You are here:

Comparison of training hard copy and computer job-aids: Using expert object technology

, The University of Tennessee, United States

The University of Tennessee . Awarded


The purpose of this study was to develop a computer job-aid for industrial trainers from a hard copy version using an object-based expert-system, and to test the effectiveness of the resulting training process against the traditional paper version. The objectives allowed for this development, pilot-testing of the expert computer job-aid, and comparison of the computer job-aid for: (a) content understanding and use, (b) completion time, and (c) participants' satisfaction.

Computer programming methods allow flow chart, and procedural development in the object paradigm. These methods closely resemble problem solving methods used for diagnostics and traditional job-aids. Training methods also allow for the use of holistic computer methods together with traditional training development. Logically, if the two methods are similar then the results of the application should be similar.

A posttest only quasi-experimental design was used to compare results of the posttest to the objectives to demonstrate effectiveness of the two methods of training. Two groups of 12 professional persons were taken from industry in North East Tennessee. Twelve took the traditional paper instruction and 12 took the expert computer job-aid. The results indicate that both methods worked equally well. Neither method had an advantage. The paper method took less time to administer and the computer method was better perceived by the user.


Gibson, R.H. Comparison of training hard copy and computer job-aids: Using expert object technology. Ph.D. thesis, The University of Tennessee. Retrieved November 19, 2019 from .

This record was imported from ProQuest on October 22, 2013. [Original Record]

Citation reproduced with permission of ProQuest LLC.

For copies of dissertations and theses: (800) 521-0600/(734) 761-4700 or