 39
a. Dependent Variable: Level4_Results
b. Predictors: (Constant), Work_quality_lv4
c. Predictors: (Constant), Work_quality_lv4, Cooperation_lv4
d. Predictors: (Constant), Work_quality_lv4, Cooperation_lv4, Teamwork_lv4
e. Predictors: (Constant), Work_quality_lv4, Cooperation_lv4, Teamwork_lv4,
Patient_satisfaction_lv4
Hypothesis
Null Hypothesis (H09) : There is no impact of Independent variables on Results
Alternate Hypothesis (H9) : There is an impact of at least one Independent variable
on Results
Inference
From the results, it can be observed that firstly, Work Quality was tested on
Results and Model 1 results exhibited f-calculated value as 137.109 . Whereas, f- table
Similarly, Cooperation impact on Results is presented in Model 2. It exhibited f-
61
Therefore, we reject the null hypothesis (H09). Likewise, Teamwork impact on Results
is presented in Model 3. It exhibited f-calculated value of 967.613. Whereas, f- table
value for given 3,36 df is 9.41. As, the f-calculated value is greater than f-table value, it
falls into the rejection region. Therefore, we reject the null hypothesis (H09).
Further, from the table, it can be inferred that the significance level is 0.000 (p
< 0.05). Hence the regression model is fit.
4.6.4 Correlations
Level4_Res Work_qual Cooperatio Teamwork Patient_satisfac
ults ity_lv4 n_lv4 _lv4 tion_lv4
Pearson Level4_Results 1.000 .885 .925 .623 .437
Correlation Work_quality_lv4 .885 1.000 .803 .291 .426
Cooperation_lv4 .925 .803 1.000 .429 .292
Teamwork_lv4 .623 .291 .429 1.000 .066
Patient_satisfaction
.437 .426 .292 .066 1.000
_lv4
Sig. (1- Level4_Results . .000 .000 .000 .002
tailed) Work_quality_lv4 .000 . .000 .034 .003
Cooperation_lv4 .000 .000 . .003 .034
Teamwork_lv4 .000 .034 .003 . .342
Patient_satisfaction
.002 .003 .034 .342 .
_lv4
Inference
From the table, it can be inferred that Level 4 – Results positively correlate to
Work Quality, Cooperation, Teamwork and Patient Satisfaction with a magnitude of
0.885, 0.925, 0.623 and 0.437 respectively. Work Quality positively correlates to
Cooperation, Teamwork and Patient Satisfaction with a magnitude of 0.803, 0.291 and
0.426 respectively. Cooperation positively correlates to Teamwork and Patient
Satisfaction with a magnitude of 0.429 and 0.292 respectively. Teamwork positively
correlates to Patient Satisfaction with a magnitude of 0.066
It can also be inferred that the correlation between Level 4 – Results and Work
Quality, Cooperation, Teamwork, Patient Satisfaction are significant among the
respondents (p < 0.05). Further, the correlation between Work Quality and Cooperation,
Teamwork, Patient Satisfaction is significant among the respondents. Likewise, the
correlation between Cooperation and Teamwork, Patient Satisfaction is significant
62
among the respondents. Whereas, the correlation between Teamwork and Patient
Satisfaction is not significant among the respondents.
4.6.4 Model Summary

Change Statistics
Std. Error R
R Adjusted of the Square Sig. F
Model R Square R Square Estimate Change F Change df1 df2 Change
a
1 .885 .783 .777 .092 .783 137.109 1 38 .000
b
2 .955 .912 .907 .060 .129 54.130 1 37 .000
c
3 .994 .988 .987 .023 .076 222.935 1 36 .000
4 1.000d 1.000 1.000 .000 .012 . 1 35 .
a. Predictors: (Constant), Work_quality_lv4

b. Predictors: (Constant), Work_quality_lv4, Cooperation_lv4
c. Predictors: (Constant), Work_quality_lv4, Cooperation_lv4, Teamwork_lv4
d. Predictors: (Constant), Work_quality_lv4, Cooperation_lv4, Teamwork_lv4, Patient_satisfaction_lv4
Inference
The model summary results indicate “Results” is considered as dependent
variable whereas, Work Quality, Cooperation, Teamwork and Patient Satisfaction as
Independent variables. From the results, it is observed that 78.3% of variance in Results
can be explained through Work Quality with R-square value of 0.783. Further,
Cooperation is observed with addition of 0.129 variance on Results, and Teamwork
with addition of 0.76 variance on Results, while Organisation support could be able to
show very less variance on Results with addition of 0.012
63
4.6.4 Coefficientsa

1 (Constant) 1.715 .207 8.296 .000
Work_quality_lv4 .581 .050 .885 11.709 .000
2 (Constant) 1.625 .134 12.124 .000
Work_quality_lv4 .263 .054 .400 4.886 .000
Cooperation_lv4 .335 .046 .603 7.357 .000
3 (Constant) .882 .071 12.412 .000
Work_quality_lv4 .293 .020 .447 14.344 .000
Cooperation_lv4 .242 .018 .434 13.176 .000
Teamwork_lv4 .246 .016 .306 14.931 .000
4 (Constant) -8.882E-15 .000 .000 1.000
Work_quality_lv4 .250 .000 .381 75573163.177 .000
Cooperation_lv4 .250 .000 .449 89023572.140 .000
Teamwork_lv4 .250 .000 .311 99205603.193 .000
Patient_satisfaction_lv4 .250 .000 .123 39302680.967 .000
a. Dependent Variable: Level4_Results
Inference
From the table, it can be inferred that all the independent variables (Knowledge
utilisation, Cooperation, Teamwork and Patient Satisfaction) have significance < 0.05,
hence they affect the dependent variable (Results). In Model 4, if there is one unit
increase in Work Quality, that will increase Results by 0.250 units, if there is one unit
increase in Cooperation, that will increase Results by 0.250 units, if there is one unit
increase in Teamwork that will increase Results by 0.250 units and if there is one unit
increase in Patient Satisfaction that will increase Results by 0.250 units.
Model 3: Level4_Results = -8.882E-15 + 0.250 (Work_quality_lv4) + 0.250
(Cooperation_lv4) + 0.250 (Teamwork_lv4) + 0.250 (Patient_satisfaction_lv4)
64
CHAPTER V
FINDINGS OF THE RESEARCH AND CONCLUSION
5.1 Research Findings

From the analysis, the following can be inferred:
Findings related to Demographics

• It is inferred that, out of 86 respondents (from all the levels), 30.2% of the
respondents were male and 69.8% of the respondents were female.
• It is inferred that 59.30% of the respondents are aged less than 30, 36.0% of the
respondents fall within the 30-45 age range and about 4.7% are more than 45
years of age.
• It is inferred that 55.8% of the respondents are not married and 44.2% of the
respondents are married
• It is inferred that 55.8% of the respondents have completed degree, 2.3% of the
respondents have completed Post graduation and 41.9% of the respondents have
completed Diploma/ technical or others
• It is inferred that Nurse department makes up the largest proportion, accounting
for 34.9% of the total, followed by the Lab department at 24.4%, department
Front Office with 20.9% of respondents and Pharmacy department with 19.8%
of the respondents.
• It is inferred that 59.3% of the respondents work upto 48 office hours per week
and 40.7% of the respondents work more than 48 office hours per week.
• It is inferred that the majority of employees in this organization have less than 2
years of experience, accounting for 48.8% of the total, 23.3% of the workforce
falls within the 2-5 years category, 12.8% of employees with 5-10 years of
experience and 15.1% of employees with more than 10 years of experience in
the organization.
• It is inferred that 65.1% of the respondents attend the training program on a
monthly basis and 34.9% of the respondents attend the training program on a
weekly basis, in the organisation.
65
• It is inferred that 23.3% prefer internal trainers, 4.7% prefer external trainers,
and a majority of 72.1% prefer both internal and external trainers, indicating a
strong preference for a combination of training sources among the respondents.
• It is inferred that there is no significant difference between Gender and outcome
variables
• It is inferred that there is no significant difference between Age and outcome
variables
• It is inferred that there is no significant difference between Education
Qualification and outcome variables
• It is inferred that there is no significant difference between Departments and
outcome variables
Findings related to Hypothesis
• H1 is rejected since the mean difference between the two paired scores is not
equal to zero.
• H2 is rejected since there is no significant difference between Gender and
outcome variables
• H3 is rejected since there is no significant difference between Age and outcome
variables
• H4 is rejected since there is no significant difference between Education
Qualification and outcome variables
• H5 is rejected since there is no significant difference between departments and
outcome variables
• H6 is accepted since there is an impact of at least one Independent variable on
Reaction
Learning
Behaviour
Results
66
Major Findings:
• The results of this study indicate that a majority of the respondents expressed
satisfaction with the skill gap training programs.
• They were not only content with the training activities provided, but also
convinced of their usefulness.
• Furthermore, the findings reveal that the respondents were able to enhance their
knowledge and successfully apply the acquired skills to their job
responsibilities.
• Additionally, the results of the Key Performance Indicators demonstrate positive
outcomes for the organization.
67
5.2 CONCLUSION
It is evident from the study that the skill gap training program offered by New
Medical Centre - Multispeciality Hospital was beneficial for both the organization and
its employees. As the company lacked a proper training evaluation model to assess the
effectiveness of their programs, this study utilized the Kirkpatrick Model of Training
Evaluation to demonstrate the effective outcomes of training programs. Additionally,
this model was instrumental in identifying areas where improvements could be made to
enhance the effectiveness of the training programs. Overall, this study has demonstrated
the positive impact of the training program on the hospital organization and its
employees, aligning with the objectives of improving patient care and organizational
effectiveness. Also, it is suggested that investment in training programs, when properly
designed and executed, can yield significant returns for the healthcare organization.
68
5.3 SCOPE FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
• The study can be conducted for all kinds of training programs provided by the
organisation to the employees.
• The study can be carried out with a control group to get more reliable results on
training program effectiveness
• Focus groups can be established to measure the effectiveness of training
evaluation
• Superior evaluation and 360-degree performance review shall be conducted to
evaluate the outcomes of Level 3 and Level 4.
69
REFERENCES
Reference Books:
➢ Donald L. Kirkpatrick and James D. Kirkpatrick, (2008) “Evaluating Training

Programs The Four Levels” Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc., California, Third
Edition
➢ K Aswathappa, (2013) “Human Resource Management” McGraw Hill
Education (India) Private Limited, New Delhi, Seventh Edition
➢ Raymond A. Noe, (2010) “Employee Training and Development” The
McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., New York, Fifth Edition
Reference Journals:
➢ Aljawharah Alsalamah and Carol Callinan, (2021) “Adaptation of Kirkpatrick’s

Four-Level Model of Training Criteria to Evaluate Training Programmes for
Head Teachers”
➢ Bailee Jo Miller, (2018) “Utilizing the Kirkpatrick Model to Evaluate a
Collegiate High-Impact Leadership Development Program”
➢ Imran Raza, (2015) “Impact of Training and Development on Employee
Performance”
➢ Marzieh Zare and Fatemeh Vizeshfar, (2018) “Evaluation of Health Education
Volunteering Program based on Kirkpatrick Model”
➢ Maye Omar, Nancy Gerein, Ehsanullah Tarin, Christopher Butcher, Stephen
Pearson and Gholamreza Heidari, (2008) “Training evaluation: a case study of
training Iranian health managers”
➢ Mohammed Rejaul Karim, Kazi Nazmul Huda & Rehnuma Sultana Khan,
(2012) “Significance of Training and Post Training Evaluation for Employee
Effectiveness”
➢ Nurulita Imansari, Umi Kholifah, Akbar Mukti Sasono, (2023) “Evaluation of
Programmable Logic Controller Training Implementation Using Kirkpatrick (4
Levels)”
➢ Sarah Louise Gillanders, Alison McHugh, Peter D. Lacy and Mona Thornton,
(2022) “Safe Surgical Training: Evaluation of a National Functional
70
Endoscopic Sinus Surgery Model Simulation Course using the Kirkpatrick
Evaluation Model”
➢ Shahrooz Farjad, (2012) “The Evaluation Effectiveness of Training Courses in
University by Kirkpatrick Model”
Online References:
https://www.ibef.org/industry/healthcare-india
https://www.kirkpatrickpartners.com/
https://books.google.co.in/books?id=mo--
DAAAQBAJ&pg=PT9&lpg=PT10&ots=LNLbVSliPw&focus=viewport&dq=kirkpat
rick+model+of+training+evaluation+questionnaire&lr=#v=onepage&q&f=false
https://www.nmcpondy.com/
71
APPENDIX – 1: QUESTIONNAIRE
Demographic profile:
1. Gender : Male ( ) Female ( )
2. Age : Less than 30 ( ) 30-45 ( ) More than 45 ( )
3. Marital Status : Married ( ) Unmarried ( )
4. Education qualification : Under degree ( ) Degree ( )
Post graduation and above( )
Others Diploma/technical ( )
5. Department : Lab ( ) Pharmacy ( )
Nurse ( ) Front Office ( )
6. Average hours spent on
hospital work per week : Upto 48 hours ( ) more than 48 hours ( )
7. Number of years of your experience in this organization :
Less than 2 years ( ) 2-5 years ( ) 5-10 years ( ) more than 10 years ( )
8. How often do you undergo training?
Weekly( ) Fortnightly ( ) Quarterly ( ) Monthly ( )
9. Whom do you prefer for training?
Internal trainer ( ) External trainer ( ) Both ( )
72
LEVEL 1 - REACTION
Rate on a scale of 1 to 5 based on your agreement of statement:

(1-Strongly Disagree; 2-Disagree; 3-Neutral; 4- Agree; 5- Strongly Agree)
ENGAGEMENT Scale of 1-5

This training program was effective for me
Style and delivery of content by the trainer were engaging
Aided in facilitating peer interaction
Participation was encouraged
There were no significant interruptions that affected my concentration.
RELEVANCY Scale of 1-5
This training provided relevant skills and knowledge for my job
This training program will enhance my job performance
This training program will improve my service to patients effectively
I will be able to immediately apply what I have learnt
This training program will help me in my future career
SATISFACTION Scale of 1-5
The program met my expectations
Achieved a feeling of personal fulfilment
The time spent away from my job for training program was valuable
I would recommend this program to my co-workers.
Overall Satisfaction level of the training program
73
LEVEL 2 – LEARNING
KNOWLEDGE Scale of 1-5

The training program sufficiently met my knowledge requirements for my job.
This training program provided an opportunity to acquire new knowledge
among participants
The training materials and resources provided effectively enhanced my
knowledge.
I am capable of conveying my acquired knowledge to my colleagues.
Knowledge gained from the training program will positively impact my job
performance.
SKILL Scale of 1-5
This training program has enhanced my job skills
This training program enhanced my practical skills in the field that I was
unaware before
I have had chances to practice and develop the skills acquired during the
training.
The training exercises and simulations effectively improved my practical skills.
I am capable of conveying my acquired skills to my colleagues.
ATTITUDE Scale of 1-5
I have a positive attitude towards the skills I acquired during the training.
This training program will enhance my service to patients directly or indirectly
I feel that the acquired skills from this training are essential for my career
growth.
I am eager to use my knowledge and skills to enhance my work and support
the organization's objectives.
CONFIDENCE Scale of 1-5
I have confidence in my capability to apply recently learned skills practically
I feel confident in performing tasks without much supervision.
I am confident that the skills I acquired will have a positive effect on my career.
I believe that the training program has boosted my self-confidence
I can aid my colleagues in applying the skills acquired from the training
COMMITMENT Scale of 1-5
I am dedicated to utilizing my recently gained skills in my profession.
I am prepared to dedicate more time and energy to enhance my abilities.
I intend to pursue further training or resources to develop my skills.
I am dedicated to imparting the knowledge and skills gained in the training to
my colleagues.
74
LEVEL 3 – BEHAVIOUR
(1- Strongly Disagree; 2-Disagree; 3-Neutral; 4- Agree; 5- Strongly Agree)
KNOWLEDGE UTILIZATION Scale of 1-5

I can effectively utilize the knowledge acquired from the training in my work.
I have successfully integrated the knowledge gained from the training into my
daily work tasks.
I have shared the knowledge acquired from the training with my colleagues.
SKILL APPLICATION Scale of 1-5
This training program improved my practical skills in the field
The skills acquired have benefited my job role
I have had the opportunity to practice and refine the skills learned in the
training
I am proficient in using the skills acquired from the training to achieve my
work objectives
I have received and utilized feedback from managers or colleagues to enhance
my skills
ABILITY Scale of 1-5
I am capable of carrying out new skills with improved efficiency.
I feel more confident in my ability to perform my job tasks effectively after
the training program
I believe that the training has enhanced my overall job competency.
I have observed a significant increase in my job performance after finishing
the training.
I can impart my acquired knowledge and skills to my colleagues
ORGANISATIONAL SUPPORT Scale of 1-5
I receive adequate assistance from my superiors and the organization.
My job climate is encourage-able
I have access to resources and tools that facilitate the implementation of what
I learned in the training.
The organization recognizes and rewards when acquired knowledge and skills
are effectively utilized
75
LEVEL 4 – RESULTS (KPI)

1- Strongly Disagree; 2-Disagree; 3-Neutral; 4- Agree; 5- Strongly Agree
WORK QUALITY Scale of 1-5

Improvement in work productivity
Work is completed with minimal supervision
Performs newly acquired skills in an effective and timely manner
Reduced medical errors
COOPERATION Scale of 1-5
Demonstrates initiatives
Performs tasks almost independently
Written and oral communications have improved and clear
TEAMWORK Scale of 1-5
Transfers newly acquired knowledge and skills to peers
Improved coordination among peers
Enhanced cross-functional collaboration with other departments
PATIENT SATISFACTION Scale of 1-5
Reduced clinical downtime
Delivered clear and understandable information
Enhanced medications and treatment of patients
Increased Patient satisfaction
76

Suvedha Final Report

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Suvedha Final Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EXAMINING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF SKILL GAP TRAINING

PROGRAM USING THE KIRKPATRICK MODEL AT NMC

Project Report Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirement of

Under the guidance of

DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES

AUGUST – SEPTEMBER 2023

This is to certify that this project report entitled “EXAMINING THE

Dr. . R. KASILINGAM Dr. AMOLAK SINGH

Viva-Voce Examination held on _______________________

I hereby, declare that the project report titled “EXAMINING THE

I express my heartfelt gratitude to Dr. R. Kasilingam, Head of the Department,

I thank Dr. Arjun T. Sundaram, Executive Director, New Medical Centre -

My project guide Dr. Amolak Singh, Assistant Professor, Department of

CHAPTER NO. TITLE PAGE NO.

TABLE NO. TITLE PAGE NO.

Training is a meticulously planned and executed effort implemented by

Companies have incurred monetary losses as a result of inadequately designed

Purpose of training program

Purpose of Evaluating Training Program

Training assessment is the methodical procedure of gathering data and utilizing

Evaluation of training gives comprehensive feedback on the value of the training

• identify issues and improve the overall processes of training programs;

• To measure the effectiveness of training programs offered at NMC, using the

• To measure the level of Reaction of the Kirkpatrick Model at NMC

Null Hypothesis (H01):

Null Hypothesis (H02):

There is no difference between Gender and outcome variables.

Null Hypothesis (H03):

There is no difference between Age and outcome variables.

Null Hypothesis (H04):

There is no difference between Education Qualifications and outcome variables.

Null Hypothesis (H05):

There is no difference between Departments and outcome variables.

Null Hypothesis (H06) :

There is no impact of Independent variables on Level 1 - Reaction

Null Hypothesis (H07) :

There is no impact of Independent variables on Level 2 - Learning

Null Hypothesis (H08) :

There is no impact of Independent variables on Level 3 - Behaviour

Null Hypothesis (H06) :

There is no impact of Independent variables on Level 4 - Results

Primary and Secondary Data

AGENCY FOR STUDY

The sample consists of 86 employees of NMC - Multispeciality Hospital,

The samples were selected using convenience sampling method. The

Secondary Data Collection

TOOLS & TECHNIQUES USED FOR DATA ANALYSIS

3.1 INDUSTRY PROFILE

Healthcare Industry in India

The Healthcare sector in India comprises of hospitals, medical devices, clinical

Some of the Insights of Indian Healthcare Sector

o As of 2021, the Indian healthcare sector is one of India’s largest employers as it

Two vaccines (Bharat Biotech's Covaxin and Oxford-AstraZeneca’s Covishield

The Indian Government plans to establish India as a worldwide healthcare center.

Major Healthcare Centers in India

Top Government Hospitals in India

• All India Institute Of Medical Sciences, Delhi

Top Private hospitals in India

• Medanta The Medicity, Gurgaon

Trends in the Indian Healthcare Sector

• Pradhan Mantri Jan Arogya Yojana (PMJAY) scheme

New Medical Centre – Multispeciality Hospital

The organisation was founded by Dr. M.V. Thayumana Sundaram, MBBS.,