See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/334885850

Informal workplace learning: Development and validation of a measure

Article in Human Resource Development Quarterly · August 2019

DOI: 10.1002/hrdq.21368

CITATIONS READS

101 2,681

3 authors:

Julian Decius Niclas Schaper

Universität Bremen Universität Paderborn
72 PUBLICATIONS 451 CITATIONS 138 PUBLICATIONS 1,859 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Andreas Seifert
Universität Paderborn
49 PUBLICATIONS 1,187 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Julian Decius on 04 September 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

DOI: 10.1002/hrdq.21368

QUANTITATIVE STUDY

Informal workplace learning: Development

and validation of a measure

Julian Decius | Niclas Schaper | Andreas Seifert

Department of Work and Organizational

Psychology, University of Paderborn, Abstract
Paderborn, Germany Informal workplace learning (IWL) is an important part of work-
Correspondence related continuing education, especially in the case of blue-
Julian Decius, University of Paderborn, collar workers. The current article presents a new measure of
Warburger Str., 100, 33098 Paderborn,
Germany. IWL, which we developed based on the already existing
Email: [email protected] Dynamic Model of Informal Learning by Tannenbaum et al.
(2010). We extended the model to eight components by theo-
retical considerations, introducing a second-order structure.
Each component is represented on the IWL scale with three
items, the subscales have sound internal consistencies (α range
between .76 and .92). The article also presents a short version
of the scale comprising eight items (α = .79). Study 1 describes
the process of item selection, while Study 2 deals with different
theoretically conceivable models comparing their model fits.
The predicted model with eight factors in a second-order struc-
ture achieves the best model fit. In addition, convergent, dis-
criminant, and criterion validity are demonstrated. Medium-
sized relationships of IWL components to conscientiousness
and learning outcomes confirm the nomological network we
developed previously in our study. The discussion provides limi-
tations and possible scientific and practical applications of the
IWL scale, for example, the transfer of the measure to other
contexts and target groups.

KEYWORDS
blue-collar workers, informal workplace learning, scale
development

© 2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Human Resource Development Quarterly. 2019;1–41. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/hrdq 1

2 DECIUS ET AL.

1 | I N T RO D UC T I O N

1.1 | Relevance of informal workplace learning

Imagine that a factory worker is confronted with a problem in his work process: he notices that the metal parts pro-
duced by the machine he is working on obviously do not meet the requirements. Now the worker could think and
reflect about this challenge, look for a solution using a trial and error strategy, or ask more experienced colleagues
for advice. Therefore, he will presumably develop the intention to learn on his own informally about the specific
problem and possible solutions—instead of waiting for the next formal training on machine operation.
These strategies of the worker mentioned here are components of informal learning in the workplace that takes
place outside formal learning contexts and is predominantly self-directed, intentional, and field-based (Cerasoli et al.,
2018). Indeed, the majority of learning in the modern workplace takes place informally; literature indicates a range of
70–90% for the degree of informality of learning (Eraut, 2011; Noe, Tews, & Marand, 2013). Even in areas in which
formal continuing education plays a major role (e.g., security issues), employees use competencies acquired infor-
mally in the working process more frequently than those formally acquired (Burns, 2008). Informal learning that takes
place in the workplace—or short Informal workplace learning (IWL)—is, therefore, an effective supplement to formal
learning for the development of work-related skills (Ellström, 2001; Kyndt & Baert, 2013; Slotte, Tynjälä, & Hytönen,
2004), because it occurs in an authentic setting that supports learning transfer (Billett, 1995).
Research on IWL has already shown positive learning outcomes of this kind of learning, for example, higher task
performance, personal development, or better team work results (Tynjälä, 2013), which provides benefits for individ-
uals, teams, organizations, and society (Aguinis & Kraiger, 2009). Even if there is a lack of characteristics of a learning
supportive organization (e.g., learning culture), employees seem to learn informally (Berg & Chyung, 2008). IWL might
also have possible dark sides, for example, passing on bad habits and unprofessional behavior to new colleagues in an
informal way. So far, there exists not a single empirical investigation on these bad outcomes (Cerasoli et al., 2018).
Overall, however, IWL seems to have predominantly positive outcomes on employees, teams, and organizations.
Formal continuing education programs are often generically structured and not tailored to the needs of individual
employees. In addition, they can hardly keep up with the rapidly changing demands on competence development:
what is learned today in a training course can be outdated tomorrow. The situation is different with IWL, where the
employees themselves decide during the work process when and what they learn. Therefore, especially in times of
changing job requirements, flexible work structures, and digitalization processes, IWL has great potential to enable
employees to acquire the necessary skills in their daily work and to ensure long-term employability (Froehlich,
Beausaert, Segers, & Gerken, 2014; Kyndt & Beausaert, 2017).
However, companies can only realize this potential if they are aware of the extent of IWL among their employees
and know how they can foster it. Human resources managers should have the opportunity to support their workers'
learning in the workplace, to use the positive link between work-related learning and personal career development
(van der Sluis & Poell, 2003). To enable this, human resources managers must find out which employees learn infor-
mally and in what way, to optimally promote IWL; e.g., they can identify work areas in which employees learn partic-
ularly much or little informally to evaluate the individual and organizational conditions for a supportive learning
environment. In this way, they can use the leverage of IWL to achieve desired effects such as higher job satisfaction
and task performance (Cerasoli et al., 2018). Employees also benefit directly: using a scale to measure IWL, they can
receive feedback on their personal IWL behavior—e.g., in employee development interviews with their superiors—
and could agree with reference to this feedback on a continuing training strategy adapted to their individual learning
preferences.
To provide human resources managers with recommendations for promoting informal learning, researchers need
to conduct further studies on the relevant antecedents and outcomes of IWL. Thus, a valid instrument is needed to
measure IWL. Previous attempts to operationalize IWL are based on rather explorative approaches without following
a conceptual framework (see Section 2). Therefore, recent reviews call for the development of a profound scale to
DECIUS ET AL. 3

operationalize IWL (Cerasoli et al., 2018; Jeong, Han, Lee, Sunalai, & Yoon, 2018). Thus, the aim of this study is to
develop a scale to measure IWL using a holistic and theoretically driven framework approach—with a focus on a spe-
cial target group (as we explain later).

1.2 | Target group

However, IWL cannot be studied without considering the circumstances of learning context, learning conditions, and
situations (Ellinger, 2005). Research should focus on specific jobs and industry sectors, because there is no “one-
size-fits-all” approach of workplace learning (Manuti, Pastore, Scardigno, Giancaspro, & Morciano, 2015)—employees
do not learn in the same informal way in the workplace in all sectors and professions. For this reason, we concentrate
in the IWL scale development process on the special target group of blue-collar workers mentioned in the introduc-
tory example.
These employees often do basic manufacturing tasks in industrial companies of low-technology sectors, but contrib-
ute crucially to the economy, even the unskilled and semiskilled workers (Hirsch-Kreinsen, 2015). In contrast to white-
collar workers or executives, this target group learns more through informal on-the-job trainings and by trial and error in
the daily routine than by formal training. One reason for this are individual learning barriers: formal training often has a
bad reputation for these workers as it triggers former school experiences. Furthermore, fears about continuing education
and training are much more pronounced for people with low or no vocational qualifications doing simple work tasks
(Tippelt, Reich, & Panyr, 2004). Blue-collar workers doing simple work tasks are also characterized by a relatively high
migration rate of 20% compared to only 10% in the entire industry (Ittermann, Abel, & Dostal, 2011). We considered
these characteristics when developing the new measure for blue-collar workers, for example by piloting and evaluating
the content of the questionnaire in interviews with people from the target group (see Section 5). However, the working
methods of blue-collar workers may also differ in various industries. To take this into account and develop a measure
that can be used as universally as possible, we conducted the interviews in companies of various industries: metal refine-
ment, electrical industry, mechanical engineering, and furniture manufacturing.
In contrast to formal learning, IWL has a low threshold for blue-collar workers and offers direct benefits for
the working process, for example, if a problem in the workplace can be solved after the learning. Furthermore,
most of the small-sized and medium-sized enterprises that employ most of the blue-collar workers have little
financial and time resources for personnel development (Decius & Schaper, 2017). These are important workplace
learning barriers (Crouse, Doyle, & Young, 2011), which occur mainly in smaller companies, so in terms of voca-
tional learning, these companies may “not [simply be regarded as] small versions of large businesses” (Perkins,
2018, p. 3). Small-sized and medium-sized enterprises usually offer their low-end workers only basic trainings, like
health and safety briefings, which are required by law. In situations where logistical, financial, or personnel restric-
tions contradict formal training, IWL thus can be a cost-effective, alternative approach to competency acquisition
and an important additional component of personnel development and supplement to formal learning (Cerasoli
et al., 2018; Jones, Beynon, Pickernell, & Packham, 2013). In contrast to other target groups such as managers
(Enos, Kehrhahn, & Bell, 2003; Noe et al., 2013), research results on IWL of blue-collar workers are scarce—despite
the importance of IWL for these people. This may also be explained because learning behavior and learning strate-
gies in several other target groups differ substantially and there is no specific measure for IWL among blue-collar
workers yet.

1.3 | Contributions
Regarding all these points, our study is supposed to contribute to research and practice in three aspects: first, we
operationalize IWL of blue-collar workers in a conceptually well-grounded manner using the Dynamic Model of Infor-
mal Learning (Tannenbaum, Beard, McNall, & Salas, 2010) as a framework approach. Second, we enlarge this model
and subdivide the model factors to get a more specific operationalization of IWL, driven by theoretical
4 DECIUS ET AL.

considerations and based on the existing literature. Third, as required by Cerasoli et al. (2018), we provide a validated
measure for IWL, which covers the learning process holistically, including learning intention, feedback, and reflection
aspects. Depending on the sample availability, we conducted a survey in German to develop the scale and translated
it into English, using a translation/backtranslation approach.
At the individual level, employees can reflect on their IWL processes and may prepare for annual staff appraisals
using the IWL scale. At the organizational level, human resources managers can use the IWL scale to monitor informal
learning in their organization, and to derive implications for adjusting the personnel development strategy. Researchers
can use the scale to operationalize IWL in their studies, for example, to investigate the framework conditions of work-
place learning.

2 | CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

2.1 | Definition of Informal Workplace Learning (IWL)

The organizational learning literature uses the term workplace learning as an umbrella term for formal and informal
learning when it takes place in the workplace (Kyndt & Baert, 2013). In our study, however, we focus exclusively on
informal learning. In the following, we consider IWL, define it, and separate it from formal workplace learning. If
researchers in the original studies used the term informal learning, we report it as IWL unless informal learning has
been studied in the workplace context.
According to Watkins and Marsick (1992), IWL can be defined as self-directed learning mode in contrast to for-
mal learning—it takes place in less formal learning settings. Formal workplace learning is characterized by (high) struc-
turing of learning context, learning support, learning time, and learning objectives (Kyndt & Baert, 2013). However, it
is not sufficient to define IWL in distinction from formal workplace learning only, because “elements of formal learn-
ing in informal situations, and elements of informality in formal situations” exist (Malcolm, Hodkinson, & Colley,
2003, p. 313).
IWL includes striving for understanding, knowledge or skill acquisition (Livingstone, 1999). It can occur in a
planned or unplanned manner, even though the degree of planning and organizing is usually low concerning learning
context and learning support; furthermore, it is often triggered by work activities and personal interactions in which
learning is not the primary goal (Kyndt & Baert, 2013). Marsick and Volpe (1999) note that the main features of IWL
often mentioned in the literature are the following: informal learning is “integrated with daily routines,” “triggered by
an internal or external jolt,” “not highly conscious,” “haphazard and influenced by chance,” “an inductive process of
reflection and action,” and “linked to learning of others” (p. 5).
Even if IWL is not always “highly conscious” to the learner, awareness is needed that informal learning can be dis-
tinguished from incidental learning, which happens rather by chance and unconsciously (Watkins & Marsick, 1992).
Cerasoli et al. (2018) provide the following definition in their meta-analysis, which is largely in line with the Watkins–
Marsick approach and also emphasizes the intentionality of IWL:

“Informal learning behaviors (ILBs) are non-curricular behaviors and activities pursued in service of
knowledge and skill acquisition that take place outside formally-designated learning contexts. Such
activities are predominantly self-directed, intentional, and field-based. Informal learning behaviors are
not syllabus-based, discrete, or linear.” (p. 204)

The criteria mentioned by Marsick and Volpe (1999) can also be found here, even if the elements of reflection,
action, and learning from others (e.g., through feedback) are not explicitly stated. In the following, we refer to these
IWL definitions of Cerasoli et al. (2018) and Marsick and Volpe (1999).
DECIUS ET AL. 5

2.2 | Frameworks of IWL

In the organizational learning literature, there are few frameworks in the context of workplace learning that more or
less take informal learning into account. As follows, we present three approaches that at least partially consider the
definition criteria of IWL. The active learning model (Bell & Kozlowski, 2008) comprises the three main components:
exploratory learning (i.e., learner's focus on exploration and experimentation), error-encouragement framing
(i.e., encouraging learners to make mistakes and learn from them), and emotional control (i.e., enabling learners to
manage their emotions). According to the model, these design elements are related to cognitive, motivational, and
emotional processes (Noe, Tews, & McConnell Dachner, 2010). Although the model is learner-centred and contains
important elements of the IWL (e.g., exploration/experimentation and learning from errors), it omits other compo-
nents such as feedback-seeking or learning intention, which are part of the IWL definitions (Cerasoli et al., 2018;
Marsick & Volpe, 1999).
Noe et al. (2010) postulate an approach to workplace learning based on the concept of learner engagement
according to Kahn (1990). Kahn highlights the three components meaningfulness, safety, and availability as beneficial
elements for engagement. Noe et al. (2010) assume that IWL supports these three elements:

“Informal learning may promote meaningfulness, as the content of learning can be more closely
aligned with individuals' own development needs. Safety may be enhanced because individuals are
learning by themselves or in a smaller group setting, as opposed to a larger classroom environment
where individuals may fear making mistakes in front of others. Finally, availability may be enhanced
through informal learning because individuals can progress at their own pace using energy and cogni-
tive resources as they feel is appropriate.” (p. 293)

However, in our opinion this approach also misses central components of IWL. Although the engagement
approach emphasizes learning intention (cp. meaningfulness) and feedback seeking (cp. safety), the reflection aspect
that is important for informal learning (Marsick & Volpe, 1999) does not play a role.
Tannenbaum et al. (2010) assume that IWL has four characteristics:

“[Informal learning] is predominately learner directed and self-guided (i.e., individually not organiza-
tionally controlled); reflects at least some intent for development, growth, learning, or improvement
(i.e., it is not simply incidental learning); involves some action and doing, and is not purely educational
(e.g., not reading or training); does not occur in a formal learning setting (e.g., not classroom or e-
learning).” (p. 306)

Based on this conceptualization, Tannenbaum et al. (2010) present a model approach to IWL that consists of four
components: experience/action, feedback, reflection, and intent to learn. The authors assume that informal learning,
as it is less linear and structured than formal learning, often has no clear starting and end points (Tannenbaum et al.,
2010). Therefore, their dynamic model is designed to allow the learning process to start at any point and the learner
may pass through the components, one or more times. The learning sequence thus does not follow a predefined
scheme, as can be observed in formal learning. Tannenbaum et al. (2010) conclude that the informal learning process
is most effective if all four components are involved—if components are omitted, the learning process is incomplete.
It is also conceivable that some substeps of informal learning will be taken several times. The four components are
closely related and can trigger each other, for example, if feedback from superiors leads to a reflective action and this
reflection then generates a learning intention that subsequently leads to a learning experience.
This conceptual framework by Tannenbaum et al. (2010)—in contrast to the approaches of Bell and Kozlowski
(2008) and Noe et al. (2010)—is in line with the definition mentioned by Cerasoli et al. (2018). Due to its dynamic
character, furthermore, it is the only one of the three approaches to consider the IWL characteristics triggered by an
6 DECIUS ET AL.

internal or external jolt and haphazard and influenced by chance (Marsick & Volpe, 1999). Therefore, we decided to use
the model of Tannenbaum et al. (2010) as a theoretical framework for the development of our new IWL scale and
dedicate a separate subchapter (Dynamic Model of Informal Learning) to the description and extension of the model.
In a literature review, however, we first consider the previous approaches to the operationalization of IWL and the
need to develop a new scale.

2.3 | Literature review on previous approaches to operationalizing IWL

In the following, we give an overview of six different approaches and attempts in the literature to operationalize
informal learning and related constructs. Previous studies focused on different target groups, but not on blue-collar
workers. Overall, however, only a few researchers addressed the issue of operationalizing IWL—although the impor-
tance of IWL for learning outcomes, lifelong education of workers, and personnel development is evident
(Tannenbaum et al., 2010; Tynjälä, 2013). Literature reviews and one meta-analytic review in this field reveal the
diversity of (not fully and broad validated) measurement approaches to operationalize informal learning or related
constructs (Cerasoli et al., 2018; Kyndt & Baert, 2013).
Noe et al. (2013) developed a nine-item scale for informal learning of company managers, dividing informal learn-
ing into learning from oneself, others, and noninterpersonal sources. They combined the three factors to one factor
because of the high correlations between them. Kortsch, Schulte, and Kauffeld (2019) translated this scale into Ger-
man and used it in the context of new media use in small companies. Furthermore, they added a fourth informal
learning strategy: informal learning using new media. Kyndt, Govaerts, Verbeek, and Dochy (2014) applied a measure
for informal learning outcomes of social care workers, using a scale with 19 items in three factors: generic, job-spe-
cific, and organizational-level learning outcomes. In a Dutch sample, Nikolova, Van Ruysseveldt, De Witte, and Syroit
(2014b) measured the learning potential of the workplace, which they divided into learning through reflection or
through experimentation, from colleagues and from supervisors. Froehlich, Beausaert, and Segers (2017) distinguish
in their scale of social approaches to work-related informal learning the factors feedback-seeking from the supervi-
sor, feedback-seeking from colleagues, help-seeking, and information-seeking. Their work was based on a question-
naire on learning conditions by Kyndt, Dochy, and Nijs (2009), which is a translated and modified version of the
questionnaire by Clauwaert and Van Bree (2008). Bernadette van Rijn, Yang, and Sanders (2013) differentiated three
types of IWL activities and measured them with Dutch vocational school teachers, using the existing scale for each
activity: up-to-date, asking for feedback from supervisors, and knowledge sharing.
All scales mentioned are not specially designed for the use by blue-collar workers. Furthermore, to our knowl-
edge, none of these operationalizations are based on an existing conceptual model of informal learning; rather
exploratory strategies were used. However, both Jeong et al. (2018) and Cerasoli et al. (2018) argue for the impor-
tance that a measure for IWL should be based on a conceptual framework. We share this view because, without a
sound theoretical basis, there is a risk that the measure will fail to consider essential elements of informal learning.
Thus, we use the Dynamic Model of Informal Learning by Tannenbaum et al. (2010), which we introduced here as a
framework to develop the new measure. In the following, we describe the four model components in more detail
and extend the model based on the literature and conceptual considerations to eight factors.

3 | DYNAMIC MODEL OF INFORMAL LEARNING

3.1 | Description and extension

The Dynamic Model of Informal Learning (Tannenbaum et al., 2010) contains four components describing a complete
informal learning process: experience/action, feedback, reflection and intent to learn. As mentioned, the dynamic model
in this study serves as a heuristic framework for the development of the IWL scale. However, to reach a more spe-
cific operationalization of IWL for the target group of blue-collar workers, we differentiated the model by subdividing
DECIUS ET AL. 7

each of the four model components into two factors. Tannenbaum et al. (2010) already gave first thoughts on the
possible differentiation of their model; furthermore, we followed conceptual considerations offered by the work-
place learning literature. We describe the model's original four components and our distinctions into eight factors as
follows.
Experience/action means that the worker engages in an action with reference to a work task and thereby makes a
(new) experience in the workplace (Tannenbaum et al., 2010). We divided experience/action into the two factors trying &
applying own ideas and model learning, based on the classification of Noe et al. (2013): learning from oneself, from
others, and from noninterpersonal sources. Trying & applying own ideas, which basically means learning by doing, is
grounded in learning from oneself. Lohman (2006) also mentions this source of learning in her overview of informal
learning activities. Model learning in the sense of Bandura's (1986) social cognitive theory is based on learning from
others by observing their behavior and adapting the observations to one's own behavior, which is also mentioned as
informal learning source by Lohman (2006). In line with Eraut (2011) who states that the “usage of manuals, however,
appeared to be confined to a minority who thrived on learning from manuals; while the others did all they could to
avoid them” (p. 8), we set aside noninterpersonal sources as reading professional magazines or manuals, and searching
on the internet. These aspects are not relevant for blue-collar workers' learning, as interviews have shown we con-
ducted with employees of the target group and managers in small-sized and medium-sized enterprises.
Feedback is the acknowledgement the worker receives according to a previous action, either given by the task
itself, or given by others (e.g., through communities of practice; Boud & Middleton, 2003). Obtaining feedback
goes hand in hand with talking with others and collaborating with others, which Lohman (2006) identifies as
informal learning activities. According to Tannenbaum et al. (2010), in the IWL context feedback can be directed
at the learner, regarding the worker's job performance directly, or can occur vicariously, for example, when more
experienced workers tell about critical working processes and about the consequences of their own actions in
the past. Thus, we divided feedback into direct feedback and vicarious feedback. We interpret the feedback factor
as an active search behavior for which the employee herself is seeking. This deliberately excludes passive feed-
back, which an employee's superior, for example, expresses about an employee's work performance without
being asked, since the employee cannot influence it—even if it is possible that this also provides an impetus for
learning.
Reflection means that the worker engages in thoughtful consideration about his or her past and future actions
and reflects the previous experiences at work (Tannenbaum et al., 2010). Lohman (2006) considers reflection on
one's own actions as an important informal learning activity. According to Schön (1983), reflection can be classified
into for action (before the task), in action (during the task), and on action (after the task). Hence, we considered the
distinction between anticipatory reflection, for example, anticipating new hindrances when executing a task to adapt
to changed working conditions, and subsequent reflection, as reflection after finishing the task, in our model. We
excluded the reflection during the task because this aspect is already covered by the factors trying & applying own
ideas and model learning, which directly address reflection issues when executing the task.
Intent to learn is the awareness of the need to develop and improve oneself in the workplace and to acquire more
work-related knowledge (Tannenbaum et al., 2010). We distinguished intent to learn into intrinsic intent to learn
(e.g., for the reason of personal growth) and extrinsic intent to learn (e.g., for the reason of career facilitation), follow-
ing the implications of self-determination theory (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Motivation research has shown that intrinsic
motives and extrinsic incentives both influence work performance positively (Cerasoli, Nicklin, & Ford, 2014).
Although both forms of motivation can complement each other well, they should be considered separately as they
have different effects on performance improvement. If performance is operationalized using qualitative factors, there
are stronger correlations with the intrinsic component; in quantitative performance measurement the extrinsic com-
ponent plays a greater role (Cerasoli et al., 2014).
In the learning context, we also assume that the two components differ from each other and do not necessarily
have to go hand in hand. A worker can be highly interested in his or her personal growth according to the working
task without striving for a higher position in the company—just as another worker without interest in personal
8 DECIUS ET AL.

growth pushes the own career ambitions. We assume that this distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic motives
considers the most important aspects of informal learning intentions.
Our holistic octagon model of informal workplace learning (see Figure 1), therefore, contains these eight factors:
Trying & applying own ideas, Model learning, Direct feedback, Vicarious feedback, Anticipatory reflection, Subsequent
reflection, Extrinsic intent to learn, and Intrinsic intent to learn.

3.2 | Competing IWL model structures

In our study, we compare two theoretically conceivable models to describe the structure and arrangement of
the eight IWL factors: the first model indicates that all eight factors are arranged independently of the same
level. The second model refers to the conceptual view of the model by Tannenbaum et al. (2010) and assumes
that the four factors experience/action, intent to learn, feedback, and reflection have a second-order structure, for
example, that direct feedback and vicarious feedback are subconstructs of feedback (Figure 1). To contrast these
two models, we also examine a four-factor structure without subdivisions, as well as a model in which all items
belong to one factor.

4 | N O M O L O G I C A L N E T W O RK

4.1 | Relationship between conscientiousness and informal learning activities

Within our study, we also pursued the goal of examining a nomological network of the postulated correlates
(Cronbach & Meehl, 1955) within the context of IWL. Therefore, we investigated associations of the eight IWL com-
ponents with constructs that are located before (as possible antecedents) and after the learning (as possible

F I G U R E 1 Octagon model of informal workplace learning, based on the dynamic model of informal learning by
Tannenbaum et al. (2010)
DECIUS ET AL. 9

outcomes) within the IWL process. Our goal is to examine the correlations of IWL with constructs that have played
an important theoretical and empirical role in workplace learning research to date. In studies on workplace learning,
the trait conscientiousness from the big-five personality model is one of the most examined variables and has shown
to correlate consistently with workplace learning variables (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Barrick, Mount, & Judge, 2001;
Lee & Klein, 2002; Martocchio & Judge, 1997; Salgado, 1997). Thus, we chose conscientiousness as an important
variable associated with IWL within the nomological network. Based on evidence from previous studies, we formu-
lated hypotheses on the connections between conscientiousness and the eight IWL components. Using these
hypotheses (see Table 1 for an overview), we aim to subsequently test the nomological network with reference to an
important related variable of informal learning.

4.1.1 | Experience/action
The literature indicates significant links between conscientiousness and self-development activities at work (Maurer,
Lippstreu, & Judge, 2008; Orvis & Leffler, 2011). Furthermore, Simmering, Colquitt, Noe, and Porter (2003) showed
that conscientiousness is positively linked to the involvement in development activities when employees feel that
the autonomy provided by the company does not meet their needs. Noe et al. (2013) found a connection between
conscientiousness and their concept of informal learning, which they partly operationalized with items about these
components: experimenting with new ways of doing one's own work, using trial and error strategies to learn and bet-
ter perform, and observing and learning from others. This operationalization of self-development activities is similar
to the IWL categories Trying & applying own ideas and Model learning respectively to their items; therefore, we also
expect positive relationships here.

Hypothesis 1 Trying & applying own ideas and model learning correlate positively with conscientiousness.

4.1.2 | Feedback
Links between feedback behavior and conscientiousness have hardly been reported in research to date. One reason
for this could be that a first study in this area found no significant correlation (r = .12) between feedback seeking
behavior and conscientiousness (Wanberg & Kammeyer-Mueller, 2000). Regarding an explanation for the findings,
the authors speculate that conscientious people ask open questions about the workflow right at the beginning and
may receive more feedback passively without asking, as they do a good job. They also state that “conscientious indi-
viduals may have a tendency to be more confident in socialization experiences and may feel less of a need to seek

TABLE 1 Overview of the hypotheses derived from the literature

Hypotheses IWL factors External variables Assumed relationship

H1 Trying and applying own ideas, model learning Conscientiousness Positive
H2 Direct feedback, vicarious feedback Conscientiousness Negative
H3 Anticipatory reflection, subsequent reflection Conscientiousness Positive
H4 Extrinsic intent to learn, intrinsic intent to learn Conscientiousness Positive
H5 Trying and applying own ideas, model learning Four learning outcomes Positive
H6 Direct feedback, vicarious feedback Four learning outcomes Positive
H7 Anticipatory reflection, subsequent reflection Four learning outcomes Positive
H8 Extrinsic intent to learn, intrinsic intent to learn Four learning outcomes Positive

Abbreviation: IWL, informal workplace learning.

10 DECIUS ET AL.

out information and feedback” (p. 382). We follow this argumentation and assume a negative relationship between
feedback and conscientiousness.

Hypothesis 2 Direct feedback and vicarious feedback correlate negatively with conscientiousness.

4.1.3 | Reflection
Reflection is considered as the driving force of organizational and workplace learning (Knipfer, Kump, Wessel, &
Cress, 2013). It requires careful consideration of one's own work performance and sets the course for future efforts
(Sparr, Knipfer, & Willems, 2017). Reflection leads to a change in information processing from an automatic mode to
a conscious mode and results in performance improvements—at least when it is accompanied by feedback processes
(Anseel, Lievens, & Schollaert, 2009). There seems to be some indication that reflection and conscientiousness go
hand in hand, including empirical research: in the study by Noe et al. (2013), the authors also cover informal learning,
using items that ask for reflection on how to improve one's performance. This facet has shown to play an important
role in the learning process in the workplace (Hetzner, Heid, & Gruber, 2015; Hurns, 2012). The authors found a pos-
itive link between conscientiousness and their conceptualization of informal learning including these reflection items
(Noe et al., 2013). Thus, we also assume a positive relationship between reflection and conscientiousness.

Hypothesis 3 Anticipatory reflection and Subsequent reflection correlate positively with conscientiousness.

4.1.4 | Intent to learn

Conscientious persons not only consider their actions more carefully - they also have more pronounced behavioral
intentions, as research within the framework of the Theory of Planned Behavior has shown (Conner & Abraham,
2001). In the learning context, previous research has revealed correlates between conscientiousness and motivation
for learning and training. Colquitt and Simmering (1998) found an association between conscientiousness and moti-
vation to learn. Furthermore, Colquitt, LePine, and Noe (2000) meta-analytically found a positive relationship
between conscientiousness and training motivation. Accordingly, we assume a positive relationship between learning
intention and conscientiousness.

Hypothesis 4 Extrinsic intent to learn and intrinsic intent to learn correlate positively with conscientiousness.

4.2 | Relationship between IWL components and learning outcomes

Besides considering conscientiousness as a correlative and potential predictor variable in the nomological network,
we also investigated correlates between informal learning and potential learning outcomes as a resulting product of
the learning process. To find out whether IWL is linked with the work or personal results of employees or the whole
organization, direct (e.g., competency development) and indirect (e.g., work flexibility) learning outcomes must be
investigated (Aguinis & Kraiger, 2009). Research considers workplace learning outcomes as very context-specific
(Ellinger, 2005; Froehlich, Segers, & Van den Bossche, 2014). The differentiation and operationalization of various
learning outcomes, therefore, should refer to a distinguished workplace and target group (Kyndt, Gijbels,
Grosemans, & Donche, 2016).
An operationalization of the outcomes through performance data or assessments by others was unfortunately
not possible. Therefore, we used a survey scale. Because a specific scale for blue-collar workers, to our knowledge,
DECIUS ET AL. 11

does not exist, we developed—in addition to the development of the actual IWL scale—a scale for the
operationalization of blue-collar workers' learning outcomes. As a first step, we conducted interviews with manage-
ment in four small-sized and medium-sized enterprises and asked for relevant learning outcomes in the production
sector (metal refinement, electrical industry, mechanical engineering, and furniture manufacturing). When developing
the interview guide, we referred to the literature on competency development in industrial work (Decius & Schaper,
2017; Hirsch-Kreinsen & Ten Hompel, 2017). Although the learning outcomes of IWL are generally regarded as very
individual, the outcomes of blue-collar workers are more standardized than those of white-collar workers. The rea-
son is that the learning content of blue-collar workers often refers to standardized production processes and
machine operation. In line with this, the managers often stated in the interviews that learning enables employees to
better understand work processes, to work faster and more efficiently, to operate several machines, and to become
more resilient.
Based on the typology of evaluation criteria for vocational trainings of Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2006), we
derived the following four categories for measuring learning outcomes from the interviews: competency development
(as an indicator of learning in the typology), work flexibility (as an indicator of behavior and transfer in daily work),
increase in efficiency, and decrease in strain (as indicators of personal and organizational learning results). The subscale
competency development furthermore differentiates between cognitive outcomes, skill-based outcomes, and affec-
tive outcomes, according to the typology of training outcomes by Kraiger, Ford, and Salas (1993), with one item
each. We describe the whole item development process in Section 6.1.2. For the development of the nomological
network, we derived different relations of these four learning outcomes with the eight IWL components from the lit-
erature. Subsequently, we established hypotheses to test the nomological network concerning possible effects and
outcomes of informal learning.

4.2.1 | Experience/action
Research to date has shown findings on the connection between various work-related self-directed learning activi-
ties, which comprise the core of the experience/action component, and learning outcomes (Froehlich, Segers, & Van
den Bossche, 2014; Janssens, Smet, Onghena, & Kyndt, 2017). The distinction between Trying & applying own ideas
and Model learning was first made in this study and no learning outcomes were investigated in the article by Noe
et al. (2013), which formed the basis of this subdivision. Therefore, there are no specific correlations between these
two components and learning outcomes from previous research. However, because Trying & applying own ideas and
Model learning are self-directed learning activities, as in the studies mentioned, we assume a positive relationship
with the learning outcomes.

Hypothesis 5 Trying & applying own ideas and model learning correlate positively with the four learning outcomes com-
petency development, work flexibility, increase in efficiency, and decrease in strain.

4.2.2 | Feedback
Feedback is an important source of learning that is associated with many different learning outcomes. Janssens et al.
(2017) showed significant positive relations of feedback with generic, specific, and organizational level learning out-
comes. Gerken et al. (2018) found empirical evidence that feedback from both colleagues and supervisors is posi-
tively related to various categories of innovative work behavior as a learning outcome. Feedback seeking and
feedback use also show medium to high correlations with job performance (Spreitzer, McCall, & Mahoney, 1997).
Other studies as well highlight feedback as an important factor in the context of IWL (Doornbos, Simons, &
Denessen, 2008; Skule, 2004). We, therefore, assume a positive relationship between feedback and learning
outcomes.
12 DECIUS ET AL.

Hypothesis 6 Direct feedback and vicarious feedback correlate positively with the four learning outcomes competency
development, work flexibility, increase in efficiency, and decrease in strain.

4.2.3 | Reflection
A deep learning strategy means that for the learner, the understanding of the meaning of the task and the satisfac-
tion of the curiosity is in the focus (Biggs, 1988; Hoeksema, Van de Vliert, & Williams, 1997)—it is characterized by a
high degree of reflection about the own work activity. Deep learning strategies in the workplace are positively linked
to career success as a long-term learning outcome (Hoeksema et al., 1997), and to core skills (i.e., particularly impor-
tant skills for the respective job, e.g., technical skills of a technician), perceived career development, and subjective
job performance (Froehlich, Segers, & Van den Bossche, 2014). Reflection behavior related to the specific task addi-
tionally shows positive connections with various categories of innovative work behavior (Gerken et al., 2018), and
connections with generic, specific, and organizational level learning outcomes (Janssens et al., 2017). Nikolova, Van
Ruysseveldt, De Witte, and Syroit (2014a) furthermore report a moderate relationship (r = .46) between reflection
and KSAOs (i.e., professional knowledge, skills, abilities, and other characteristics). We, therefore, assume a positive
relationship between reflection and learning outcomes.

Hypothesis 7 Anticipatory reflection and subsequent reflection correlate positively with the four learning outcomes com-
petency development, work flexibility, increase in efficiency, and decrease in strain.

4.2.4 | Intent to learn

It seems plausible to assume that someone who has a pronounced learning intention also achieves high learning out-
comes. Research results at least indicate that motivation is moderately related to performance variables (Cerasoli
et al., 2014). Colquitt et al. (2000) found in their meta-analysis that motivation to learn is significantly positively
related to the learning outcomes declarative knowledge, skill acquisition, post-training self-efficacy, and reactions. In
the context of informal learning, there are also links between career motivation and knowledge sharing (Bernadette
van Rijn et al., 2013). Accordingly, we also assume a positive relationship between learning intention and learning
outcomes.

Hypothesis 8 Extrinsic intent to learn and intrinsic intent to learn correlate positively with the four learning outcomes
competency development, work flexibility, increase in efficiency, and decrease in strain.

5 | I W L SC A L E D E V EL O P M EN T P R O C E S S

After we had derived the eight IWL components based on the literature and conceptual considerations, we started
the item generation process to represent the constructs. We deductively developed between four and seven items
for each component, considering the instructions of DeVellis (2003, pp. 63) and the recommendations of MacKenzie,
Podsakoff, and Podsakoff (2011, p. 304), e.g., simple and precise wording, avoidance of obvious social desirability—
resulting in a pool of 40 items. In the item generation process, we relied on the results of 12 guideline-based,
semistructured interviews we conducted with managing directors and human resources managers from different
small and medium-sized enterprises on the topics of further training and competency development in the
manufacturing industry. All items have been phrased from the first-person perspective. Furthermore, we avoided
DECIUS ET AL. 13

negative formulated items that can easily be misunderstood. We also conducted a qualitative review of the question-
naire to ensure content and face validity as well as linguistic comprehensibility. To this end, we used the thinking
aloud technique (Flaherty, 1975; Willis, 2005) and interviewed a total of 15 blue-collar workers in three small-sized
and medium-sized enterprises from the production sector (metal, electronics, and furniture), who were selected for
the sake of representativeness according to demographic criteria (age, gender, tenure, educational level, position in
company, and work area). We then revised the items based on the interview findings; for example, we replaced
abstract terms, which each interviewee had interpreted differently, with more concrete descriptions and
reformulated items that some respondents could not answer, because the items did not seem to apply to their
respective areas of work.
As part of the thinking aloud interviews with the blue-collar workers, we tested various scale formats during a
pilot phase. In advance, we had preferred a six-point or five-point Likert scale. These scales, however, led to prob-
lems with certain test persons of the target group—for whom completing a questionnaire is very unusual—when
deciding on an answer category. Thus, we decided to use a four-point Likert scale. Due to the lower number of cate-
gories, a certain restriction of variance must be accepted, but the four-point Likert scale does not overuse the con-
centration and cognitive capacity of the target group. Otherwise, there would be a risk that the variance only occurs
by chance and increases the error term (DeVellis, 2003, p. 75). The scale contains the rating anchors 1 totally dis-
agree, 2 rather disagree, 3 rather agree, and 4 totally agree and covers the aforementioned eight factors: Trying &
applying own ideas (e.g., “I use my own ideas to improve tasks at work.”), Model learning (e.g., “I look at how others
work in the company to improve my work.”), Direct feedback (e.g., “I ask my colleagues when I am not sure how well I
worked.”), Vicarious feedback (e.g., “I ask my colleagues about the methods and tricks they use at work.”), Anticipatory
reflection (e.g., “Before a new task, I think about how I can do my work best.”), Subsequent reflection (e.g., “When I
have finished a new task, I think about what I still could do better next time.”), Extrinsic intent to learn (e.g., “I want to
learn something new at work for myself because then I can pursue my career at the company.”), and Intrinsic intent
to learn (e.g., “I want to learn something new for myself because then I can solve problems at work faster.”).

6 | A I M S O F S T U D Y 1 A N D ST U D Y 2

Subsequently, we conducted two studies: Study 1 aims to reduce the developed item pool for the eight IWL compo-
nents to an economic size by means of statistical analyses. Furthermore, we tested the hypotheses on the nomologi-
cal network regarding conscientiousness and learning outcomes. For the operationalization of the learning
outcomes, we developed a scale with four factors, which we examined statistically. In Study 2, we evaluated the pre-
viously presented competing structural models of IWL concerning their fit and compared the four models with each
other. Subsequently, we present a short scale to allow the measurement of IWL in cases where the survey of infor-
mal learning has to accept restrictions regarding the available research resources. We developed the short scale
based on the data in Study 1 and tested it for reliability using the data from Study 2.

6.1 | Study 1
6.1.1 | Sample
A survey in German language was conducted by distributing an anonymous paper-pencil questionnaire among blue-
collar workers. The respondents of the survey were asked to return the completed questionnaire to a sealed mailbox.
The sample contains 546 workers (22.7% female) from 21 enterprises (size from 20 to 1,500 employees) in Germany.
The response rate was 49%. The companies operate in different industrial sectors, for example, plastics and metal
manufacturing, food production, furniture, and engine building. We asked the organizations for participation of their
employees and offered the companies an anonymous benchmark report as a reward for participation. The workers'
participation was voluntary to provide a better validity of their self-evaluation (Mabe & West, 1982). We computed
14 DECIUS ET AL.

the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) by dividing the variance between classes (organizations) by the sum of the
variance between the classes and within the classes to test for multilevel influences that may be caused by the orga-
nizational affiliation. A value of 0 shows complete independence of data (Cohen, Cohen, West, & Aiken, 2003). The
ICC values of all scales are low and range from .00 to .09, therefore, we assume that the organizational affiliations of
the employees have no significant influence, so that there is no need to apply a multilevel design in the calculation.
The participants of our study are 42.9 years old on average (SD = 12.1; Min = 17; Max = 64), 14.4% did not finish
any systematic vocational education, 70.6% finished a vocational education, and 7.0% got a graduate academic
degree.

6.1.2 | Methods
Analysis strategy
For the calculations in Study 1, we randomly divided the total data set (N = 546) into two equal halves (each
N = 273). With the first data half, we calculated an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) to conduct a first reduction of
the item pool for the IWL scale. Based on the EFA factor loads and conceptual considerations, we selected the best
working IWL items. Using the total data set, we conducted a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to test the factor
structure of the eight IWL factors after the first item reduction (IWL-CFA). Based on the CFA factor loads and con-
ceptual considerations, we reduced the number of items a second time to continue optimizing the IWL scale. In addi-
tion, we evaluated the reliability and validity of the optimized IWL scale based on the total data set.
With the second data half, we examined for the first time the factor structure of the new developed four con-
structs for learning outcomes (Outcomes-CFA 1). We describe the development process of the learning outcomes
scale later in this method section. The learning outcomes and conscientiousness are part of the nomological network
in our study and are used for construct validation. Based on the total data set, we then examined for the second time
the factor structure of the four constructs for learning outcomes (Outcomes-CFA 2) and evaluated the outcomes
scale's reliability and validity. We also used the total data set to evaluate the reliability of the conscientiousness
scale.

Item analysis and selection

In the first step, we aimed to reduce the pool of 40 items, consisting of eight factors with four to seven items each.
As described here, we had extended the Tannenbaum model based on previous research from four to eight factors
(see Figure 1). Thus, we assumed an eight-factor structure when conducting an EFA. We used maximum likelihood
as a factor extraction method and promax rotation as an oblique rotation technique (as recommended by Conway &
Huffcutt, 2003; Costello & Osborne, 2005). The computation of the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) index of sampling
adequacy resulted in a meritorious value of .83, which means that the data can be used for factor analyses
(Hutcheson & Sofroniou, 1999; Kaiser & Rice, 1974).
The results of the EFA showed us which items could potentially be eliminated. We followed the recommendation
of Döring & Bortz (2016; p. 484) that factor loads should be higher than .6; for 13 items, the factor load was lower
(all item formulations and factor loads can be found in Appendix A, Table A1). For the items to be potentially elimi-
nated, we considered the content and the factor loads and examined whether eliminating an item would result in the
construct no longer having sufficient content broadness. For these considerations, we used the results of the inter-
views with the managers and blue-collar workers (see aforementioned).
The items VF01, ML01, and TA06, to give an example, do not load highly on any of the eight factors
(cf. Appendix A, Table A1). The content of the items refers to learning styles (computer use, feedback from machines,
and quick learning from mistakes) that are common in some areas and companies among blue-collar workers, but less
in others: not all workers have computer access, not all machines give feedback, and not every work process enables
direct learning from mistakes. None of the items is as typical for IWL of blue-collar workers as it would have to
DECIUS ET AL. 15

remain on the scale. Through this evaluation process, we reduced the item pool from 40 to 27 items. For none of the
items potentially to be eliminated were there any substantive reasons against elimination.
According to MacKenzie et al. (2011), we carried out the following three steps of construct measurement after-
ward: model specification, scale evaluation and refinement, and validation. For model specification, we designed the
IWL scale with 27 items as a reflective model consisting of the eight conceptually derived components, with two
components each associated with a higher-level factor from the heuristic model of Tannenbaum et al. (2010). At the
highest level, informal learning is also assumed to be a global factor (cf. Figure 1). The eight components contained
between three and five items in this step.
For scale evaluation and refinement as the next step, we performed a CFA with the total sample of N = 546 using
the software AMOS 25. Missing values (4.4% in total) were imputed using the Full Information Maximum Likelihood
(FIML) method recommended by Kline (2016) for structural equation modeling. The sample size met the recommen-
dations for CFA of Hair, Black, Babin, and Anderson (2010) to achieve at least a 10:1 ratio of participants to items.
The calculation of the CFA aimed to follow the principle of parsimony in scale development: the number of items
on the IWL scale should be further reduced by statistical analyses taking into account the content considerations to
guarantee the quality criterion of economical testing (Döring & Bortz, 2016, p. 449). Our goal was to remove the
item that has the lowest factor load on its associated factor from the 27-item scale, unless there were substantial
reasons against it in terms of item content. Then, we would conduct another CFA with the remaining 26 items and
remove the item with the lowest factor load again. We would repeat this step until there is no improvement of the
model fit. We would not remove items that should remain on the scale for content reasons.
For evaluating the model fit, we calculated the model chi-square value and the following local model fit criteria
recommended by Kline (2016): Comparative Fit Index (CFI), standardized root mean square (SRMR), and root mean
square error of approximation (RMSEA). According to MacKenzie et al. (2011, p. 313), “a cutoff value close to .95 for
CFI, .08 for SRMR, and .06 for RMSEA is indicative of a good fitting model, and can be interpreted as evidence in
favor of the validity of the hypothesized model.” We also determined the values for the normed-fit index (NFI) and
the incremental fit index (IFI), which, like the CFI, should be above .90, better close to .95 (Hu & Bentler, 1999). In
general, the higher the values of CFI, NFI, and IFI and the lower the values of SRMR and RMSEA, the better the
model fits.

Reliability and validity of the IWL scale

The next step was to examine the reliability and validity of the IWL scale. Regarding the internal consistency of the
scales, we calculated Cronbach's Alpha and considered the discriminatory power (the item-total correlation
corrected; i.e., the correlation of each item with the total scale raw value without the respective item) of the items.
Following methodological recommendations (Farrell, 2010; Fornell & Larcker, 1981) to examine the convergent
and discriminant validity of the IWL scales (Messick, 1995), we calculated the average variance extracted (AVE) for
each IWL component on the base of the factor loadings (latent correlations), and the shared variance (SV; i.e., the
squared correlation) across the eight factors. An AVE value > .50 provides evidence of convergent validity (Hair
et al., 2010). AVE values that are greater than SV values between two constructs provide evidence of discriminant
validity (Farrell, 2010).

Reliability of the criterion variable conscientiousness

Moreover, we checked for criterion validity in terms of the nomological network by testing the abovementioned
hypotheses regarding the correlations of the IWL subscales to conscientiousness and the learning outcomes (see
aforementioned under Conceptual Framework). To measure conscientiousness, we used a German version of the
NEO-FFI-30 (Körner et al., 2008; six items, e.g., “If I make a commitment, I'm sure I can be relied upon.”), which we
slightly adapted in terms of language for the target group of blue-collar workers by replacing difficult to understand
words with more simple synonyms. The scale of conscientiousness shows a satisfactory internal consis-
tency (α = .82).
16 DECIUS ET AL.

Scale development, reliability, and validity of the learning outcomes criterion variables
As far as we know, there is no scale for measuring the learning outcomes of blue-collar workers, so we had to
develop a scale of our own. The learning outcomes cover the following four areas: competency development, which is
defined as an increase in knowledge, skills, and perceived confidence in dealing with work requirements, as a conse-
quence of one's own learning (e.g., “After learning something new for myself, I understand my work tasks even better
than before.“); work flexibility, which is defined as an increase in flexibility when changing workplaces within the
company and, for example, holiday-related replacements of colleagues, as a consequence of one's own learning
(e.g., “After learning something new for myself, I can easier rotate the workplace within the company if it is neces-
sary.”); increase in efficiency, which is defined as increasing the amount of work done, improving quality and saving
materials, as a consequence of one's own learning (e.g., “After learning something new for myself, I can handle a higher
number of units than before.”); decrease in strain, which is defined as reducing physical and psychological stress, as a
consequence of one's own learning (e.g., “After learning something new for myself, I feel less stress during my work
than before.”).
We developed three items for each area (cf. Appendix A, Table A2) and tested the understanding of these items
within the target group using thinking aloud technique again. We tested two versions to make the target group of
blue-collar workers aware of their own learning: on the one hand, an instruction was visibly placed on each page of
the questionnaire that all items refer to “learning something new for yourself”. On the other hand, this instruction
was placed directly in front of the items, for example, “After learning something new for myself, I understand (…)”. The
results of thinking aloud technique revealed that the instruction is often overlooked in version 1, so we decided to
take version 2. We modeled the four learning outcomes with three items each in a CFA model with a general factor.
We conducted two independent CFAs: Outcomes-CFA 1 with the second data half (N = 273), Outcomes-CFA 2 with
the total data set (N = 546). The Outcomes-CFA 1 reported good fit indices: χ 2(50) = 148.0, p < .001; CFI = .94;
IFI = .94; NFI = .91; SRMR = .07; and RMSEA = .085, 90% CI = [0.069, 0.101], as well as the Outcomes-CFA 2 did:
χ 2(50) = 175.9, p < .001; CFI = .96; IFI = .96; NFI = .94; SRMR = .057; and RMSEA = .068, 90% CI = [0.057, 0.079].
The CFA factor loads of the items on the four components ranged between .62 and .87 in Outcomes-CFA 1 and
between .65 and .84 in Outcomes-CFA 2.
For the validity calculations, we used the total data set. The values of the AVE range between .59 and .67 and
are, therefore, >.50, so we assume convergent validity. To examine if the components represent independent factors,
we computed the SV (i.e., the squared correlation) across the four components. The SV values range between .18
and .45, meaning that all AVE values are above the level of the SV values, which indicates discriminant validity. The
values of the internal consistency of the four components are also in a satisfactory range between α = .80 and
α = .86 (see Table 4).

TABLE 2 Results of confirmatory factor analysis (CFAs) for item refinement

Amount of Eliminated item

items (and its factor load) χ2 df CFI IFI NFI RMSEA SRMR
27 86.352 312 .914 .915 .872 .057 .072
26 EIL04 (.59) 79.492 287 .918 .919 .879 .057 .071
25 IIL07 (.62) 645.557 263 .934 .935 .895 .052 .068
24 IIL03 (.63) 559.067 240 .942 .943 .904 .049 .063
23 AR02 (.65) 53.211 218 .941 .942 .905 .051 .063

Note: The final IWL scale contains 24 items because of the model fit reduction if eliminating AR02.
Abbreviations: AR, anticipatory reflection; CFI, comparative fit index; EIL, extrinsic intention to learn; IFI, incremental fit
index; IIL, intrinsic intention to learn; NFI, normed-fit index; RMSEA, root mean square error of approximation; SRMR,
standardized root mean square.
DECIUS ET AL. 17

6.1.3 | Results
The results of the stepwise CFAs to examine the possibility of further item reduction for parsimony reasons (Table 2)
suggest the elimination of three items. The model fit, especially the values of CFI, IFI, and SRMR, improves each time
the item with the lowest factor load on the corresponding one of the eight factors is removed. The three items to be
eliminated belong to Extrinsic intent to learn (EIL04) and Intrinsic intent to learn (IIL07 and IIL03). EIL04 and IIL07 have
content similarities to the remaining IIL04 and EIL03 items on the IWL scale (cp. Appendix A, Table A1 for item for-
mulations). IIL03 is similar in content to the remaining items IIL01 and IIL02, whereby the last two deal more specifi-
cally with a possible reason for the learning intention (i.e., difficulties, problems) and thus offer higher content
validity. Therefore, there were no substantive reasons against the elimination. The best model fit values are achieved
for the IWL version with 24 items. If another item is removed, the fit values slightly deteriorate again, so that we did
not consider any further reduction and used the 24-item version for additional analyses.
Table 3 shows the descriptive statistics of the 24 items. The first column contains the factor to which the items
belong. In the second column, the German items are presented, which were used in the study, right aside the English
translation, which was translated and backtranslated but are not yet validated. The means of the items vary between
1.71 and 3.52 at the four-point Likert scale. Hence, participants agreed highly with some items, and even disagreed
highly with some other items. However, looking at the values of skewness and kurtosis, it appears that the item dis-
tributions do not differ substantially from the normal distribution, because all absolute values are <2 (for recommen-
dation see Kline, 2016, p. 76): the absolute values of skewness vary between 0.06 and 1.29; kurtosis absolute values
vary between 0.06 and 1.80.
Concerning two of the eight factors, we could find significant gender differences: male workers scored higher
values for trying & applying own ideas, t(508) = 3.35, p < .001, and d = .35, female workers scored higher in direct feed-
back, t(506) = −2.00, p < .05, and d = −.21.
The internal consistencies of the scales (Table 4) are between α = .76 and α = .88, which is considered to be good
(Hair et al., 2010). All values of the discriminatory power (second to last column) are between .56 and .81, which can
also be interpreted as satisfying (Lienert & Raatz, 1998). The EFA values in the table refer to the development of a
short version of the IWL scale (see Section 6.2.4).
The CFA (of the 24 items, as aforementioned) presents acceptable fit indices for the second-order model:
χ 2(240) = 559.1, p < .001; CFI = .94; NFI = .91; IFI = .94; SRMR = .063; and RMSEA = .049, 90% CI = [0.044, 0.055].
The CFA factor loadings of the items on the eight components can be found in the last column (range between .65
and .92).
The values of the AVE range between .52 and .71. Because AVE values >.50 indicate convergent validity, we can
conclude that the latent variables are able to explain the items reasonably.
The eight factors of informal learning behavior show little up to medium-sized correlations between r = .13 and
r = .55. To examine if the constructs represent independent factors despite the second order, we computed the SV
(i.e., the squared correlation) across the eight factors. The SV values range between .02 and .43. This means that all
AVE values are above the level of the SV values, which indicates discriminant validity. Therefore, we can state that
the IWL factors are distinct constructs with sufficient convergent and discriminant validity.

Nomological network
To test the nomological network, hypotheses on the connections between conscientiousness as a potential anteced-
ent with IWL components as well as between IWL components and learning outcomes as potential impact variables
were presented here (Table 1). Table 4 shows the manifest correlations, based on mean scores, between the eight
IWL components, the four learning outcome variables and conscientiousness, which are used as results for the
hypotheses testing. The correlations of IWL components with conscientiousness range from r = .05 to .38. Conscien-
tiousness is significantly positively related to the experience/action components Trying and applying own ideas
(r = .17) and Model Learning (r = .12), but the effect is small. However, hypothesis 1 can still be confirmed.
TABLE 3

18
Item descriptives of the informal workplace learning (IWL) scale (Study 1)

Discriminatory EFA CFA

Component Items Items in English N M SD Skewa Kurtosisb power load load
Experience/ Trying and 1 Ich probiere bei I try a different 524 2.62 0.94 −0.12 −0.87 .61 .30 .69
action applying neuen Aufgaben method to solve
own ideas einfach eine new tasks at
andere Methode work.
bei der Arbeit
aus.
2 Ich probiere bei I try out my own 523 2.82 0.94 −0.39 −0.72 .77 .32 .92
neuen Aufgaben ideas for new
meine eigenen tasks.
Ideen aus.
3* Ich setze meine I use my own 519 3.08 0.85 −0.77 0.07 .64 .38 .74
eigenen Ideen ideas to
zum Verbessern improve tasks
der Aufgaben at work.
bei der Arbeit
ein.
Model 4* Ich schaue, wie I look at how 518 2.84 0.93 −0.44 −0.62 .58 .59 .73
learning andere im others work in
Betrieb arbeiten, the company to
um meine Arbeit improve my
zu verbessern. work.
5 Ich schaue mir an, I look at how my 526 2.92 0.96 −0.56 −0.63 .64 .54 .75
wie meine colleagues work
Kollegen so I do not
arbeiten, damit make the same
ich nicht die mistakes as
gleichen Fehler they do.
mache wie sie.
6 Ich probiere I try things out at 526 2.85 0.89 −0.44 −0.52 .59 .54 .71

DECIUS ET AL.
Sachen bei my work, which
meiner Arbeit I have copied
aus, die ich mir from my
bei meinen Kollegen colleagues.
abgeguckt habe.
TABLE 3

DECIUS ET AL.
(Continued)

Discriminatory EFA CFA

Component Items Items in English N M SD Skewa Kurtosisb power load load
Feedback Direct 7 Ich frage meinen I ask my foreman or head 530 1.71 0.83 1.01 0.32 .66 .32 .75
feedback Vorarbeiter oder Chef, how well I have
wie gut ich gearbeitet worked.
habe.
8 Ich frage bei meinem I ask my foreman or head 523 1.91 0.94 0.66 −0.61 .73 .43 .86
Vorarbeiter oder Chef when I am not sure
nach, wenn ich nicht how well I worked.
sicher bin, wie gut ich
gearbeitet habe.
9* Ich frage bei meinen I ask my colleagues when 524 1.96 0.93 0.50 −0.87 .64 .45 .74
Kollegen nach, wenn I am not sure how well
ich nicht sicher bin, wie I worked.
gut ich gearbeitet habe.
Vicarious 10 Ich frage meine Kollegen I ask my colleagues 530 2.92 0.83 −0.70 0.22 .70 .55 .77
feedback nach ihren Erfahrungen about their experience
bei der Arbeit. at work.
11* Ich frage meine Kollegen, I ask my colleagues 525 3.00 0.88 −0.66 −0.18 .81 .61 .91
welche Methoden und about the methods
Tricks sie bei der Arbeit and tricks they use at
nutzen. work.
12 Ich hole mir von meinen I obtain tips and hints 528 3.04 0.84 −0.70 0.06 .72 .58 .80
Kollegen Tipps und about work from my
Hinweise zur Arbeit. colleagues.
Reflection Anticipatory 13* Vor einer neuen Aufgabe Before starting a new 530 3.46 0.68 −1.17 1.17 .58 .46 .73
reflection denke ich darüber nach, task, I think about how
wie ich meine Arbeit I can do my work best.
am besten mache.
14 Vor der Arbeit denke ich Before work, I think 524 3.28 0.81 −0.96 0.33 .56 .35 .65
darüber nach, wie ich about how I prepare
my workplace.
(Continues)

19
TABLE 3

20
(Continued)

Discriminatory EFA CFA

Component Items Items in English N M SD Skewa Kurtosisb power load load
meinen Arbeitsplatz
vorbereite.
15 Vor einer neuen Aufgabe Before starting a new 530 3.52 0.64 −1.29 1.80 .63 .43 .79
denke ich nach, auf task, I think about the
welche Sachen ich bei things I need to pay
der Aufgabe achten attention to.
muss.
Subsequent 16 Wenn ich mit einer neuen When I have finished a 526 2.83 0.93 −0.40 −0.71 .66 .53 .74
reflection Aufgabe fertig bin, new task, I think about
denke ich darüber nach, how well I have
wie gut ich gearbeitet worked.
habe.
17* Wenn ich mit einer neuen When I have finished a 526 3.17 0.81 −0.78 0.13 .70 .59 .83
Aufgabe fertig bin, new task, I think about
denke ich darüber nach, what I still could do
was ich beim nächsten better next time.
Mal noch besser
machen könnte.
18 Wenn ich mit einer neuen When I have finished a 525 3.16 0.83 −0.71 −0.17 .68 .54 .78
Aufgabe fertig bin, new task, I think about
denke ich über die the quality of my
Qualität meiner Arbeit work.
nach.
Intent to Extrinsic 19* Ich möchte für mich I want to learn 524 2.63 0.99 −0.08 −1.04 .57 .46 .70
learn intent to selbst bei der Arbeit something new at
learn etwas dazulernen, weil work for myself
ich dann im Betrieb because then I can
Karriere machen kann. pursue my career at
the company.

DECIUS ET AL.
20 Ich möchte für mich I want to learn 523 2.59 0.95 −0.06 −0.93 .58 .41 .70
selbst etwas something new for
dazulernen, weil ich myself because then
TABLE 3 (Continued)

DECIUS ET AL.
Discriminatory EFA CFA
Component Items Items in English N M SD Skewa Kurtosisb power load load
dann bei der Arbeit I am better at work
besser bin als meine than my colleagues.
Kollegen.
21 Ich möchte für mich I want to learn 522 2.29 0.98 0.26 −0.94 .62 .44 .76
selbst bei der Arbeit something new at
etwas dazulernen, weil work for myself
mein Vorarbeiter oder because then my
Chef dann beeindruckt foreman or head is
von mir ist. impressed by me.
Intrinsic 22 Ich möchte für mich I want to learn 530 3.43 0.63 −0.86 0.79 .76 .60 .83
intent to selbst etwas something new for
learn dazulernen, weil ich myself because then I
dann mit feel more capable to
Schwierigkeiten bei der deal with difficulties at
Arbeit besser umgehen work.
kann.
23* Ich möchte für mich I want to learn 526 3.50 0.60 −0.93 0.68 .79 .61 .87
selbst etwas something new for
dazulernen, weil ich myself because then I
dann Probleme bei der can solve problems at
Arbeit schneller lösen work faster.
kann.
24 Ich möchte für mich I want to learn 531 3.45 0.63 −1.03 1.40 .77 .60 .84
selbst etwas something new for
dazulernen, weil ich myself because then I
dann auch bei can do a good job
schwierigen Aufgaben even though the tasks
oder Anweisungen gut or instructions are
arbeiten kann. difficult.

Note: Discriminatory Power and CFA Factor Load values refer to the three items of each component. EFA Load values refer to all 24 items on one single factor (see Section 6.2.4). This
measure is nonproprietary (free) and may be used without permission. English items were translated from original German items using a translation/backtranslation procedure; empirical
evidence regarding the English version is still pending. The items selected for the short version of the IWL scale (not yet validated) are marked with asterisks (*).
Abbreviations: CFA, confirmatory factor analysis; EFA, exploratory factor analysis.
a

21
SDSkewness: 0.120.
b
SDKurtosis: 0.240.
 22
TABLE 4 Descriptive statistics and correlations among Study 1 variables

Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
1. Trying and applying 2.84 0.78 .82
own ideas
2. Model learning 2.88 0.77 .27** .77
3. Direct feedback 1.86 0.78 .20** .35** .82
4. Vicarious feedback 2.99 0.75 .24** .55** .40** .86
5. Anticipatory reflection 3.42 0.59 .22** .17** .13** .19** .76
6. Subsequent reflection 3.06 0.74 .21** .35** .28** .25** .44** .82
7. Extrinsic intent to learn 2.51 0.81 .23** .37** .31** .21** .14** .32** .76
8. Intrinsic intent to learn 3.46 0.56 .22** .31** .15** .31** .40** .40** .28** .88
9. Competency 3.31 0.61 .11** .31** .21** .29** .37** .44** .29** .48** .81
development
10. Work flexibility 3.00 0.79 .16** .26** .26** .25** .32** .33** .30** .30** .57** .84
11. Increase in efficiency 2.91 0.77 .15** .33** .26** .25** .27** .28** .31** .26** .51** .51** .80
12. Decrease in strain 2.41 0.87 .09* .28** .28** .16** .16** .26** .25** .16** .35** .36** .53** .86
13. Conscientiousness 3.54 .44 .17** .12** .05 .10* .38** .25** .14** .32** .28** .24** .15** .12** .82

Note: Study 1 n varies between 523 and 537. Internal consistency reliabilities (Study 1) of the estimates (Cronbach's Alpha) are reported on the diagonal.
*p < .05.; **p < .01.

DECIUS ET AL.
DECIUS ET AL. 23

In hypothesis 2, we suggested a negative correlation between conscientiousness and feedback. In contrast to this
assumption, conscientiousness shows no significant correlation with Direct feedback (r = .05). With Vicarious
feedback, we even find a significantly positive correlation (r = .10), albeit to a very small extent. Hence, hypothesis 2
cannot be confirmed.
Significantly positive correlations of medium effect size also result concerning the relationships with Anticipatory
reflection (r = .38) and Subsequent reflection (r = .25), so that hypothesis 3 can be confirmed. The significantly positive
correlation between conscientiousness and Intrinsic intent to learn (r = .32) is likewise in the middle range, while it is
only of low size with Extrinsic intent to learn (r = .14). Nevertheless, hypothesis 4 can also be confirmed. The correla-
tions of the IWL components with the four learning outcomes range between r = .09 and .48. The four outcomes
correlate with Trying and applying owns ideas (r between .09 and .16, highest correlation with Work flexibility) only
slightly, but yet significantly positively. Model learning also shows significantly positive correlations of medium size
with outcomes (r between .26 and .33, highest correlation with Increase in efficiency), so hypothesis 5 can be con-
firmed. With Direct feedback (r between .21 and .28, highest correlation with Decrease in strain) and Vicarious feed-
back (r between .16 and .29, highest correlation with Competency development), low up to moderate significantly
positive relationships to the outcome variables are shown. Thus, hypothesis 6 can also be confirmed here. In Antici-
patory reflection (r between .16 and .37) and Subsequent reflection (r between .26 and .44, highest correlation in both
cases with Competency development), predominantly significantly positive correlations of medium size can be
observed, so that hypothesis 7 can be confirmed. Both with Extrinsic intent to learn (r between .25 and .31, highest
correlation with Increase in efficiency) and with Intrinsic intent to learn (r between .16 and .48, highest correlation with
Competency development), moderate to medium sized correlations with the four outcome variables are significantly
positive. Hypothesis 8 can thus also be confirmed. In summary, the examination of the assumed nomological net-
work was able to confirm seven of the eight hypotheses, one hypothesis only partially. This indicates a good criterion
validity of the IWL scale overall.

6.2 | Study 2
6.2.1 | Sample
The sample for the second study contains 349 workers (29.0% female) from 10 production enterprises (size from
45 to 450 employees) in Germany whose employees were comparable to those of the first study. The response rate
was 42%. Participants indicated their age in categories: 16–25 years (21.1%), 26–35 (19.6%), 36–45 (18.6%), 46–55
(29.7%), and 56–65 (11.0%). A total of 17.8% did not finish any systematic vocational education, 66.0% finished a
vocational education, and 9.8% got a graduate academic degree.

6.2.2 | Methods
In the second sample, the 24-item scale was used to measure IWL. As in Study 1, missing values (2.8% in total) were
imputed using the FIML method. To check whether the second-order structure (4 factors with 2 subfactors each,
3 items per subfactor) that we theoretically assumed fits best, we used CFA to examine the other models described
here (see Section 3.2) for comparison: the eight factor model (3 items per factor), the four-factor structure according
to Tannenbaum and colleagues (6 items per factor), and a one-factor model (24 items together). In each of these four
models, the highest level consists of the global factor IWL (in the one-factor model, this global factor is the same as
the one factor). In addition to the model fit criteria, which are considered in Study 1 (CFI, IFI, NFI, SRMR, and
RMSEA), we also used the Akaike information criterion (AIC) and the Browne-Cudeck criterion (BCC) as criteria,
which are well suited for model comparison. In both cases, a lower value indicates a better model (Schreiber, Nora,
Stage, Barlow, & King, 2006). Furthermore, we conducted chi-square difference tests to examine whether the four
model versions differ significantly from each other (Cheung & Rensvold, 2002; Loehlin, 2004).
24 DECIUS ET AL.

As in study 1, we investigated the internal consistency of the scales and calculated the values for AVE and SV to
check the convergent and discriminant validity.

6.2.3 | Results
Table 5 shows the model fit indices of the four model versions—the CFA loads and the values of discriminatory
power for Study 2 can be found in Appendix A (Table A3). The second-order model shows the best model fit in all
criteria—here, the values of CFI, IFI, and NFI are the highest of all models, and the values of SRMR, RMSEA, AIC, and
BCC are the lowest. The eight-factor model also has a reasonable, albeit slightly worse fit. The four-factor model and
the one-factor model have a very poor fit.
The results of the chi-square difference tests (Table 6) show that all four models differ significantly from each
other. Hence, the model that maps the eight factors within the second-order structure is significantly superior to the
eight-factor model.
As in Study 1, Study 2 shows strong values for internal consistency: Trying & applying own ideas, α = .88; Model
learning, α = .80; Direct feedback, α = .83; Vicarious feedback, α = .91; Anticipatory reflection, α = .76; Subsequent reflec-
tion, α = .82; Extrinsic intent to learn, α = .77; and Intrinsic intent to learn, α = .92. The AVE values for the factors of
the second-order model range between 0.53 and 0.81. This again speaks for convergent validity. The SV values
range between .04 and .53. The highest SV value of .53 is based on the correlation between Anticipatory reflection
(AVE = .56) and Subsequent reflection (AVE = .62). Thus, all AVE values are above the SV values, so that we assume
discriminant validity.

6.2.4 | Short version of the scale

Even if the construct of informal learning is very heterogeneous and it makes the most sense in theory to measure
all eight components individually, there may be applications in which a short version of the scale has to be used, for

TABLE 5 Model fit indices (Study 2)

p
Model Chi² df level CFI IFI NFI SRMR RMSEA AIC BCC
1 factor 2,725.4 252 .000 .48 .49 .47 .13 .168 2,869.4 2,880.6
4 factors 1,342.9 248 .000 .77 .78 .74 .11 .113 1,494.9 1,506.7
8 factors 620.3 244 .000 .92 .92 .88 .08 .067 780.3 792.7
4 × 2 factors (2nd 545.3 240 .000 .94 .94 .89 .06 .060 713.3 726.3
order)

AIC, Akaike information criterion; BCC, Browne-Cudeck criterion; CFI, comparative fit index; IFI, incremental fit index; NFI,
normed-fit index; RMSEA, root mean square error of approximation; SRMR, standardized root mean square.

TABLE 6 Results from model comparison (Study 2)

Model 1 factor 4 factors 4 × 2 factors (2nd order)

4 factors ΔChi² = 1,382.5, Δdf = 4,
p < .001
4 × 2 factors (2nd ΔChi² = 2,180.1, Δdf = 12, ΔChi² = 797.6, Δdf = 8,
order) p < .001 p < .001
8 factors ΔChi² = 2,105.1, Δdf = 8, ΔChi² = 722.6, Δdf = 4, ΔChi² = 75.0, Δdf = 4,
p < .001 p < .001 p < .001
DECIUS ET AL. 25

example for test economic reasons. For this purpose, we conducted another EFA with maximum likelihood as factor
extraction method to determine the factor loads in the data set of Study 1 for all 24 items, with the specification of
assuming only one single factor (EFA loadings are presented in Table 3). The Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) index of
sampling adequacy resulted in a meritorious value of .85 (Hutcheson & Sofroniou, 1999). From each of the eight com-
ponents, we selected the item with the highest load for the short version (marked with asterisks in Table 3), to
achieve a broad coverage of informal learning in terms of content. Therefore, the short version of the IWL scale con-
sists of eight items and covers every IWL factor using one item (the item that best represents the respective compo-
nent from a statistical point of view). We then used the data set from Study 2 to assess reliability: despite the
heterogeneity of the scale's content, an acceptable value of internal consistency (α = .79) is obtained. The discrimina-
tory power values range between .34 and .61. A further validation of the short scale in an independent sample would
be desirable in the future and is still pending.

7 | DISCUSSION

Based on the results of the two studies, this article reports the development and validation of a new, 24 item mea-
sure for the operationalization of IWL, for the target group of blue-collar workers. The IWL scale is grounded on the
Dynamic Model of Informal Learning by Tannenbaum et al. (2010) with four factors. Building on theoretical consider-
ations and integrating the existing literature on workplace learning, this model was extended to the octagon model of
informal workplace learning, following a second-order structure. Each component is covered by three items on the
IWL scale. Within the context of a nomological network, the interrelationships with conscientiousness and learning
outcomes were also examined.
Study 1 described the process of reducing the item pool, Study 2 was used to compare different theoretical
models via CFA based on model quality criteria. The best model fits were achieved with the initially assumed
second-order model, which performed better than the alternative eight-factor model. Nevertheless, we were able to
show that the eight components should be measured independently of each other. Despite the heterogeneity of the
IWL scale, this article also presents a short version of the scale in which each of the eight components is represented
by one item. This short scale has a high internal consistency of α = .79.

7.1 | Limitations
First, we will consider the theoretical foundation of the conceptual framework. We then discuss the IWL scale's reli-
ability and validity, especially the results of the hypotheses tests in the nomological network. Furthermore, we
address methodological issues of measuring IWL and IWL outcomes, as well as the translation of items from German
to English.
The deductive derivation process of the eight IWL components was based on the Dynamic Model of Informal
Learning by Tannenbaum et al. (2010). We consider the Tannenbaum model to be very suitable for the
operationalization of informal learning, as it represents IWL in a holistic way: all four components are important parts
of the informal learning process. However, we should note that some studies that define informal learning in a differ-
ent way or focus on formal learning consider the factors feedback (Mulder, 2013) and intention (Kyndt, Onghena,
Smet, & Dochy, 2014) as predictors and determinants of learning. Furthermore, reflection was found as positive cor-
relate of innovative work behavior (Messmann & Mulder, 2015), which might be similar to workplace learning behav-
ior and was used as part of a scale to measure learning outcomes in a care worker sample (Kyndt, Govaerts, et al.,
2014). Otherwise, Kyndt and Beausaert (2017) see feedback opportunities and reflection opportunities as parts of
IWL conditions. These organizational conditions may influence the feedback and reflection components of IWL.
Thus, more research on the organizational and personal supporting conditions of IWL is necessary, especially for the
target group of blue-collar workers.
26 DECIUS ET AL.

Regarding the reliability of the IWL scale, in both studies the IWL sub-scales showed solid internal consistencies
between α = .76 and .92, including the short scale. However, the selection of the items for this scale is based on the
same sample as the long version; the validation of this scale with an independent sample is still pending and is a goal
for future studies. We also found evidence for convergent and discriminant validity of the IWL scale. The relation-
ships of IWL with conscientiousness as potential antecedent found in Study 1 and various learning outcomes as
potential impact variables largely correspond to the formulated hypotheses and indicate criterion validity. However,
we could not find any confirmation for the assumed negative correlation between conscientiousness and feedback
(hypothesis 2) but found an inconsistent result: a weak positive correlation with Vicarious feedback and no significant
correlation with Direct feedback. We must, therefore, doubt the argument we have adopted from the study by
Wanberg and Kammeyer-Mueller (2000), according to which conscientious persons seek less feedback because they
are not required to do so. Indeed, the weak and inconsistent correlations indicate that feedback may play a minor
role in conscientious people. Although, further research is needed to make a reliable statement.
According to Messick (1995), however, the validation process does not end with the examination of content,
construct, and criterion validity of a measure but includes, for example also the examination of the consequential
validity, that is, considering how the scale is used and which consequences are derived from the test results. To
ensure that this aspect of an adequate interpretation of the test results based on the IWL scale is met, further steps
in the validation process will be necessary.
We must also note that the self-report survey approach to measure IWL and IWL outcomes may have led to
common method and common source biases. One example is that IWL, according to the model of Tannenbaum et al.
(2010), contains behavioral (experience/action, feedback seeking), attitudinal (intention), and cognitive (reflection)
components, which thus represent the experiential concept of informal learning integrally. However, the survey par-
ticipants must have the cognitive ability to reflect their learning outcomes—independently of the reflection experi-
ences in IWL—because of the self-report measure. This can lead to a high correlation between the reflection
components of IWL and the learning outcomes, only for methodological reasons. It is possible that this effect artifi-
cially increases the correlations we found between Competency development and Anticipatory reflection (r = .37) on
the one hand and Subsequent reflection (r = .44) on the other.
In future studies, further methods and sources should be used to validate the scale, such as external assessments
by superiors (e.g., by line managers) or observations, whereby not all components of IWL (such as intention and
reflection) can be observed directly. For measuring the learning outcomes, researchers could also use company key
indicators such as the number of units produced for further validation of the IWL scale. Nonetheless, this approach
does not exclude the possibility of confounding the work results with other variables outside the learning process, so
that there was no objective result here either. Experimental approaches and longitudinal studies with sophisticated
control of confounding variables (e.g., job complexity or task density) should be conducted.
Furthermore, we measured learning outcomes with items that linked the outcomes syntactically to the learning
process. The reason for this was to make the questionnaire more understandable for the target group of blue-collar
workers. The approach to designing the items in this way was based on the results of our thinking aloud interviews.
This, however, limits the validity of the learning outcomes as an evaluation criterion. Nevertheless, the participants
in our study answered the items of the four variables with a satisfactory variance, as the values of the standard devi-
ation show (cf. Table 4), so that there is at least no variance constraint. Further research should investigate other
potential subjective learning outcomes (e.g., job satisfaction) to address this issue.
Another moderate limitation due to the choice of the target group is that the samples were collected exclusively
in small and medium-sized enterprises from producing sectors. The learning behavior there might differ from that of
larger enterprises because of the organizational structure. Therefore, we cannot ensure that the IWL scale will also
work for blue-collar workers in major companies, but we endorse using it in this context to get reliable research
results in future.
Regarding the use of the scales in different cultural contexts, we note that we initially developed the items in
German, as the two samples were collected in Germany. We then translated the items using the
DECIUS ET AL. 27

translation/backtranslation procedure; however, validation of the IWL scale on a sample in an English-speaking con-
text is still pending. Thus, we cannot rule out the possibility that the application of the IWL scale in an English sample
may lead to a measure bias—there may be cultural differences between German and non-German samples, especially
in terms of workplace behavior. Feedback seeking behavior, for example, which is part of IWL, is subject to cultural
influences (Sully de Luque & Sommer, 2000). To avoid invalidity, users of the IWL scale could apply the thinking
aloud technique (Flaherty, 1975) when validating the English scale for the first time or translating it into another lan-
guage. In this way, they could check whether the study participants understand the items in the sense of the IWL
concept.

7.2 | Further directions for research and practice

The two studies in this article have enabled us to achieve the goals mentioned here: we succeeded in
operationalizing IWL of blue-collar workers based on a theoretical framework. In addition, we were able to extend
the conceptual model of Tannenbaum et al. (2010) to eight factors. We also have created a measuring instrument
that can be used in future studies to measure the IWL, as requested by Cerasoli et al. (2018). For example,
researchers may investigate potential determinants and learning outcomes of IWL, such as learning climate, self-
directed learning orientation, workplace goal orientation, and leadership behavior, which are discussed within the
workplace learning literature (Gijbels, Raemdonck, & Vervecken, 2010; Kyndt & Baert, 2013; Kyndt, Donche,
Gijbels, & Van Petegem, 2014; Tannenbaum et al., 2010; Theis & Bipp, 2019). In addition to the individual examina-
tion of a person's IWL, it is also conceivable to investigate the informal learning of working groups and teams and to
examine whether the eight IWL components also play an important role in the collaborative learning of a team. Fur-
thermore, other demographic variables such as level of employment, which have shown to be important in relation
to IWL (Harteis, Billett, Goller, Rausch, & Seifried, 2015), could be investigated using the IWL scale.
In our study, we focused exclusively on informal learning in the workplace. Many measures already exist for the
evaluation of formal learning because it is easier to measure due to its high degree of structure (e.g., training evalua-
tion). We would like to mention, however, that researchers have made efforts to integrate formal and informal forms
of learning (Ellström, 2001; Svensson, Ellström, & Åberg, 2004), e.g., considering the role of social media
(Greenhow & Lewin, 2016). If future research agrees to combine these approaches, it may be necessary to develop a
measure for the operationalization of this integrated workplace learning.
As we have seen, IWL is very important for blue-collar workers to acquire new skills and competencies. However,
the trend toward more IWL is now also affecting other occupational groups, such as white-collar workers. For these
workers, both research and practice need an IWL measure to quantify IWL and identify facilitating factors, too. This
instrument should be applicable in as many white-collar areas as possible and not just focus on individual subgroups.
The measure for blue-collar workers presented in this study can serve as a starting point for the development of this
instrument: although the IWL item pool was developed for blue-collar workers in terms of content, the items that
were selected in the development process and item selection are formulated in a more general way. Therefore, we
assume that the scale can be used not only for the target group of workers in the production sector, but also in other
target groups. Research has to examine the scale's transferability to other target groups and contexts in the future.
In this case, scale users may consider a six-point Likert scale to extend the variance if the target group is able to dis-
criminate between more than four categories meaningfully (DeVellis, 2003). An additional goal in the future should
be the development of a general and cross-target group measure for all employees.
In the workplace, human resources managers can use the free IWL measure (cp. Appendix B, Table B1) for per-
sonnel development. The distinction into eight factors enables detailed feedback on the areas in which the employee
learns informally during work by comparing him or her with other employees. Once the organization has established
the importance of IWL in the company, interventions can also be derived to promote IWL of blue-collar workers. For
example, if the IWL is not very sophisticated in these areas, more room for reflection or for testing one's own ideas
during work can be given. The IWL scale can also be used to evaluate personnel development activities to give
28 DECIUS ET AL.

feedback on informal continuing education and on the transfer of learning into everyday working life to decision-
makers and employees themselves. All in all, the IWL scale is a tool that measures informal learning of blue-collar
workers and possibly other target groups in a valid and reliable way and can thus be applied in research as well as in
practice.

ORCID

Julian Decius https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2361-6054

RE FE R ENC E S

Aguinis, H., & Kraiger, K. (2009). Benefits of training and development for individuals and teams, organizations, and society.
Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 451–474. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163505
Anseel, F., Lievens, F., & Schollaert, E. (2009). Reflection as a strategy to enhance task performance after feedback. Organiza-
tional Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 110(1), 23–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2009.05.003
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The big five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel
Psychology, 44(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1991.tb00688.x
Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Judge, T. A. (2001). Personality and performance at the beginning of the new millennium:
What do we know and where do we go next? International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9(1–2), 9–30. https://
doi.org/10.1111/1468-2389.00160
Bell, B., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (2008). Active learning: Effects of core training design elements on self-regulatory processes,
learning, and adaptability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(2), 296–316. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.2.296
Berg, S. A., & Chyung, S. Y. (2008). Factors that influence informal learning in the workplace. Journal of Workplace Learning,
20(4), 229–244. https://doi.org/10.1108/13665620810871097
Bernadette van Rijn, M., Yang, H., & Sanders, K. (2013). Understanding employees' informal workplace learning: The joint
influence of career motivation and self-construal. Career Development International, 18(6), 610–628. https://doi.org/10.
1108/CDI-12-2012-0124
Biggs, J. (1988). Approaches to learning and to essay writing. In R. R. Schmeck (Ed.), Learning strategies and learning styles
(pp. 185–228). Boston, MA: Springer.
Billett, S. (1995). Workplace learning: Its potential and limitations. Education + Training, 37(5), 20–27. https://doi.org/10.
1108/00400919510089103
Boud, D., & Middleton, H. (2003). Learning from others at work: Communities of practice and informal learning. Journal of
Workplace Learning, 15(5), 194–202. https://doi.org/10.1108/13665620310483895
Burns, J. Z. (2008). Informal learning and transfer of learning: How new trade and industrial teachers perceive their profes-
sional growth and development. Career and Technical Education Research, 33(1), 3–24. https://doi.org/10.5328/CTER33.
1.3
Cerasoli, C. P., Alliger, G. M., Donsbach, J. S., Mathieu, J. E., Tannenbaum, S. I., & Orvis, K. A. (2018). Antecedents and out-
comes of informal learning behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Business and Psychology, 33(2), 203–230. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10869-017-9492-y
Cerasoli, C. P., Nicklin, J. M., & Ford, M. (2014). Intrinsic motivation and extrinsic incentives jointly predict performance: A
40-year meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 140(4), 980–1008. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035661
Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural
Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 9(2), 233–255. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5
Clauwaert, I., & Van Bree, L. (2008). Naar een Cartografie van Condities voor Werkplekleren in Arbeidsorganisaties in Vlaanderen
[Towards a cartography of conditions of informal and non-formal workplace learning in work organizations in Flanders]. Leu-
ven, Belgium: CSCAP.
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sci-
ences (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Colquitt, J. A., LePine, J. A., & Noe, R. A. (2000). Toward an integrative theory of training motivation: A meta-analytic path
analysis of 20 years of research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(5), 678–707. https://doi.org/10.1037//0021-9010.
85.5.678
Colquitt, J. A., & Simmering, M. J. (1998). Conscientiousness, goal orientation, and motivation to learn during the learning
process: A longitudinal study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(4), 654–665. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.83.
4.654
DECIUS ET AL. 29

Conner, M., & Abraham, C. (2001). Conscientiousness and the theory of planned behavior: Toward a more complete model
of the antecedents of intentions and behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(11), 1547–1561. https://doi.
org/10.1177/01461672012711014
Conway, J. M., & Huffcutt, A. I. (2003). A review and evaluation of exploratory factor analysis practices in organizational
research. Organizational Research Methods, 6(2), 147–168. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428103251541
Costello, A. B., & Osborne, J. (2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the
most from your analysis. Practical Assessment Research & Evaluation, 10(7), 1–9. Retrieved from). http://pareonline.net/
getvn.asp?v=10&n=7
Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52(4), 281–302.
https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040957
Crouse, P., Doyle, W., & Young, J. D. (2011). Workplace learning strategies, barriers, facilitators and outcomes: A qualitative
study among human resource management practitioners. Human Resource Development International, 14(1), 39–55.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13678868.2011.542897
Decius, J., & Schaper, N. (2017). The competence management tool (CMT)—A new instrument to manage competencys in
small and medium-sized manufacturing enterprises. Procedia Manufacturing, 9, 376–383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
promfg.2017.04.041
DeVellis, R. F. (2003). Scale development. Theory and applications (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Doornbos, A. J., Simons, R. J., & Denessen, E. (2008). Relations between characteristics of workplace practices and types of
informal work-related learning: A survey study among Dutch police. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 19(2),
129–151. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.1231
Döring, N., & Bortz, J. (2016). Forschungsmethoden und evaluation in den Sozial- und Humanwissenschaften [research methods
and evaluation in the social sciences and humanities]. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-
642-41089-5
Ellinger, A. D. (2005). Contextual factors influencing informal learning in a workplace setting: The case of “reinventing itself
company”. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 16(3), 389–415. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.1145
Ellström, P. E. (2001). Integrating learning and work: Problems and prospects. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 12(4),
421–435. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.1006
Enos, M. D., Kehrhahn, M. T., & Bell, A. (2003). Informal learning and the transfer of learning: How managers develop profi-
ciency. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 14(4), 369–387. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.1074
Eraut, M. (2011). Informal learning in the workplace: Evidence on the real value of work-based learning (WBL). Develop-
ment and Learning in Organizations: An International Journal, 25(5), 8–12. https://doi.org/10.1108/147772811111
59375
Farrell, A. M. (2010). Insufficient discriminant validity: A comment on Bove, Pervan, Beatty, and Shiu (2009). Journal of Busi-
ness Research, 63(3), 324–327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2009.05.003
Flaherty, E. G. (1975). The thinking aloud technique and problem solving ability. The Journal of Educational Research, 68(6),
223–225. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.1975.10884753
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement
error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39–50. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151312
Froehlich, D. E., Beausaert, S., & Segers, M. (2017). Development and validation of a scale measuring approaches to work-
related informal learning. International Journal of Training and Development, 21(2), 130–144. https://doi.org/10.1111/
ijtd.12099
Froehlich, D. E., Beausaert, S., Segers, M., & Gerken, M. (2014). Learning to stay employable. Career Development Interna-
tional, 19(5), 508–525. https://doi.org/10.1108/CDI-11-2013-0139
Froehlich, D. E., Segers, M., & Van den Bossche, P. (2014). Informal workplace learning in Austrian banks: The influence of
learning approach, leadership style, and organizational learning culture on managers' learning outcomes. Human Resource
Development Quarterly, 25(1), 29–57. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.21173
Gerken, M., Messmann, G., Froehlich, D. E., Beausaert, S. A., Mulder, R. H., & Segers, M. (2018). Informal learning at work as
a facilitator of employees' innovative work behavior. In G. Messmann, M. Segers, & F. Dochy (Eds.), Informal learning at
work (pp. 80–99). New York, NY: Routledge.
Gijbels, D., Raemdonck, I., & Vervecken, D. (2010). Influencing work-related learning: The role of job characteristics and self-
directed learning orientation in part-time vocational education. Vocations and Learning, 3(3), 239–255. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s12186-010-9041-6
Greenhow, C., & Lewin, C. (2016). Social media and education: Reconceptualizing the boundaries of formal and informal
learning. Learning, Media and Technology, 41(1), 6–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2015.1064954
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis: A global perspective (3rd ed.). Harlow,
England: Pearson.
30 DECIUS ET AL.

Harteis, C., Billett, S., Goller, M., Rausch, A., & Seifried, J. (2015). Effects of age, gender and occupation on perceived work-
place learning support. International Journal of Training Research, 13(1), 64–81. https://doi.org/10.1080/14480220.
2015.1051349
Hetzner, S., Heid, H., & Gruber, H. (2015). Using workplace changes as learning opportunities: Antecedents to reflection in
professional work. Journal of Workplace Learning, 27(1), 34–50. https://doi.org/10.1108/JWL-12-2013-0108
Hirsch-Kreinsen, H. (2015). Innovation in low-tech industries: Current conditions and future prospects. In O. Som &
E. Kirner (Eds.), Low-tech innovation (pp. 17–32). Cham, Switzerland: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-
09973-6_2
Hirsch-Kreinsen, H., & Ten Hompel, M. (2017). Digitalisierung industrieller Arbeit: Entwicklungsperspektiven und Gestalt-
ungsansätze [Digitalization of industrial work: Development perspectives and design approaches]. In B. Vogel-Heuser,
T. Bauernhansl, & M. ten Hompel (Eds.), Handbuch Industrie 4.0 Bd. 3 (pp. 357–376). Berlin, Germany: Springer Vieweg.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-53251-5_21
Hoeksema, L., Van De Vliert, E., & Williams, R. (1997). The interplay between learning strategy and organizational structure
in predicting career success. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 8(3), 307–327. https://doi.org/10.
1080/095851997341667
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus
new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/
10705519909540118
Hurns, K.M. (2012). Business professionals' reflective practice in the workplace (Doctoral dissertation). Walsh College, Troy, MI.
Hutcheson, G. D., & Sofroniou, N. (1999). The multivariate social scientist: Introductory statistics using generalized linear
models. London, England: Sage.
Ittermann, P., Abel, J., & Dostal, W. (2011). Industrielle Einfacharbeit–Stabilität und Perspektiven [Low-skilled industrial
work–stability and perspektives]. Arbeit, 20(3), 157–172. https://doi.org/10.1515/arbeit-2011-0303
Janssens, L., Smet, K., Onghena, P., & Kyndt, E. (2017). The relationship between learning conditions in the workplace and
informal learning outcomes: A study among police inspectors. International Journal of Training and Development, 21(2),
92–112. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijtd.12095
Jeong, S., Han, S. J., Lee, J., Sunalai, S., & Yoon, S. W. (2018). Integrative literature review on informal learning: Antecedents,
conceptualizations, and future directions. Human Resource Development Review, 17(2), 128–152. https://doi.org/10.
1177/1534484318772242
Jones, P., Beynon, M. J., Pickernell, D., & Packham, G. (2013). Evaluating the impact of different training methods on SME
business performance. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 31(1), 56–81. https://doi.org/10.1068/
c12113b
Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management
Journal, 33(4), 692–724. https://doi.org/10.2307/256287
Kaiser, H. F., & Rice, J. (1974). Little jiffy, mark IV. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 34(1), 111–117. https://doi.
org/10.1177/001316447403400115
Kirkpatrick, D. L., & Kirkpatrick, J. D. (2006). Evaluating training programs—The four levels. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Kline, R. B. (2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th ed.). New York, NY: Guilford.
Knipfer, K., Kump, B., Wessel, D., & Cress, U. (2013). Reflection as a catalyst for organisational learning. Studies in Continuing
Education, 35(1), 30–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/0158037X.2012.683780
Körner, A., Geyer, M., Roth, M., Drapeau, M., Schmutzer, G., Albani, C., … Brähler, E. (2008). Persönlichkeitsdiagnostik mit
dem NEO-Fünf-Faktoren-Inventar: Die 30-item-Kurzversion [personality diagnostics with the NEO five-factor inven-
tory: The 30 item short version] (NEO-FFI-30). PPmP—Psychotherapie
Psychosomatik
Medizinische Psychologie, 58(06),
238–245. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2007-986199
Kortsch, T., Schulte, E. M., & Kauffeld, S. (2019). Learning @ work: informal learning strategies of German craft workers.
European Journal of Training and Development, 43(5/6), 418-434. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJTD-06-2018-0052
Kraiger, K., Ford, J. K., & Salas, E. (1993). Application of cognitive, skill-based, and affective theories of learning outcomes to
new methods of training evaluation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(2), 311–328. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.
78.2.311
Kyndt, E., & Baert, H. (2013). Antecedents of employees' involvement in work-related learning: A systematic review. Review
of Educational Research, 83(2), 273–313. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654313478021
Kyndt, E., & Beausaert, S. (2017). How do conditions known to foster learning in the workplace differ across occupations? In
J. E. Ellingson & R. A. Noe (Eds.), Autonomous learning in the workplace (pp. 201–218). New York, NY: Routledge. https://
doi.org/10.4324/9781315674131-11
Kyndt, E., Dochy, F., & Nijs, H. (2009). Learning conditions for non-formal and informal workplace learning. Journal of Work-
place Learning, 21(5), 369–383. https://doi.org/10.1108/13665620910966785
DECIUS ET AL. 31

Kyndt, E., Donche, V., Gijbels, D., & Van Petegem, P. (2014). Workplace learning within teacher education: The role of job char-
acteristics and goal orientation. Educational Studies, 40(5), 515–532. https://doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2014.936829
Kyndt, E., Gijbels, D., Grosemans, I., & Donche, V. (2016). Teachers' everyday professional development: Mapping informal
learning activities, antecedents, and learning outcomes. Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 1111–1150. https://doi.
org/10.3102/0034654315627864
Kyndt, E., Govaerts, N., Verbeek, E., & Dochy, F. (2014). Development and validation of a questionnaire on informal work-
place learning outcomes: A study among socio-educational care workers. The British Journal of Social Work, 44(8),
2391–2410. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bct056
Kyndt, E., Onghena, P., Smet, K., & Dochy, F. (2014). Employees' willingness to participate in work-related learning: A multi-
level analysis of employees' learning intentions. International Journal for Educational and Vocational Guidance, 14(3),
309–327. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10775-014-9272-4
Lee, S., & Klein, H. J. (2002). Relationships between conscientiousness, self-efficacy, self-deception, and learning over time.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(6), 1175–1182. https://doi.org/10.1037//0021-9010.87.6.1175
Lienert, G. A., & Raatz, U. (1998). Testaufbau und Testanalyse (6. Aufl.) [test construction and test analysis (6th ed.)]. Weinheim,
Germany: Beltz.
Livingstone, D. W. (1999). Exploring the icebergs of adult learning: Findings of the first Canadian survey of informal learning
practices. The Canadian Journal for the Study of Adult Education, 13(2), 49–72. Retrieved from. https://cjsae.library.dal.
ca/index.php/cjsae/article/view/2000
Loehlin, J. C. (2004). Latent variable models: An introduction to factor, path, and structural equation analysis. New York, NY:
Psychology Press.
Lohman, M. C. (2006). Factors influencing teachers' engagement in informal learning activities. Journal of Workplace Learning,
18(3), 141–156. https://doi.org/10.1108/13665620610654577
Mabe, P. A., & West, S. G. (1982). Validity of self-evaluation of ability: A review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychol-
ogy, 67(3), 280–296. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.67.3.280
MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2011). Construct measurement and validation procedures in MIS and
behavioral research: Integrating new and existing techniques. MIS Quarterly, 35(2), 293–334. https://doi.org/10.2307/
23044045
Malcolm, J., Hodkinson, P., & Colley, H. (2003). The interrelationships between informal and formal learning. Journal of Work-
place Learning, 15(7/8), 313–318. https://doi.org/10.1108/13665620310504783
Manuti, A., Pastore, S., Scardigno, A. F., Giancaspro, M. L., & Morciano, D. (2015). Formal and informal learning in the work-
place: A research review. International Journal of Training and Development, 19(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijtd.
12044
Marsick, V. J., & Volpe, M. (1999). The nature and need for informal learning. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 1(3),
1–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/152342239900100302
Martocchio, J. J., & Judge, T. A. (1997). Relationship between conscientiousness and learning in employee training: Mediat-
ing influences of self-deception and self-efficacy. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(5), 764–773. https://doi.org/10.
1037/0021-9010.82.5.764
Maurer, T. J., Lippstreu, M., & Judge, T. A. (2008). Structural model of employee involvement in skill development activity:
The role of individual differences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 72(3), 336–350. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2007.
10.010
Messick, S. (1995). Validity of psychological assessment: Validation of inferences from persons' responses and performances
as scientific inquiry into score meaning. American Psychologist, 50(9), 741–749. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.50.
9.741
Messmann, G., & Mulder, R. H. (2015). Reflection as a facilitator of teachers' innovative work behavior. International Journal
of Training and Development, 19(2), 125–137. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijtd.12052
Mulder, R. H. (2013). Exploring feedback incidents, their characteristics and the informal learning activities that emanate
from them. European Journal of Training and Development, 37(1), 49–71. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090591311293284
Nikolova, I., Van Ruysseveldt, J., De Witte, H., & Syroit, J. (2014a). Well-being in times of task restructuring: The buffering
potential of workplace learning. Work & Stress, 28(3), 217–235. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2014.929601
Nikolova, I., Van Ruysseveldt, J., De Witte, H., & Syroit, J. (2014b). Work-based learning: Development and validation of a
scale measuring the learning potential of the workplace (LPW). Journal of Vocational Behavior, 84(1), 1–10. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jvb.2013.09.004
Noe, R. A., Tews, M. J., & Marand, A. D. (2013). Individual differences and informal learning in the workplace. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 83(3), 327–335. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2013.06.009
Noe, R. A., Tews, M. J., & McConnell Dachner, A. (2010). Learner engagement: A new perspective for enhancing our under-
standing of learner motivation and workplace learning. The Academy of Management Annals, 4(1), 279–315. https://doi.
org/10.1080/19416520.2010.493286
32 DECIUS ET AL.

Orvis, K. A., & Leffler, G. P. (2011). Individual and contextual factors: An interactionist approach to understanding employee
self-development. Personality and Individual Differences, 51(2), 172–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.03.038
Perkins, G. (2018). How does self-direction within learning operate to affect idea generation in small-medium enterprise
contexts? Human Resource Development Quarterly, 29(4), 307–328. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.21326
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 25(1), 54–67. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1020
Salgado, J. F. (1997). The five factor model of personality and job performance in the European community. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 82(1), 30–43. https://doi.org/10.1037//0021-9010.82.1.30
Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How practitioners think in action. London, England: Temple Smith.
Schreiber, J. B., Nora, A., Stage, F. K., Barlow, E. A., & King, J. (2006). Reporting structural equation modeling and confirma-
tory factor analysis results: A review. The Journal of Educational Research, 99(6), 323–338. https://doi.org/10.3200/
JOER.99.6.323-338
Simmering, M. J., Colquitt, J. A., Noe, R. A., & Porter, C. O. (2003). Conscientiousness, autonomy fit, and development: A lon-
gitudinal study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 954–963. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.954
Skule, S. (2004). Learning conditions at work: A framework to understand and assess informal learning in the workplace.
International Journal of Training and Development, 8(1), 8–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-3736.2004.00192.x
Slotte, V., Tynjälä, P., & Hytönen, T. (2004). How do HRD practitioners describe learning at work? Human Resource Develop-
ment International, 7(4), 481–499. https://doi.org/10.1080/1367886042000245978
Sparr, J. L., Knipfer, K., & Willems, F. (2017). How leaders can get the Most out of formal training: The significance of
feedback-seeking and reflection as informal learning Behaviors. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 28(1), 29–54.
https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.21263
Spreitzer, G. M., McCall, M. W., & Mahoney, J. D. (1997). Early identification of international executive potential. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 82(1), 6–29. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.82.1.6
Sully De Luque, M. F., & Sommer, S. M. (2000). The impact of culture on feedback-seeking behavior: An integrated model
and propositions. Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 829–849. https://doi.org/10.2307/259209
Svensson, L., Ellström, P. E., & Åberg, C. (2004). Integrating formal and informal learning at work. Journal of Workplace Learn-
ing, 16(8), 479–491. https://doi.org/10.1108/13665620410566441
Tannenbaum, S. I., Beard, R. L., McNall, L. A., & Salas, E. (2010). Informal learning and development in organizations. In
S. W. J. Kozlowski & E. Salas (Eds.), Learning, training, and development in organizations. New York, NY: Routledge.
Theis, L., & Bipp, T. (2019). Workplace Goal Orientation: Construct and Criterion-Related Validity at Work. European Journal
of Psychological Assessment, 1(1), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000522
Tippelt, R., Reich, J., & Panyr, S. (2004). Teilnehmer- und milieuspezifische Aspekte der Weiterbildungsbeteiligung [partici-
pant and environment-specific aspects of continuing education participation]. Report, 27(3), 48–56.
Tynjälä, P. (2013). Toward a 3-P model of workplace learning: A literature review. Vocations and Learning, 6(1), 11–36.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12186-012-9091-z
Van der Sluis, L. E., & Poell, R. F. (2003). The impact on career development of learning opportunities and learning behavior
at work. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 14(2), 159–179. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.1058
Wanberg, C. R., & Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D. (2000). Predictors and outcomes of proactivity in the socialization process. Jour-
nal of Applied Psychology, 85(3), 373–385. https://doi.org/10.1037//0021-9010.85.3.373
Watkins, K. E., & Marsick, V. J. (1992). Towards a theory of informal and incidental learning in organizations. International
Journal of Lifelong Education, 11(4), 287–300. https://doi.org/10.1080/0260137920110403
Willis, G. B. (2005). Cognitive interviewing: A tool for improving questionnaire design. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

How to cite this article: Decius J, Schaper N, Seifert A. Informal workplace learning: Development and
validation of a measure. Human Resource Development Quarterly. 2019;1–41. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.
21368
DECIUS ET AL. 33

APPENDIX A.

TABLE A1 Results of the exploratory factor analysis (with specification for eight factors) of the 40-item scale

Items No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
I want to learn something new for IIL01 .855 .313 .405 .320 .306
myself because then I feel
more capable to deal with
difficulties at work.
I want to learn something new for IIL02 .811 .369 .360 .333 .318
myself because then I can solve
problems at work faster.
I want to learn something new for IIL04 .805 .316 .393 .347 .366 .333
myself because then I can do a
good job even though the tasks
or instructions are difficult.
I want to learn something new for IIL03 .681 .300 .369 .314 .361
myself because then I can
improve my own skills at work.
I want to learn something new for IIL07 .670 .458 .336 .434 .414 .333
myself because then I can show
my best possible performance
at work.
I want to learn something new for IIL06 .553 .426 .362
myself because I am personally
interested in what I have learned.
I look up something on the VF01
computer for my work.
I want to learn something new at EIL03 .330 .865 .332
work for myself because then
my foreman or head is
impressed by me.
I want to learn something new for EIL04 .726 .314
myself because my foreman or
head likes it when I learn
something.
I want to learn something new at EIL01 .465 .640 .308 .320
work for myself because then I
can pursue my career at the
company.
I want to learn something new for EIL02 .348 .632 .422
myself because then I am
better at work than my
colleagues.
My foreman or head talks to me DF01 .396 .369
about how I do my job.
I want to learn something new for IIL05 .302
myself because I can also use
what I have learned privately.
The machines show me how well I ML01
do my job.
(Continues)
34 DECIUS ET AL.

TABLE A1 (Continued)

Items No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
I try out my own ideas for new TA03 .843
tasks.
I use my own ideas to improve tasks at TA04 .361 .759
work.
I try a different method to solve new tasks TA02 .726 .433
at work.
I try out new things at my job I do not know TA01 .306 .590 .374 .517
yet.
I learn something new for myself when TA05 .454 .511 .429
something does not work as planned during
my work.
Before starting a new task, I think about the AR04 .302 .772 .307
things I need to pay attention to.
Before starting a new task, I think about AR01 .400 .737 .372
how I can do my work best.
Before work, I think about how I prepare my AR02 .704
workplace.
Before starting a new task, I think about AR03 .307 .536 .312
where there could be a problem with the
task.
I look at information or samples of the ML03 .428 .302 .410
company when there are new tasks or
instructions at work.
I ask my foreman or head how well I have DF02 .858
worked.
I ask my foreman or head when I am not DF03 .332 .817 .317
sure how well I worked.
I ask my colleagues when I am not sure how DF04 .764 .382 .305
well I worked.
I want to learn something new for myself EIL05 .477 .491
because others say that I have to learn
something.
I ask my colleagues about the methods and VF03 .431 .960 .472
tricks they use at work.
I obtain tips and hints about work from my VF04 .438 .339 .355 .773 .330 .528
colleagues.
I ask my colleagues about their experience VF02 .421 .755 .430
at work.
When I have finished a new task, I think SR04 .341 .360 .367 .879 .399
about the quality of my work.
When I have finished a new task, I think SR01 .304 .304 .752
about how well I have worked.
When I have finished a new task, I think SR02 .363 .402 .734 .422
about what I still could do better next
time.
I look at how my colleagues work so I do not ML05 .346 .400 .350 .352 .694
make the same mistakes as they do.
(Continues)
DECIUS ET AL. 35

TABLE A1 (Continued)

Items No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
I try things out at my work, which I have ML06 .311 .366 .314 .603 .672
copied from my colleagues.
I look at how others work in the company to ML04 .451 .381 .655
improve my work.
I learn something new at work by repeating ML02 .390 .367 .497
the tasks.
When I have finished a new task, I check the SR03 .339 .438 .360 .463
result of my work.
I learn particularly quickly from mistakes at TA06
work.

Note: Factor loadings < 0.3 are not presented in the table for the sake of clarity. Items that were removed from the scale
after EFA are italicized.
Abbreviations: AR, anticipatory reflection; dF, direct feedback; EIL, extrinsic intent to learn; IIL, intrinsic intent to learn; ML,
model learning; SR, subsequent reflection; TA, trying and applying own ideas; and VF, vicarious feedback.
 36
TABLE A2 Item descriptives of the informal learning outcomes (Study 1)

Discriminatory CFA
Component Items Items in English N M SD Skewa Kurtosisb power load
Competency 1) Nachdem ich für mich selbst etwas After I have learned something new 526 3.30 0.71 −0.79 0.43 .69 .80
development dazugelernt habe, verstehe ich meine for myself, I have a much better
Aufgaben bei der Arbeit sehr viel understanding of my tasks at
besser als vorher. work than before.
2) Nachdem ich für mich selbst etwas After I have learned something new 521 3.31 0.72 −0.80 0.26 .70 .84
dazugelernt habe, kann ich meine for myself, I am able to complete
Aufgabe bei der Arbeit sehr viel my tasks at work better than
besser machen als vorher. before.
3) Nachdem ich für mich selbst etwas After I have learned something new 525 3.30 0.72 −0.96 0.98 .58 .65
dazugelernt habe, fühle ich mich sehr for myself, I feel much more
viel sicherer bei neuen Aufgaben als confident with new tasks than
vorher. before.
Work flexibility 4) Nachdem ich für mich selbst etwas After I have learned something new 518 2.91 0.93 −0.42 −0.76 .71 .79
dazugelernt habe, kann ich im Betrieb for myself, it is easier for me to
einfacher als vorher den Arbeitsplatz switch workplaces within the
wechseln, wenn es nötig ist. company if necessary.
5) Nachdem ich für mich selbst etwas After I have learned something new 524 3.07 0.86 −0.71 −0.12 .65 .75
dazugelernt habe, kann ich die Arbeit for myself, I am able to take on the
von Kollegen besser als vorher work of other colleagues in case
machen, wenn sie krank sind oder they are on holidays or on sick
Urlaub haben. leave.
6) Nachdem ich für mich selbst etwas After I have learned something new 518 2.98 0.94 −0.59 −0.57 .73 .84
dazugelernt habe, kann ich jetzt an for myself, I am able to work on a
mehr unterschiedlichen greater variety of different
Arbeitsplätzen im Betrieb arbeiten workplaces within the company.
als vorher.

DECIUS ET AL.
(Continues)
TABLE A2 (Continued)

DECIUS ET AL.
Discriminatory CFA
Component Items Items in English N M SD Skewa Kurtosisb power load
Increase in 7) Nachdem ich für mich selbst etwas After I have learned something new 520 2.74 0.99 −0.30 −0.96 .68 .79
efficiency dazugelernt habe, muss ich bei meiner for myself, I have to discard less
Arbeit weniger Material wegwerfen material than before during my
als vorher. work.
8) Nachdem ich für mich selbst etwas After I have learned something new 515 2.83 0.97 −0.43 −0.79 .71 .82
dazugelernt habe, kann ich mehr for myself, I am able to process
Stückzahlen bearbeiten als vorher. larger quantities than before.
9) Nachdem ich für mich selbst etwas After I have learned something new 525 3.15 0.77 −0.68 0.11 .58 .69
dazugelernt habe, sind die Ergebnisse for myself, my results at work are
meiner Arbeit besser als vorher. better than before.
Decrease in 10) Nachdem ich für mich selbst etwas After I have learned something new 520 2.35 1.02 0.18 −1.07 .71 .80
strain dazugelernt habe, ist die Arbeit for myself, I experience less
körperlich nicht mehr so anstrengend physical exhaustion at work than
wie vorher. before.
11) Nachdem ich für mich selbst etwas After I have learned something new 526 2.64 0.98 −0.23 −0.95 .73 .83
dazugelernt habe, habe ich weniger for myself, I experience a lower
stress bei der Arbeit als vorher. stress level at work than before.
12) Nachdem ich für mich selbst etwas After I have learned something new 518 2.23 0.94 0.28 −0.85 .74 .82
dazugelernt habe, fühle ich mich for myself, I feel less tired after
weniger müde nach der Arbeit als work than I did before.
vorher.

Note: Discriminatory power and CFA factor load values refer to the three items of each component. The italicized parts of the items are part of the instruction to the questionnaire
participants to remember their own learning at work and were placed in front of each item for reasons of better comprehensibility for the target group of blue-collar workers. This
measure is nonproprietary (free) and may be used without permission. English items were translated from original German items using a translation/backtranslation procedure; empirical
evidence regarding the English version is still pending.
Abbreviation: CFA, confirmatory factor analysis.
a
SDSkewness: 0.107.
b
SDKurtosis: 0.214.

37
 38
TABLE A3 Discriminatory power and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) loads of Study 2

Discriminatory CFA
Component Items N power load
Experience/action Trying and applying 1 I try a different method to solve new tasks at work. 340 .68 .74
own ideas 2 I try out my own ideas for new tasks. 340 .85 .93
3 I use my own ideas to improve tasks at work. 338 .76 .87
Model learning 4 I look at how others work in the company to improve my work. 341 .63 .73
5 I look at how my colleagues work so I do not make the same mistakes as they do. 342 .64 .72
6 I try things out at my work, which I have copied from my colleagues. 340 .67 .79
Feedback Direct feedback 7 I ask my foreman or head how well I have worked. 335 .72 .82
8 I ask my foreman or head when I am not sure how well I worked. 332 .59 .64
9 I ask my colleagues when I am not sure how well I worked. 336 .75 .90
Vicarious feedback 10 I ask my colleagues about their experience at work. 337 .75 .79
11 I ask my colleagues about the methods and tricks they use at work. 337 .84 .92
12 I obtain tips and hints about work from my colleagues. 338 .85 .91
Reflection Anticipatory 13 Before starting a new task, I think about how I can do my work best. 341 .63 .82
reflection 14 Before work, I think about how I prepare my workplace. 342 .52 .58
15 Before starting a new task, I think about the things I need to pay attention to. 341 .67 .83
Subsequent reflection 16 When I have finished a new task, I think about how well I have worked. 342 .61 .68
17 When I have finished a new task, I think about what I still could do better next time. 343 .67 .83
18 When I have finished a new task, I think about the quality of my work. 342 .76 .85
Intent to learn Extrinsic intent to 19 I want to learn something new at work for myself because then I can pursue my career at 340 .56 .71
learn the company.
(Continues)

DECIUS ET AL.
TABLE A3

DECIUS ET AL.
(Continued)

Discriminatory CFA
Component Items N power load
20 I want to learn something new for myself because then I am better at work than my 340 .65 .76
colleagues.
21 I want to learn something new at work for myself because then my foreman or head is 340 .61 .72
impressed by me.
Intrinsic intent to 22 I want to learn something new for myself because then I feel more capable to deal with 342 .82 .87
learn difficulties at work.
23 I want to learn something new for myself because then I can solve problems at work faster. 340 .89 .95
24 I want to learn something new for myself because then I can do a good job even though 342 .82 .87
the tasks or instructions are difficult.

Note: Discriminatory power and CFA factor load values (regarding the 4 × 2 factors [2nd order] CFA model) refer to the three items of each component.

39
40 DECIUS ET AL.

APPENDIX B.

TABLE B1 Items in German and English, released for public use (without prior consent or charge)

Informal
workplace
learning
component Item in German Item in English
Trying and 1 Ich probiere bei neuen Aufgaben einfach eine I try a different method to solve new tasks
applying andere Methode bei der Arbeit aus. at work.
own ideas 2 Ich probiere bei neuen Aufgaben meine I try out my own ideas for new tasks.
eigenen Ideen aus.
3* Ich setze meine eigenen Ideen zum Verbessern I use my own ideas to improve tasks at
der Aufgaben bei der Arbeit ein. work.
Model 4* Ich schaue, wie andere im Betrieb arbeiten, um I look at how others work in the company to
learning meine Arbeit zu verbessern. improve my work.
5 Ich schaue mir an, wie meine Kollegen I look at how my colleagues work so I do not
arbeiten, damit ich nicht die gleichen Fehler make the same mistakes as they do.
mache wie sie.
6 Ich probiere Sachen bei meiner Arbeit aus, die I try things out at my work, which I have
ich mir bei meinen Kollegen abgeguckt habe. copied from my colleagues.
Direct 7 Ich frage meinen Vorarbeiter oder Chef, wie I ask my foreman or head how well I have
feedback gut ich gearbeitet habe. worked.
8 Ich frage bei meinem Vorarbeiter oder Chef I ask my foreman or head when I am not
nach, wenn ich nicht sicher bin, wie gut ich sure how well I worked.
gearbeitet habe.
9* Ich frage bei meinen Kollegen nach, wenn ich I ask my colleagues when I am not sure how
nicht sicher bin, wie gut ich gearbeitet habe. well I worked.
Vicarious 10 Ich frage meine Kollegen nach ihren I ask my colleagues about their experience
feedback Erfahrungen bei der Arbeit. at work.
11* Ich frage meine Kollegen, welche Methoden I ask my colleagues about the methods and
und Tricks sie bei der Arbeit nutzen. tricks they use at work.
12 Ich hole mir von meinen Kollegen Tipps und I obtain tips and hints about work from my
Hinweise zur Arbeit. colleagues.
Anticipatory 13* Vor einer neuen Aufgabe denke ich darüber Before starting a new task, I think about
reflection nach, wie ich meine Arbeit am besten how I can do my work best.
mache.
14 Vor der Arbeit denke ich darüber nach, wie ich Before work, I think about how I prepare my
meinen Arbeitsplatz vorbereite. workplace.
15 Vor einer neuen Aufgabe denke ich nach, auf Before starting a new task, I think about the
welche Sachen ich bei der Aufgabe achten things I need to pay attention to.
muss.
Subsequent 16 Wenn ich mit einer neuen Aufgabe fertig bin, When I have finished a new task, I think
reflection denke ich darüber nach, wie gut ich about how well I have worked.
gearbeitet habe.
(Continues)
DECIUS ET AL. 41

TABLE B1 (Continued)

Informal
workplace
learning
component Item in German Item in English
17* Wenn ich mit einer neuen Aufgabe fertig bin, When I have finished a new task, I think
denke ich darüber nach, was ich beim about what I still could do better next
nächsten Mal noch besser machen könnte. time.

18 Wenn ich mit einer neuen Aufgabe fertig bin, When I have finished a new task, I think
denke ich über die Qualität meiner Arbeit about the quality of my work.
nach.
Extrinsic 19* Ich möchte für mich selbst bei der Arbeit I want to learn something new at work for
intent to etwas dazulernen, weil ich dann im Betrieb myself because then I can pursue my
learn Karriere machen kann. career at the company.
20 Ich möchte für mich selbst etwas dazulernen, I want to learn something new for myself
weil ich dann bei der Arbeit besser bin als because then I am better at work than my
meine Kollegen. colleagues.
21 Ich möchte für mich selbst bei der Arbeit I want to learn something new at work for
etwas dazulernen, weil mein Vorarbeiter myself because then my foreman or head
oder Chef dann beeindruckt von mir ist. is impressed by me.
Intrinsic 22 Ich möchte für mich selbst etwas dazulernen, I want to learn something new for myself
intent to weil ich dann mit Schwierigkeiten bei der because then I feel more capable to deal
learn Arbeit besser umgehen kann. with difficulties at work.
23* Ich möchte für mich selbst etwas dazulernen, I want to learn something new for myself
weil ich dann Probleme bei der Arbeit because then I can solve problems at
schneller lösen kann. work faster.
24 Ich möchte für mich selbst etwas dazulernen, I want to learn something new for myself
weil ich dann auch bei schwierigen Aufgaben because then I can do a good job even
oder Anweisungen gut arbeiten kann. though the tasks or instructions are
difficult.

This measure is nonproprietary (free) and may be used without permission. English items were translated from original
German items using a translation/backtranslation procedure; empirical evidence regarding the English version is still
pending. The items selected for the short version of the IWL scale (not yet validated) are marked with asterisks (*). The
short scale was developed by using the highest loading item of each component within an exploratory factor analysis (EFA).

View publication stats