pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.05263 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-06 · 💻 cs.SE

Corporate Training in Brazilian Software Engineering: A Quantitative Study of Professional Perceptions

Rodrigo Siqueira , Antonio Oliveira , Breno Alves Andrade , Lidiane C. S. Gomes , Danilo Monteiro Ribeiro This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 18:37 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.SE
keywords corporate trainingsoftware engineeringtraining effectivenessquantitative surveyprofessional developmentmandatory participationcognitive engagementinstructor performance
0
0 comments X

The pith

Three factors—cognitive engagement, activity variety, and instructor performance—primarily determine software engineers' perceptions of corporate training quality.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper investigates what shapes software engineering professionals' views on the quality and effectiveness of corporate training programs. A survey of 282 Brazilian practitioners identified three tightly linked elements as the strongest predictors of positive outcomes. Mandatory attendance was found to lower motivation and overall ratings of training value. The perceived burden on personal time stood apart from judgments about training quality itself. The patterns match results from broader training research, implying standard design principles transfer directly to the software engineering setting without major reinvention.

Core claim

Training effectiveness in the SE context is predominantly determined by three factors: cognitive engagement, variety of activities, and instructor performance. Mandatory participation negatively influences motivation, perceived relevance, and perceived training quality, while also amplifying the perception of time burden. The consistency with the general literature suggests that software organizations do not need to reinvent training design principles and can apply established guidelines with confidence. Salas and Cannon-Bowers' framework produced coherent results in the SE context, making it a promising candidate for future psychometric validation.

What carries the argument

A structured questionnaire analyzed via polychoric correlation to extract the main predictive factors from responses of 282 Brazilian software engineering professionals.

If this is right

  • Training programs should emphasize cognitive engagement to raise perceived effectiveness.
  • Sessions that incorporate varied activities will receive higher quality ratings.
  • Strong instructor performance is essential for positive participant judgments.
  • Voluntary rather than mandatory formats can increase motivation and overall training value.
  • Effects on personal time should be addressed independently because they do not track with quality perceptions.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Organizations could apply the same three-factor lens when designing internal training audits or feedback forms.
  • The match with general training literature indicates software engineering may not need unique design rules beyond proven methods from other fields.
  • Further validation of the questionnaire across regions or industries could produce a reusable assessment instrument for corporate tech training.
  • Similar quantitative surveys could test whether the same factors dominate in non-Brazilian or non-software technical training contexts.

Load-bearing premise

The questionnaire accurately captures professionals' perceptions of training quality and the surveyed group represents typical views among software engineers.

What would settle it

A replication survey of software professionals in which content relevance or scheduling flexibility emerges as a stronger predictor of training quality than cognitive engagement, activity variety, or instructor performance would undermine the central claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.05263 by Antonio Oliveira, Breno Alves Andrade, Danilo Monteiro Ribeiro, Lidiane C. S. Gomes, Rodrigo Siqueira.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Overview of the four-stage instrument development [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Distribution of Likert-scale responses by item and framework dimension. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Polychoric correlation matrix (𝑁 = 282).4 change [1] and a structural academia–industry skill gap [11] shape corporate training dynamics. The discussion is organized by re￾search question. RQ1 — Factors Determining Training Quality Perceptions In response to RQ1, the strongest predictors of perceived train￾ing quality and effectiveness are problem-solving reasoning (Q22, 𝜌 = 0.806), variety of activities (… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Context: Strategic corporate training is essential for the sustained professional development of software engineers. However, there is a knowledge gap regarding the factors that drive quality and effectiveness of such training from the professionals' perspective, and no validated instrument exists for assessing these factors in the software engineering (SE) domain. Objective: This study aims to quantitatively analyze which factors influence SE professionals' perceptions of corporate training quality and effectiveness. Method: A quantitative survey was conducted with 282 Brazilian SE professionals. A structured questionnaire was developed and polychoric correlation was adopted for data analysis. Results: Three tightly correlated factors (cognitive engagement, variety of activities, and instructor performance) emerged as the strongest predictors of perceived training quality and effectiveness. Mandatory participation significantly reduces motivation and perceived training quality. Perceived impact on personal time proved to be largely independent of training quality. These findings are consistent with the general training effectiveness literature. Conclusions: Training effectiveness in the SE context is predominantly determined by three factors: cognitive engagement, variety of activities, and instructor performance. Mandatory participation negatively influences motivation, perceived relevance, and perceived training quality, while also amplifying the perception of time burden. The consistency with the general literature suggests that software organizations do not need to reinvent training design principles and can apply established guidelines with confidence. Salas and Cannon-Bowers' framework produced coherent results in the SE context, making it a promising candidate for future psychometric validation.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports a quantitative survey of 282 Brazilian software engineering professionals on perceptions of corporate training quality and effectiveness. The authors developed a new structured questionnaire and applied polychoric correlation analysis, identifying cognitive engagement, variety of activities, and instructor performance as the strongest predictors of perceived quality and effectiveness. Mandatory participation is reported to reduce motivation and quality perceptions, while perceived time burden appears independent of quality. Results are presented as consistent with general training literature, and the questionnaire is positioned as a candidate for future psychometric validation.

Significance. If the measurement instrument proves valid and the sample representative, the study supplies domain-specific empirical evidence on training predictors in Brazilian SE, supporting the applicability of established frameworks such as Salas and Cannon-Bowers to software engineering contexts. It offers practical guidance for organizations on training design, particularly regarding mandatory formats, and addresses a stated gap in SE-specific assessment tools.

major comments (2)
  1. Method section: The paper states that a structured questionnaire was newly developed because no validated instrument existed in the SE domain, yet supplies no details on item generation, expert review, pilot testing, factor loadings, or reliability coefficients. Because the central claims rest on the emergence of three factors and their correlations with quality/effectiveness ratings, the absence of this evidence leaves open the possibility that results reflect item wording or response patterns rather than the intended constructs.
  2. Method section: The description provides no information on sampling strategy, recruitment method, response rate, or handling of potential biases for the 282 responses. Without these, the strength and generalizability of the predictor claims and the mandatory-participation effect cannot be fully evaluated.
minor comments (1)
  1. The abstract and conclusions reference consistency with general training literature but cite only Salas and Cannon-Bowers by name; additional specific references would strengthen the claim of coherence with prior work.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback on our manuscript. The comments highlight important areas for improving methodological transparency, and we address each point below with plans for revision.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [—] Method section: The paper states that a structured questionnaire was newly developed because no validated instrument existed in the SE domain, yet supplies no details on item generation, expert review, pilot testing, factor loadings, or reliability coefficients. Because the central claims rest on the emergence of three factors and their correlations with quality/effectiveness ratings, the absence of this evidence leaves open the possibility that results reflect item wording or response patterns rather than the intended constructs.

    Authors: We agree that the Method section requires additional detail on questionnaire development to support the validity of the identified factors. In the revised manuscript, we will expand this section to describe the item generation process, which was informed by a review of the general training effectiveness literature including the Salas and Cannon-Bowers framework and adapted to the SE context. We will also include information on expert review by SE professionals and academics, the pilot testing conducted to refine items, and the factor loadings along with reliability coefficients obtained from the polychoric correlation analysis. These additions will help demonstrate that the results reflect the intended constructs. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [—] Method section: The description provides no information on sampling strategy, recruitment method, response rate, or handling of potential biases for the 282 responses. Without these, the strength and generalizability of the predictor claims and the mandatory-participation effect cannot be fully evaluated.

    Authors: We acknowledge that details on sampling and recruitment are necessary for readers to evaluate generalizability. In the revision, we will add a description of the convenience sampling strategy employed, the recruitment methods used (including professional networks and online platforms targeting Brazilian SE professionals), available information on response rates, and steps taken to address potential biases such as self-selection. This will provide a clearer basis for assessing the strength of the reported effects. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity in empirical survey study

full rationale

This is a direct empirical survey study reporting observed polychoric correlations from 282 responses to a self-developed questionnaire. No mathematical derivations, fitted predictive models, or self-referential predictions appear in the analysis chain. The three factors are identified from the data itself rather than reduced by construction to prior inputs or self-citations. External literature consistency is cited but does not load-bear the central claims, leaving the derivation self-contained against the collected responses.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

This is an empirical survey study relying on standard questionnaire-based data collection and statistical correlation techniques drawn from prior literature. No new mathematical models, free parameters, or postulated entities are introduced.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5559 in / 1077 out tokens · 50344 ms · 2026-05-10T18:37:53.026605+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. It's Not About Whom You Train: An Analysis of Corporate Education in Software Engineering

    cs.SE 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    Survey of 282 professionals shows training mandatoriness dominates perceptions of corporate SE education quality, with minimal influence from sociodemographic variables.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

28 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Nana Assyne, Hadi Ghanbari, and Mirja Pulkkinen. 2022. The state of research on software engineering competencies: A systematic mapping study.Journal of Systems and Software185 (2022), 111183. Corporate Training in Brazilian Software Engineering: A Quantitative Study of Professional Perceptions Conference’17, July 2017, Washington, DC, USA

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    Timothy T Baldwin and J Kevin Ford. 1988. Transfer of training: A review and directions for future research.Personnel psychology41, 1 (1988), 63–105

    work page 1988

  3. [3]

    Timothy T Baldwin, Richard J Magjuka, and Brian T Loher. 1991. The perils of participation: Effects of choice of training on trainee motivation and learning. Personnel psychology44, 1 (1991), 51–65

    work page 1991

  4. [4]

    1977.Social learning theory

    Albert Bandura and Richard H Walters. 1977.Social learning theory. Vol. 1. Prentice-hall Englewood Cliffs, NJ

    work page 1977

  5. [5]

    Giovana Giardini Borges and Rogéria Cristiane Gratão de Souza. 2024. Skills development for software engineers: Systematic literature review.Information and Software Technology168 (2024), 107395

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Paul D Coverstone. 2003. IT training assessment and evaluation: A case study. In Proceedings of the 4th conference on Information technology curriculum. 206–215

    work page 2003

  7. [7]

    Carla Curado, Paulo Lopes Henriques, and Sofia Ribeiro. 2015. Voluntary or mandatory enrollment in training and the motivation to transfer training.Inter- national Journal of Training and Development19, 2 (2015), 98–109

    work page 2015

  8. [8]

    Breno Alves de Andrade, Rodrigo Siqueira, Lidiane C. S. Gomes, Antonio Oliveira, and Danilo Monteiro Ribeiro. 2025. A Mapping Study About Training in Industry Context in Software Engineering. InProceedings of the XXXIX Brazilian Sympo- sium on Software Engineering (SBES ’25) (CBSoft 2025). SBC, Recife, PE, Brazil, To appear

    work page 2025

  9. [9]

    Bastian de Jong, Joost Jansen in de Wal, and Frank Cornelissen. 2025. The Effects of Voluntary and Mandatory Training Participation on the Dynamics of Transfer of Training for Different Training Types.International Journal of Training and Development(2025)

    work page 2025

  10. [10]

    Sarv Devaraj and S Ramesh Babu. 2004. How to measure the relationship between training and job performance.Commun. ACM47, 5 (2004), 62–67

    work page 2004

  11. [11]

    Wellynton Diniz, Marcela Valença, César França, Alessandro Santos, and Mariana Pincovsky. 2024. The Skill Gap in Software Industry: A Mapping Study. In Simpósio Brasileiro de Engenharia de Software (SBES). SBC, SBES, BRA, 192–200

    work page 2024

  12. [12]

    Jeffrey D Facteau, Gregory H Dobbins, Joyce EA Russell, Robert T Ladd, and Jeffrey D Kudisch. 1995. The influence of general perceptions of the training environment on pretraining motivation and perceived training transfer.Journal of management21, 1 (1995), 1–25

    work page 1995

  13. [13]

    Khawaja Fawad Latif. 2012. An integrated model of training effectiveness and satisfaction with employee development interventions.Industrial and Commercial Training44, 4 (2012), 211–222

    work page 2012

  14. [14]

    Andreas Gegenfurtner, Karen D Könings, Nikola Kosmajac, and Markus Gebhardt

    work page

  15. [15]

    Voluntary or mandatory training participation as a moderator in the relationship between goal orientations and transfer of training.International Journal of Training and Development20, 4 (2016), 290–301

    work page 2016

  16. [16]

    2009.Análise multivariada de dados

    Joseph F Hair, William C Black, Barry J Babin, Rolph E Anderson, and Ronald L Tatham. 2009.Análise multivariada de dados. Bookman editora

    work page 2009

  17. [17]

    Francisco Pablo Holgado-Tello, Salvador Chacón-Moscoso, Isabel Barbero-García, and Enrique Vila-Abad. 2010. Polychoric versus Pearson correlations in ex- ploratory and confirmatory factor analysis of ordinal variables.Quality & Quan- tity44, 1 (2010), 153–166

    work page 2010

  18. [18]

    1970.Evaluation of train- ing

    Donald L Kirkpatrick, RL Craig, and LR Bittel. 1970.Evaluation of train- ing. Technical Report ED040336. ERIC. 35 pages. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED040336

    work page 1970

  19. [19]

    Urbano Lorenzo-Seva and Pere J Ferrando. 2006. FACTOR: A computer program to fit the exploratory factor analysis model.Behavior research methods38, 1 (2006), 88–91

    work page 2006

  20. [20]

    Marta Matulcíková and Daniela Breveníková. 2022. Further Corporate Vocational Education–Instrument of Stabilization and Development of Human Resources. NORDSCI(2022)

    work page 2022

  21. [21]

    Eduardo Salas, Sandra A Almeida, Mary Salisbury, Heidi King, Elizabeth H Laz- zara, Rebecca Lyons, Katherine A Wilson, Paula A Almeida, and Robert McQuillan

    work page

  22. [22]

    What are the critical success factors for team training in health care?The Joint Commission journal on quality and patient safety35, 8 (2009), 398–405

    work page 2009

  23. [23]

    Eduardo Salas and Janis A Cannon-Bowers. 2001. The science of training: A decade of progress.Annual review of psychology52, 1 (2001), 471–499

    work page 2001

  24. [24]

    Eduardo Salas, Scott I Tannenbaum, Kurt Kraiger, and Kimberly A Smith-Jentsch

    work page

  25. [25]

    The science of training and development in organizations: What matters in practice.Psychological science in the public interest13, 2 (2012), 74–101

    work page 2012

  26. [26]

    Amalia Santos and Mark Stuart. 2003. Employee perceptions and their influence on training effectiveness.Human resource management journal13, 1 (2003), 27–45

    work page 2003

  27. [27]

    Wei-Chi Tsai and Wei-Tao Tai. 2003. Perceived importance as a mediator of the relationship between training assignment and training motivation.Personnel review32, 2 (2003), 151–163

    work page 2003

  28. [28]

    Ehsan Saeed Idrees Yaqoot, Wan Shakizah Wan Mohd Noor, and Mohd Faizal Mohd Isa. 2021. The predicted trainer and training environment influ- ence toward vocational training effectiveness in Bahrain.Journal of Technical Education and Training13, 1 (2021), 1–14

    work page 2021